Pelican Parts Forums - Message from Osama, ends all threads!

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - Message from Osama, ends all threads! (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/158600-message-osama-ends-all-threads.html)

Quote:

Originally posted by nostatic
I don't know. I think Iraq and OBL are two different things. One could envision a president that would look for a graceful exit out of Iraq while still going after OBL.

Everything Todd said.

I've been quiet because of the time difference - I only just got to work ;).

I'll recap this thread:

OBL has announced that he is the bad man of terrorism, and tried to bargain with the world (clever, but it probably won't work, as even little old NZ "doesn't negotiate with terrorists").

The Pelican Right Faction (PRF) semi-implied this as a justification not only for all actions against Al-Qaeda (good), but also a poorly thought out war in Iraq.

They have also spent some time rubbing each others tummies, and got excited because, quite clearly, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama, terrorism and the Islamification of the US.

Finally, Glenn said: "I think the PO'd Iraqies can thank OBL for placing his stick in our hornets nest. We wouldn't be kicking butts in the middle east, now; if not for OBL's murderous attacks."

Cam's Editorial

WTF makes the PRF think that rational (an important distinction) people who didn't think the war in Iraq was a good idea also think that terrorism is ok? For instance, Kerry has, as far as I am aware, indicated he will see Iraq through and protect the US against terrorism.

And why should the entire Islamic world suffer because of OBL? Glenn's words implied to me that your invasion of Iraq was a semi-consequence of 9/11, and further, that the Iraqi population had some sort of magic ability to influence and stop OBL.

. . .And why should the entire US population suffer because Saddam wouldn't come clean with where he hid the WMD!?

Like I said, we are not taking crap . ..esp. from mass murderers!

Will somebody puh-leeeeeze think of the children!!!

Since some people here are still obsessed with the idea that saddam had WMDs and hid them or gave them away, here is a good article on the subject I recently came across.

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.html

Quote:

Star Witness on Iraq Said Weapons Were Destroyed
Bombshell revelation from a defector cited by White House and press
February 27, 2003

On February 24, Newsweek broke what may be the biggest story of the Iraq crisis. In a revelation that "raises questions about whether the WMD [weapons of mass destruction] stockpiles attributed to Iraq still exist," the magazine's issue dated March 3 reported that the Iraqi weapons chief who defected from the regime in 1995 told U.N. inspectors that Iraq had destroyed its entire stockpile of chemical and biological weapons and banned missiles, as Iraq claims.

Until now, Gen. Hussein Kamel, who was killed shortly after returning to Iraq in 1996, was best known for his role in exposing Iraq's deceptions about how far its pre-Gulf War biological weapons programs had advanced. But Newsweek's John Barry-- who has covered Iraqi weapons inspections for more than a decade-- obtained the transcript of Kamel's 1995 debriefing by officials from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the U.N. inspections team known as UNSCOM.

Inspectors were told "that after the Gulf War, Iraq destroyed all its chemical and biological weapons stocks and the missiles to deliver them," Barry wrote. All that remained ere "hidden blueprints, computer disks, microfiches" and production molds. The weapons were destroyed secretly, in order to hide their existence from inspectors, in the hopes of someday resuming production after inspections had finished. The CIA and MI6 were told the same story, Barry reported, and "a military aide who defected with Kamel... backed Kamel's assertions about the destruction of WMD stocks."

But these statements were "hushed up by the U.N. inspectors" in order to "bluff Saddam into disclosing still more."

CIA spokesperson Bill Harlow angrily denied the Newsweek report. "It is incorrect, bogus, wrong, untrue," Harlow told Reuters (2/24/03) the day the report appeared.

But on Wednesday (2/26/03), a complete copy of the Kamel transcript-- an internal UNSCOM/IAEA document stamped "sensitive"-- was obtained by Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who in early February revealed that Tony Blair's "intelligence dossier" was plagiarized from a student thesis. This transcript can be seen at http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf.

In the transcript (p. 13), Kamel says bluntly: "All weapons-- biological, chemical, missile, nuclear, were destroyed."

Who is Hussein Kamel?

Kamel is no obscure defector. A son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, his departure from Iraq carrying crates of secret documents on Iraq's past weapons programs was a major turning point in the inspections saga. In 1999, in a letter to the U.N. Security Council (1/25/99), UNSCOM reported that its entire eight years of disarmament work "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel."

Kamel's defection has been cited repeatedly by George W. Bush and leading administration officials as evidence that 1) Iraq has not disarmed; 2) inspections cannot disarm it; and 3) defectors such as Kamel are the most reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons.

Bush declared in an October 7, 2002 speech: "In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and capable of killing millions."
Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the U.N. Security Council claimed: "It took years for Iraq to finally admit that it had produced four tons of the deadly nerve agent, VX. A single drop of VX on the skin will kill in minutes. Four tons. The admission only came out after inspectors collected documentation as a result of the defection of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's late son-in-law."
In a speech last August (8/27/02), Vice President Dick Cheney said Kamel's story "should serve as a reminder to all that we often learned more as the result of defections than we learned from the inspection regime itself."
Deputy National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley recently wrote in the Chicago Tribune (2/16/03) that "because of information provided by Iraqi defector and former head of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel, the regime had to admit in detail how it cheated on its nuclear non-proliferation commitments."
The quotes from Bush and Powell cited above refer to anthrax and VX produced by Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War. The administration has cited various quantities of chemical and biological weapons on many other occasions-- weapons that Iraq produced but which remain unaccounted for. All of these claims refer to weapons produced before 1991.

But according to Kamel's transcript, Iraq destroyed all of these weapons in 1991.

According to Newsweek, Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in August 1995. If that is true, all of these U.S. officials have had access to Kamel's statements that the weapons were destroyed. Their repeated citations of his testimony-- without revealing that he also said the weapons no longer exist-- suggests that the administration might be withholding critical evidence. In particular, it casts doubt on the credibility of Powell's February 5 presentation to the U.N., which was widely hailed at the time for its persuasiveness. To clear up the issue, journalists might ask the CIA to release the transcripts of its own conversations with Kamel.

Kamel's disclosures have also been crucial to the arguments made by hawkish commentators on Iraq. The defector has been cited four times on the New York Times op-ed page in the last four months in support of claims about Iraq's weapons programs-- never noting his assertions about the elimination of these weapons. In a major Times op-ed calling for war against Iraq (2/21/03), Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that Kamel and other defectors "reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and concealed than anyone had imagined it to be." The release of Kamel's transcript makes this claim appear grossly at odds with the defector's actual testimony.

The Kamel story is a bombshell that necessitates a thorough reevaluation of U.S. media reporting on Iraq, much of which has taken for granted that the nation retains supplies of prohibited weapons. (See FAIR Media Advisory, "Iraq's Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact," 2/4/03.) Kamel's testimony is not, of course, proof that Iraq does not have hidden stocks of chemical or biological weapons, but it does suggest a need for much more media skepticism about U.S. allegations than has previously been shown.

Unfortunately, Newsweek chose a curious way to handle its scoop: The magazine placed the story in the miscellaneous "Periscope" section with a generic headline, "The Defector's Secrets." Worse, Newsweek's online version added a subhead that seemed almost designed to undercut the importance of the story: "Before his death, a high-ranking defector said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions." So far, according to a February 27 search of the Nexis database, no major U.S. newspapers or national television news shows have picked up the Newsweek story.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read the Newsweek story:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/876128.asp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read Glen Rangwala's analysis of the Kamel transcript:
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/kamel.html

Quote:

Originally posted by CamB
The Pelican Right Faction (PRF)...have also spent some time rubbing each others tummies, and got excited..

oh thanks Cam...now I have to go poke my mind's eye out with a very large stick, preferably dipped in Tabasco© sauce...

Just when you think it is safe to venture into the bbs... :p

Quote:

Originally posted by island911
. . .And why should the entire US population suffer because Saddam wouldn't come clean with where he hid the WMD!?

Like I said, we are not taking crap . ..esp. from mass murderers!

(a) not sure anyone in the US actually "suffered" (except maybe as an affront to their manliness) because of Saddam's maniacism (sp?)

(b) and if they did suffer, it isn't quite the same as being invaded

Okay, Cam. . .which deer best represents the US, and which deer best represents NZ?

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1082073739.jpg

To address Glenn's earlier question about which man, Kerry or Bush would a Dem or "independent" rather have leading the war on terror, I'd say, speaking from more of an independent positioning, that Bush is the man for that conflict.

Gore would have vascillated tremendously after 9/11, and half-do the dirty work in Afghanistan akin to the half-measured taken by Clinton against Iraq. And yet, this doesn't preclude that Iraq is the correct place to go looking for terrorism, either.

Today's al Queda update came courtesy of the top rag-a-muffin himself, Osama. It states all the bad things he's going to do to the U.S. and anyone who supports our country's efforts. Now, to me, that makes him a prime threat, and if Bush were to go after him with every single soldier in the Iraqi theater of the war on terror, I'd support this president whole-heartedly. Hell, I might even vote for the man.

Bin Laden's the threat - not Iraq. Bin Laden, not Iraq.

I agree Dave... to the last two paragraphs.

Glenn - you're funny :D

Well, if US soldiers are already stretched so thin that they are having to scramble just to come up with another 10-20K soldiers for iraqi duty I imagine that must be doing wonders for the search for osama in afghanistan/pakistan.

Sheer numbers will not capture OBL. We apparently do not know where he is. He probably dresses up in drag and lives in Amsterdam.

Besides, We have to wait til closer to the election to catch OBL. He makes a valuable boogey man now.

I see you are an official member of the bush flip flop croud . . .

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1082092626.jpg

That would be cute if they would actually quote him instead of using what they hope he would say.

I'll be brief but picky,

liberal and Liberal are two different things, like Conservatives and conservatives.

I am liberal in the sense that I don't really care what others do porvided they don't force me into agreeing or participating.
But I am also conservative in that change for changes' sake in not something I agree with.

I am neither Liberal or Conservative in terms of voting affliiation or party membership.

Its a shame that the definition is not made between the adjective and the noun.

You sound like an independent to me. ;)

Personally I'd call you Ed or Mr. Bighi, but what do I know?

:)

A label would be more difficult. Certain none of the current ones seem to fit.

So do the majority of your beliefs fit within the area of one or the other...if so then that's the one you wear, like saying the US is a Republican nation. Well, on a November day in 2000 it was, but since then who knows...

Luckily we are all free to believe in what we want to, and to express those views.
Sadly its as lileky that nobodyelse will share them exactly so either you do it yourself (!) or you team up with the guys who seem the most alike.

As sport lets take each of your statements and give it a tag:

I don't support the war in Iraq = Liberal
don't believe in preferential treatment of foreign nations since they lead to attacks by their enemies =Liberal
don't believe in the state enforcing a moral code = Liberal
don't believe in altruism and despise redistribution of wealth = Conservative
don't believe in the preferential treatment or mistreatment of any race or sex = Conservative (?)
hate the death tax and the capital gains tax = Conservative
don't believe in the mistreatment of animals =Liberal (?)
believe in population control= Conservative
believe that the loser should always pay for all court costs = Conservative
believe in full banking privacy =Conservative
believe in eye for an eye punishment of crime with no remorse = Conservative
believe in an immigration policy like Switzerland's or Monaco's where you are more than welcome, if only you bring in excellent skills or a pile of money= Conservative...

Totals
Conservatives = 8
Liberals = 4

So by a 2 to 1 majority you are Conservative.
But it does not account for any value or issue being more important than an other. After all you might value feel that the state's role in enforcing a moral code is far more important than in the treatment of animals. So the Liberal issues coiuld be a factor of 2 or 3 or 10 more important to you.

Any of the lables are my own opinion of what has been said. I'd hope that not everyone agrees with me.....

Quote:

Originally posted by MFAFF
Totals
Conservatives = 8
Liberals = 4

Any of the lables are my own opinion of what has been said. I'd hope that not everyone agrees with me.....

OK.. this is only my idea.

1] Give the control of the non-military borders of Iraq to Turkey.
They have been dealing with those tribes forever.
If anyone misbehaves the Turks shoot their pee pee off and then them home. If anyone is bad, they shoot them. The military $ is funded by the US. Their generals get some new killer machines for Christmas.

2] Give oversight control of the new Iraq gov't to England.
They have been the wisest colonialists forever.
If anyone misbehaves their standard of living is decreased. If anyone is bad , they fire them. The oversight cost is funded by business influence. The Isles get huge business machines for Christmas.

Ed
Your views most closely fit the definition of libertarian.

Ed - Maybe you're one of those "social republicans" -- that's if you were to be lumped into one of the two camps. Dr. James Dobson hates guys like you. He says, more or less, that social republicans are party traitors.

To me, you're simply an independent thinker (kinda' an oxymoron in that statement, huh?). Too bad we don't have more of them in gov't, let alone on this board.

Sorry Ed to have pinned and incorrect label on you..perhaps in a sensitive place;)

Pretty brave to support population control, but why not?