by Thunder Rider 127 Replies latest social current
""As was a much-ballyhooed, and later discredited, park bench meeting in Prague between an Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohammed Atta, the Sept. 11 Saudi kamikaze.""
lol, this is not proof....
Realist, again, no names cited. The Named Officials still stand by their story...can't you admit this? This story is a viewpont story...who cares? The fact is many are trying to hide this confirmed tie to Iraq....
Once more we get to a point of fact and you fold.......
thichi,
can you give me a link to your stories....none of them has a date on it.
and here is a NYtimes article on the matter:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E6DA1231F931A35756C0A9649C8B63
WASHINGTON, May 1 -- Federal authorities have concluded that there is no evidence that Mohamed Atta, the suspected ringleader of the Sept. 11 attacks, met with an Iraqi intelligence officer before the hijackings.
Reports that Mr. Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague in early 2001 circulated widely after the attacks, suggesting a possible connection with President Saddam Hussein of Iraq.
Reports of the meeting have persisted, based primarily on accounts of Czech officials like Prime Minister Milos Zeman, who discussed it with officials in Washington in November.
Federal law-enforcement officials have said for months that their investigation, including a search of immigration records in the Czech Republic and the United States, had found no evidence.
This week a senior Bush administration official appeared to close the matter, saying F.B.I. and C.I.A. analysts had firmly concluded that no meeting had occurred, a conclusion first reported by Newsweek magazine.
Realist that stale NWY article is nearly 2 years old. Beyond that, it provides NO details of any sort with which to refute anything. Lately this meeting and the Iraq 9/11 connection have continued to be explored.
The NYT has an obvious bias, as we've discussed in the past. If you chose to view it as the Word of God, that's your right. But don't shove it down other people's throats.
black,
even you will admit that the NYTimes doesn't make up thing like this. nor did the washington times or newsmax.
if the link is still believed to be true than why is it not mentioned by bush et al? where is the new evidence that ressurected this idea?
even you will admit that the NYTimes doesn't make up thing like this.
Lol, aside from the facts that indeed the NYT journalist HAVE been known to make things up, the article is devoid of any information.
They go to great pains to suggest that "such a meeting never took place." That contradicts OTHER reputable information.
People who are quick to suggest "something never happend" are necessarily suspect. Common sense raises flags. People who desperately want to believe something didn't happen will latch on to that.
(un) Realist: You offer no proof. IN fact, the original NAMED officials stand by their claim. I have provided proof. Please provide proof where the Named officials have gone on record to confirm the FBI. You can't. Because they have not. In fact, Rumsfield states that the FBI may be wrong. One point of evidence the FBI used to prove their case was that there were car rental receipts to prove he was in the US. Guess what? There are no records to support this claim. You of all people should be able to believe that the FBI could be wrong.... The Minister of the Czech Interior, had said "Minister Gross had the information from BIS, and BIS guarantees the information, So we stick by that information." On May 3rd, 2002 referring to the Washington Post-Newsweek allegation, Interior Minister Stanislav Gross stated "I believe the counterintelligence services more than journalists. I draw on the Security Information Service [BIS] information and I see no reason why I should not believe it." What changed in this ping-pong journalism therefore was not any new revelations? or retractions? but the introduction of an anonymous ?senior administration source? with an unknown agenda, whose claim that ?the Czechs? doubted the meeting took place, has now been directly denied by the relevant officials. To state that because a "Newspaper says so," "it must be true" is disingenuous at best. Can you at least admit the information was not "debunked," as you claim? If not, here is another example of a member of the radical left, who would rather look like a fool than accept reality or agree that there may be merit to the claim. I won't even go into the training camps in Iraq for terrorists, verified by high level Named officials.....
ThiChi
I think we're pissing up a rope here. No matter what evidence you post, they will not see it.
I didn't intend this to become a "prove it" type thread, I just wanted folks to put up or shut up. They haven't a leg to stand on.
Thunder ==}>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I agree.....good job!
Dealings with religeous zealots, particularly militant zealots, is like trying to hold a pissed off rattle snake by the tail in a room full of people. It's going to try to bite someone, so somebody better take action. The poor guy that chooses to do so is the one in the most danger, don't you think?
How do you think he would feel if people in the room with him were standing around complaining about it? "You're holding it wrong!" "That snake didn't do anything to you." "Just talk to it." "Its none of your business, you don't understand it." "The snake has rights."
No you'ld be telling him to kill it!
No, this isn't the proper analogy. We'd be the ones saying "George ... don't keep prodding that snake with a stick and don't pick it up and swing it around because it will hurt people. Yes, we know you are bigger than the snake but it's a BAD IDEA."
Don't give the problem that the pro-war lobby hav created to us and say "c'mon then ... solve it!"
It can't be solved. That's the whole point of not wanting to do something so dumb in the first place.
Your question / challenge / argument basically goes:
"We created a steaming mess and unless you can come up with a good solution then you are useless"
Surely the blame should rest with the ones who created the mess and who still, unbelievably, believe that creating it was "a good idea".
No. I don't have an answer to Iraq other than stay the course and sort it out. Learn to be a proper occupying force and not a aggressor. Don't alienate the people who's cooperation you need. Don't shoot people unless you have to.
It's beyond question that the Iraq situation is a mess. All we can hope for and work to now is to make it a short-lived and least painful mess.
