The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
With thanks to a friend from another board for this....
You may or may not have heard of the statement from Osama bin Laden that is being represented by the US Government as proof of the link between Saddam and Al-Quaida.
Interesting this, because Antiwar.com have been doing a nice bit of investigative work about this ... well, they made a few more phone calls than any of our 'serious' journalists were prepared to.
According to Justin Raimondo's latest column, to which I provide the link below, he called MSNBC.com to ask why they had omitted this information (Americans, it's 425-703-6397). He was brusquely informed that they were having the bit about bin Laden inciting the "overthrow" of Saddam checked out by their translator. This, he points out, while their official translator was reading that precise part of the message out on the air.
Raimondo says: "When I informed him of this, he insisted that everything had to be vetted by AP, even as MSNBC's own analysts were trenchantly concurring that this was "one battlefield, two wars." Both Bush and Bin Laden had declared war on Saddam Hussein, and "the race is on" for the doomed despot's domain."
MSNBC.com proceeded to change their story along the lines illustrated by Romero.
Reuters, on the other hand, posted the following:
"The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein – it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government."
And again, cited the bin Laden message as:
"'The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq,' the statement said."
CNN provided a version including some of the crucial elements which undermine the administration's case. The BBC, on the other hand, (which has received flak recently on account of news editor Richard Sambrook's demands that any "extreme" antiwar views on the air should be cut off or dismissed), has decided to provide the first "full text" English version of the transcript, in which several of the key paragraphs of the CNN text are either distorted or unaccountably omitted.
Partitioning off information in such a way that we are forced to base our conclusions on erroneous...
Anyway, here's the link: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html
You may or may not have heard of the statement from Osama bin Laden that is being represented by the US Government as proof of the link between Saddam and Al-Quaida.
Interesting this, because Antiwar.com have been doing a nice bit of investigative work about this ... well, they made a few more phone calls than any of our 'serious' journalists were prepared to.
According to Justin Raimondo's latest column, to which I provide the link below, he called MSNBC.com to ask why they had omitted this information (Americans, it's 425-703-6397). He was brusquely informed that they were having the bit about bin Laden inciting the "overthrow" of Saddam checked out by their translator. This, he points out, while their official translator was reading that precise part of the message out on the air.
Raimondo says: "When I informed him of this, he insisted that everything had to be vetted by AP, even as MSNBC's own analysts were trenchantly concurring that this was "one battlefield, two wars." Both Bush and Bin Laden had declared war on Saddam Hussein, and "the race is on" for the doomed despot's domain."
MSNBC.com proceeded to change their story along the lines illustrated by Romero.
Reuters, on the other hand, posted the following:
"The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein – it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government."
And again, cited the bin Laden message as:
"'The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq,' the statement said."
CNN provided a version including some of the crucial elements which undermine the administration's case. The BBC, on the other hand, (which has received flak recently on account of news editor Richard Sambrook's demands that any "extreme" antiwar views on the air should be cut off or dismissed), has decided to provide the first "full text" English version of the transcript, in which several of the key paragraphs of the CNN text are either distorted or unaccountably omitted.
Partitioning off information in such a way that we are forced to base our conclusions on erroneous...
Anyway, here's the link: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html
I said that in another thread somewhere
Lies, lies... lies.
Lies, lies... lies.
Dr Duck wrote:
> The biggest threat to the west now? As always it's only my opinion,
> but I'd suggest Al Qaeda gaining public support in Iraq. When (/if)
> Saddam is ousted, if a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists of similar
> mindsets to Bin Laden take a significant degree of control, Bush
> really will have a problem with his oil supplies. And he'll be
> frickin' lucky if that's the worst of his issues.
I seriously don't see the US or the UN letting that be the case. Iraq could be pretty wealthy if all it's money wasn't funnelled into Saddam's little schemes, redirect that wealth to normal people and you'll see support for radicals dwindle. It'll always be there, but the same was said prior to Afghanistan. Sure, it's not over yet there, but Al Queda is dying there, their support is dwindling, and a peace of sorts exists. Oil, if needs be, could be extracted elsewhere, though it'd take time, this is why I think ideas the impeeding war is all about the US taking the oil are stupid. I think also its important to bear in mind that we, the UK, along with most other places, also require oil from the area.....a point that seems lost a lot of the time....
~~Belldandy~~
> The biggest threat to the west now? As always it's only my opinion,
> but I'd suggest Al Qaeda gaining public support in Iraq. When (/if)
> Saddam is ousted, if a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists of similar
> mindsets to Bin Laden take a significant degree of control, Bush
> really will have a problem with his oil supplies. And he'll be
> frickin' lucky if that's the worst of his issues.
I seriously don't see the US or the UN letting that be the case. Iraq could be pretty wealthy if all it's money wasn't funnelled into Saddam's little schemes, redirect that wealth to normal people and you'll see support for radicals dwindle. It'll always be there, but the same was said prior to Afghanistan. Sure, it's not over yet there, but Al Queda is dying there, their support is dwindling, and a peace of sorts exists. Oil, if needs be, could be extracted elsewhere, though it'd take time, this is why I think ideas the impeeding war is all about the US taking the oil are stupid. I think also its important to bear in mind that we, the UK, along with most other places, also require oil from the area.....a point that seems lost a lot of the time....
~~Belldandy~~
Dr Duck wrote:
> (though it now
> looks that way)
As in, it now looks like he isn't.
Just to make myself clear.
> (though it now
> looks that way)
As in, it now looks like he isn't.
Just to make myself clear.
Hmm, I know the weaknesses of the alleged link b/w Hussein and Al Qaeda had been pointed out before, but this time it certainly seems more conclusive, coming straight from the horse's mouth, as it were.
Personally, I find any 'evidence' of links to be very suspect, even more so now.
Also, *if* Iraq aren't providing WMDs to any terrorists (though it now looks that way), I believe their WMDs are no more of a threat than the arsenals held by any other state with those kinds of arms. For a lot of the world, that has to include the US.
The biggest threat to the west now? As always it's only my opinion, but I'd suggest Al Qaeda gaining public support in Iraq. When (/if) Saddam is ousted, if a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists of similar mindsets to Bin Laden take a significant degree of control, Bush really will have a problem with his oil supplies. And he'll be frickin' lucky if that's the worst of his issues.
Personally, I find any 'evidence' of links to be very suspect, even more so now.
Also, *if* Iraq aren't providing WMDs to any terrorists (though it now looks that way), I believe their WMDs are no more of a threat than the arsenals held by any other state with those kinds of arms. For a lot of the world, that has to include the US.
The biggest threat to the west now? As always it's only my opinion, but I'd suggest Al Qaeda gaining public support in Iraq. When (/if) Saddam is ousted, if a bunch of Muslim fundamentalists of similar mindsets to Bin Laden take a significant degree of control, Bush really will have a problem with his oil supplies. And he'll be frickin' lucky if that's the worst of his issues.
Well the acutal damning proof was in Colen Powell's address earlier in the month....senior Al Queda LT living in Baghdad.....
Besides, Iraq's a threat by itself, the Al Queda ties should only fule the urgency to which the problem is solved decisively. Incidentally, Fox News was running the fact that the tape didn't express support for Saddam yesterday anyway, as was Sky...The tape is genuine in my opinion, but Bin Laden is simply trying to stir up the radical muslims with it - his mentioning of Iraq is stupid given the situation but he demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding international affairs with 9/11 so that comes as no surprise....
And to add to the whole thing, Iraq's been found with missiles exceeding the range allowed by the UN, not to mention the other small pile of evidence, all of it shouting "MATERIAL BREACH" to everyone but France, Germany, China and Russia.....plus portions of the public who require thousands of deaths to make them believe in a threat.....ho hum.
PS Am waiting for you to point out US fuel reserves at lowest point isnce 1970's and that this is real reason for war.....
:)
~~Belldandy~~
Besides, Iraq's a threat by itself, the Al Queda ties should only fule the urgency to which the problem is solved decisively. Incidentally, Fox News was running the fact that the tape didn't express support for Saddam yesterday anyway, as was Sky...The tape is genuine in my opinion, but Bin Laden is simply trying to stir up the radical muslims with it - his mentioning of Iraq is stupid given the situation but he demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding international affairs with 9/11 so that comes as no surprise....
And to add to the whole thing, Iraq's been found with missiles exceeding the range allowed by the UN, not to mention the other small pile of evidence, all of it shouting "MATERIAL BREACH" to everyone but France, Germany, China and Russia.....plus portions of the public who require thousands of deaths to make them believe in a threat.....ho hum.
PS Am waiting for you to point out US fuel reserves at lowest point isnce 1970's and that this is real reason for war.....
:)
~~Belldandy~~
With thanks to a friend from another board for this....
You may or may not have heard of the statement from Osama bin Laden that is being represented by the US Government as proof of the link between Saddam and Al-Quaida.
Interesting this, because Antiwar.com have been doing a nice bit of investigative work about this ... well, they made a few more phone calls than any of our 'serious' journalists were prepared to.
According to Justin Raimondo's latest column, to which I provide the link below, he called MSNBC.com to ask why they had omitted this information (Americans, it's 425-703-6397). He was brusquely informed that they were having the bit about bin Laden inciting the "overthrow" of Saddam checked out by their translator. This, he points out, while their official translator was reading that precise part of the message out on the air.
Raimondo says: "When I informed him of this, he insisted that everything had to be vetted by AP, even as MSNBC's own analysts were trenchantly concurring that this was "one battlefield, two wars." Both Bush and Bin Laden had declared war on Saddam Hussein, and "the race is on" for the doomed despot's domain."
MSNBC.com proceeded to change their story along the lines illustrated by Romero.
Reuters, on the other hand, posted the following:
"The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein – it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government."
And again, cited the bin Laden message as:
"'The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq,' the statement said."
CNN provided a version including some of the crucial elements which undermine the administration's case. The BBC, on the other hand, (which has received flak recently on account of news editor Richard Sambrook's demands that any "extreme" antiwar views on the air should be cut off or dismissed), has decided to provide the first "full text" English version of the transcript, in which several of the key paragraphs of the CNN text are either distorted or unaccountably omitted.
Partitioning off information in such a way that we are forced to base our conclusions on erroneous...
Anyway, here's the link: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html
You may or may not have heard of the statement from Osama bin Laden that is being represented by the US Government as proof of the link between Saddam and Al-Quaida.
Interesting this, because Antiwar.com have been doing a nice bit of investigative work about this ... well, they made a few more phone calls than any of our 'serious' journalists were prepared to.
According to Justin Raimondo's latest column, to which I provide the link below, he called MSNBC.com to ask why they had omitted this information (Americans, it's 425-703-6397). He was brusquely informed that they were having the bit about bin Laden inciting the "overthrow" of Saddam checked out by their translator. This, he points out, while their official translator was reading that precise part of the message out on the air.
Raimondo says: "When I informed him of this, he insisted that everything had to be vetted by AP, even as MSNBC's own analysts were trenchantly concurring that this was "one battlefield, two wars." Both Bush and Bin Laden had declared war on Saddam Hussein, and "the race is on" for the doomed despot's domain."
MSNBC.com proceeded to change their story along the lines illustrated by Romero.
Reuters, on the other hand, posted the following:
"The statement did not express support for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein – it said Muslims should support the Iraqi people rather than the country's government."
And again, cited the bin Laden message as:
"'The fighting should be in the name of God only, not in the name of national ideologies, nor to seek victory for the ignorant governments that rule all Arab states, including Iraq,' the statement said."
CNN provided a version including some of the crucial elements which undermine the administration's case. The BBC, on the other hand, (which has received flak recently on account of news editor Richard Sambrook's demands that any "extreme" antiwar views on the air should be cut off or dismissed), has decided to provide the first "full text" English version of the transcript, in which several of the key paragraphs of the CNN text are either distorted or unaccountably omitted.
Partitioning off information in such a way that we are forced to base our conclusions on erroneous...
Anyway, here's the link: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html