# CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists

• News

CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists

By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, November 16, 2003; Page A20

The CIA's search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has found no evidence that former president Saddam Hussein tried to transfer chemical or biological technology or weapons to terrorists, according to a military and intelligence expert.

Anthony Cordesman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, provided new details about the weapons search and Iraqi insurgency in a report released Friday. It was based on briefings over the past two weeks in Iraq from David Kay, the CIA representative who is directing the search for unconventional weapons in Iraq; L. Paul Bremer, the U.S. civil administrator there; and military officials.

"No evidence of any Iraqi effort to transfer weapons of mass destruction or weapons to terrorists," Cordesman wrote of Kay's briefing. "Only possibility was Saddam's Fedayeen [his son's irregular terrorist force] and talk only."

One of the concerns the Bush administration cited early last year to justify the need to invade Iraq was that Hussein would provide chemical or biological agents or weapons to al Qaeda or other terrorists. Despite the disclosure that U.S. and British intelligence officials assessed that Hussein would use or distribute such weapons only if he were attacked and faced defeat, administration spokesmen have continued to defend that position.

Last Thursday, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith defended the administration's prewar position at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The idea that we didn't have specific proof that he was planning to give a biological agent to a terrorist group," he said, "doesn't really lead you to anything, because you wouldn't expect to have that information even if it were true. And our intelligence is just not at the point where if Saddam had that intention that we would necessarily know it."

Yesterday, allegations of new evidence of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda contained in a classified annex attached to Feith's Oct. 27 letter to leaders of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence were published in the Weekly Standard. Feith had been asked to support his July 10 closed-door testimony about such connections. The classified annex summarized raw intelligence reports but did not analyze them or address their accuracy, according to a senior administration official familiar with the matter.

During the recent Baghdad briefing, Cordesman noted that Kay said Iraq "did order nuclear equipment from 1999 on, but no evidence [has turned up] of [a] new major facility to use it."

Although there was no evidence of chemical weapons production, Kay said he had located biological work "under cover of new agricultural facility" that showed "advances in developing dry storable powder forms of botulinum toxin," Cordesman wrote.

During his Nov. 1-12 trip, Cordesman visited Baghdad, Babel, Tikrit and Kirkuk, where he met combat commanders and staff in high-threat areas. Reporting on his briefing by Bremer, Cordesman said 95 percent of the threat came from former Hussein loyalists while most foreign terrorists, who entered Iraq before the war, arrived from Syria, with some from Saudi Arabia and only "a few from Iran." Bremer "felt Syrian intelligence knows [of the volunteers] but is not proactive in encouraging [them]." He also said there was "no way to seal borders with Syria, Saudi [Arabia] and Iran. Too manpower intensive."

Bremer said Hussein loyalists "still have lots of money to buy attacks [because] at least $1 billion still unaccounted for." He also said the Syrians had admitted "some$3 billion more of Iraqi money [is] in Syria."

The Coalition Joint Task Force briefers noted that the Iraq Governing Council felt "the U.S. is too soft in attacking hostile targets, arrests and use of force," while the U.S. side "feels restraint is the key to winning hearts and minds."

Hussein, according to the briefers, "is cut off, isolated, moving constantly, [and has] no real role in control." They told Cordesman that the "problem is ex-generals and colonels with no other future -- not former top officials." They also said Hussein "made officers read 'Black Hawk Down' [Mark Bowden's book about the fatal downing of U.S. helicopters in Somalia a decade ago] to try to convince them U.S. would have to leave if major casualties."

They said there will be attacks "until the day U.S. leaves" and "cannot ever get intelligence up to point where [they can] stop all attacks."

During his visit to the Polish-led international division, south of Baghdad where the Shiites predominate, Cordesman said there were 34 attacks before a Pole was killed Nov. 6.

The force there considers the holy cities "stable" but notes that Shiite leaders such as Grand Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, Iraq's top Shiite cleric, "protect themselves with their own militias with CPA [Coalition Provisional Authority] approval. This has its advantages, but it means they cannot be given effective coalition protection," he wrote.

how do you like them apples?

Last edited by a moderator:

Originally posted by RageSk8
*snip*Last Thursday, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas J. Feith defended the administration's prewar position at the Council on Foreign Relations. "The idea that we didn't have specific proof that he was planning to give a biological agent to a terrorist group," he said, "doesn't really lead you to anything, because you wouldn't expect to have that information even if it were true. And our intelligence is just not at the point where if Saddam had that intention that we would necessarily know it."

Isn't this just a fancy way of saying 'We had no intel, and went ahead and acted as though we did'? Or at least another way of saying 'we have no evidence one way or the other, but we believe it anyways.'? More importantly, the phrase 'you wouldn't expect to have that information even if it were true' suggests to me that Feith is inclined to believe whatever he wants to, and to see a lack of evidence to be almost as compelling as actual evidence.

This is similar to the report from Faux News, that terrorists want to use WMDs, and are completely incapable of doing so, because of the UN sanctions prevent them from doing so...shall I be impressed now, or shall I wait a few days, for when the spin fires up, and this is touted as 'proof' of a threat? God, this is suck an effing joke...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,103164,00.html

Last edited by a moderator:
To be fair, I don't recall anyone claiming he did. There was a lot of talk that he could, and some neocons saying he would, but I don't recall anyone saying he did.

Njorl

Originally posted by Njorl
To be fair, I don't recall anyone claiming he did. There was a lot of talk that he could, and some neocons saying he would, but I don't recall anyone saying he did.

Njorl
Well, Fox Propaganda did, and since they are the mouthpiece for this administration, it was just like Bush saying it, as far as a decieved public was concerned.

Seriously, though, this is the problem with the idea of attacking before someone does anything...you can act on unfounded beliefs, and justify any action by saying 'what if?'

Jonathan
Though slightly off topic, I want to point out to Zero that if Fox was indeed a mouthpiece for Bush, then why would I know the leading Demo candidates names (I watch Fox and MSNBC), because as we all know a good biased news source wouldn't give any time to the 'opposition', and yet I have seen at least one Demo candidate on some show on that channel every day. They never have Bush on in person. Stated that way the bias of Fox seems the other way to me.
As to the actual topic of this thread, I don't care if Hussein sought to arm terrorists, I know that Hussein wanted to arm himself, and that he hated America and Israel. We know, because he said so himself, that he wanted to destroy Israel, and I think that given the chance he would. Is that alone not good enough for war? Why would Hussein arm a bunch of puny terrorists if he could keep those weapons himself and use them himself, making his whole nation like one giant terrorist? I ask you this: Given that you are the leader of a nation, and that the leader of another nation says all the time that he will go to war with you the first chance he gets, and that you have the power to topple his gov't, why would you not do it? Hussein was a threat, it was not an if, but a when, question of him attacking us. Bush was and is protecting the US. And of course let's not forget that we always want a stable and US friendly gov't in controll of the oil, if not the US itself, temporarily.

Hey, Jonathan, I want to steal your computer, are you going to call the cops on me? I can't get to your house, and even if I could, I can't pick the locks.

More importantly, was Iraq a credible threat right now? Absolutely not...the Iraqi army barely put up a fight. An international coalition would have been the way to go, like in Desert Storm. I can absolutely guarantee you that things would have gone much smoother. France and Germany were willing to sign on to a U.N. mission, and I am sure America would have gotten much more in teh way of cash and troops. The 'go it alone' strategy has been an obvious failure. Failure, as proven by Bush's attempts to seek aid after the fact.

pelastration
Originally posted by Zero
Seriously, though, this is the problem with the idea of attacking before someone does anything...you can act on unfounded beliefs, and justify any action by saying 'what if?'
In the Administration and on the field. 'Suspects' are killed ... why would there be evidence or a trial? Hé ... we kill for freedom, remember?
Now/soon in US, Patriot act, secret court: "this suspect of 7 years old eat a hamburger sitting two tables from a high-level suspect who frequently posted on Physicsforums."

"'Suspects' are killed". That is how Israel works, and I'm sure how the Soviet union worked, as well as Nazi Germany.

Nommos Prime (Dogon)
Murdoch's Clandestine Agenda

“What right have we to speak in the public’s interest, when too often we are motivated by personal gain”.
- Rupert Murdoch (1967)

Posted by Zero:
"Well, Fox Propaganda did, and since they are the mouthpiece for this administration, it was just like Bush saying it, as far as a decieved public was concerned."

Posted by Jonathan:
"Though slightly off topic, I want to point out to Zero that if Fox was indeed a mouthpiece for Bush, then why would I know the leading Demo candidates names (I watch Fox and MSNBC), because as we all know a good biased news source wouldn't give any time to the 'opposition', and yet I have seen at least one Demo candidate on some show on that channel every day. They never have Bush on in person. Stated that way the bias of Fox seems the other way to me."

Mate, that Fox Network (headed by that Australian traitor Murdoch) is definitely a mouthpiece for Bush and the admin. Why? A study conducted on all of Fox’s printed media, which was published in the “Anarchist Weekly Age Review” (ie. Newspapers and magazines) revealed that 99% of Fox editors PRAISED the pre-emptive unilateral strike action of the UKUSA Alliance (which, obviously, includes Australia) before the Gulf War II even started. And yes, the majority of them made Saddam Hussein into the great arch-villain hoarding weapons of mass destruction.
In fact the whole plethora of one-wayed commentary on the non-existent weapons reminded me of that South Park episode where Saddam Hussein is manufacturing weapons of mass destruction in heaven! In fact, I think that cartoon was more believable than the current infantile and shallow analysis of the whole sordid affair.

Last edited:
Jonathan
Oh, well if the Anarchist (etc) said it was true, then there MUST BE a huge conspiracy between Fox, MSNBC, and Bush.
Zero, if you lived nearby and made that or a similar threat, I would tell the cops.
Quote
"'Suspects are killed'. That is how Israel works..."
And you say you and this forum have no antisemitic leanings.

Hey, do you see the similarities between you and Hussein here? Huh, that's odd...

Last edited by a moderator:
Jonathan, you should pick up a dictionary and look up words before you use them. There is nothing anti-Semitic about being against the tactics of the Israeli military, under their current government. I guess the reality of my opinion is a bit to subtle for most people, but I'm sure you are smart enough to understand it.

Jonathan
Well, you might be right on that. I generally think of antisemitic as any unfounded opposition to Jews or Israel. But if your opinion is about their gov't only, then that isn't nearly so bad. And if founded in fact, completely right. I don't have the time to follow the news extensively, but I was not aware that Israel would arbitrarily kill anyone if they first call them suspects. What doesn't make sense is if Israel is such an aggresive nation, why would they bother to declare someone a suspect? Why not just arbitrarily kill huge numbers of people? It would be far more efficient, and the oil-Bush-Fox conspiracy would protect them from punishiment/reprisals too.

Originally posted by Jonathan
Well, you might be right on that. I generally think of antisemitic as any unfounded opposition to Jews or Israel. But if your opinion is about their gov't only, then that isn't nearly so bad. And if founded in fact, completely right. I don't have the time to follow the news extensively, but I was not aware that Israel would arbitrarily kill anyone if they first call them suspects. What doesn't make sense is if Israel is such an aggresive nation, why would they bother to declare someone a suspect? Why not just arbitrarily kill huge numbers of people? It would be far more efficient, and the oil-Bush-Fox conspiracy would protect them from punishiment/reprisals too.
The Arab oil would dry up in a heartbeat if Israel did that...and there would possiblky even be an uprising in Israel if that happened. There are very many Israelis who disagree with the settlements, and the treatment of the Palestinians. The Likud party holds onto its power by being 'tough on terrorism'...so long as they can maintain a facade of actually fighting real terrorists, they can keep themselves in office. Wholesale killings would end that.

Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
"'Suspects' are killed". That is how Israel works, and I'm sure how the Soviet union worked, as well as Nazi Germany.
That is logically equavalent (ie flawed for the same reason) as the old NRA argument that Nazi Germany was anti-gun, liberals are anti-gun, therefore liberals are Nazis. Don't compare Israel to Nazi Germany - its the ultimate insult to compare a poeple to the entity that nearly succeeded in exterminating them.

Last edited:
Originally posted by russ_watters
That is equavalent (ie flawed for the same reason) as the old NRA argument that Nazi Germany was anti-gun, liberals are anti-gun, therefore liberals are Nazis. Don't compare Israel to Nazi Germany - its the ultimate insult to compare a poeple to the entity that nearly succeeded in exterminating them.
Just because it is insulting, that doesn't mean it can't have an element of truth to it. By killing 'suspected terrorists' instead of capturing them, and having them face trail, Israel is assuming guilt without 'proof', at least as it is defined in a democratic society. What's up with the PC attitude towards Israel, anyways? I thought PC was bad and evil, and only for liberal scum like me?

Originally posted by Zero
The Arab oil would dry up in a heartbeat if Israel did that...and there would possiblky even be an uprising in Israel if that happened. There are very many Israelis who disagree with the settlements, and the treatment of the Palestinians. The Likud party holds onto its power by being 'tough on terrorism'...so long as they can maintain a facade of actually fighting real terrorists, they can keep themselves in office. Wholesale killings would end that.
Is there any patheticly little and incalculably small chance of allowing you to understand how ridiculous the above is ?
Phooph... You should seek help man, I mean it.

FZ+
Is there any patheticly little and incalculably small chance of allowing you to understand how ridiculous the above is ?
Can you point out which part of that is ridiculous? As far as I can see, all zero is saying is:

1. An aggressive Israeli prescence is advantageous to US interests.
2. Terrorism is a major issue in Israeli politics.
3. Sharon's power base is largely dependent on the image of strength and stubborness in his anti-militant stance.
4. The political dynamic in Israel is not one-dimensional.
5. An impression, at least, of legal order in Israeli actions is necessary to maintain foreign support.

Which one do you disagree with?

Don't compare Israel to Nazi Germany - its the ultimate insult to compare a poeple to the entity that nearly succeeded in exterminating them.
It is the ultimate insult to the voters in Israel for the Israeli government to succumb to the same sort of rhetoric by paranoia that governed the USSR and indeed Nazi Germany.

The state of things in the Israeli administration seems kinda clear to me. On the age old conflict of Western "freedoms of" and Soviet "freedoms from", they are most definitely on the side of "freedoms from".

Mentor
Originally posted by Zero
Just because it is insulting, that doesn't mean it can't have an element of truth to it. By killing 'suspected terrorists' instead of capturing them, and having them face trail, Israel is assuming guilt without 'proof', at least as it is defined in a democratic society. What's up with the PC attitude towards Israel, anyways? I thought PC was bad and evil, and only for liberal scum like me?
Its not wrong because its insulting, its wrong because it is logically flawed. Its used because it is insulting.

And I've told you before - I am impossible to offend. I only point it out because you're a giver but not a taker. Its like one-way PC with you. As if being PC gives you license to throw insults. Its hypocritical.
The state of things in the Israeli administration seems kinda clear to me. On the age old conflict of Western "freedoms of" and Soviet "freedoms from", they are most definitely on the side of "freedoms from".
The US is in the fortunate position of not having a "freedoms from" problem. Not everyone is so lucky. If peole were bombing bus stations in the US twice a week, then we'd have a "freedoms from" problem. To some extent, 9/11 created one (though people have mostly forgotten). Thats why we now have the Homeland Security Dept.

Last edited:
Originally posted by drag
Is there any patheticly little and incalculably small chance of allowing you to understand how ridiculous the above is ?
Phooph... You should seek help man, I mean it.
Can I point out that these are the sorts of posts of yours that I normally delete?

Originally posted by russ_watters
Its not wrong because its insulting, its wrong because it is logically flawed. Its used because it is insulting.

And I've told you before - I am impossible to offend. I only point it out because you're a giver but not a taker. Its like one-way PC with you. As if being PC gives you license to throw insults. Its hypocritical.
I would like you to show me how insulting the policies of the Likud party of Israel is somehow hypocritical? Please?

It is perfectly logical to point out that the flaws of the Likud party are the natural(if damaged and damaging) outgrowth of Jewish history.(Now is the time when I want to stop typing, so that I can bait you, but I won't...I'm a kinder, gentler Zero today)

After the Holocaust, should we be surprised that some Israelis should adopt the behaviors of their oppressors? This is what happens, on every scale, where the cycle of violence plays out over and over again. The drive to not be weak, expecially when it has been proven that you are vunerable, often causes a lashing out with the exact sort of violence that has ben suffered. I'm sure for all Israelis, every suicide bombing causes a strong reaction, but for some I think they have a reaction that includes every wrong ever done to a Jew. Their reaction is irrational from the outside, but for them it is a perfect response...except this time they don't have to cower in basements, they don't have to grin and bear it and hope they aren't next to go to the death camps. This time, THEY have the power, they can strike back!

Jonathan
Well Zero, you make an interesting point, supported by psychology, and might have something there too. But you must also keep in mind that the Jews have been wrongfully persectuted for much of recorded history, and so each time they 'lash out' it really isn't that illogical. If someone where here with me, poking me incessantly, I would say: quit it...quit it...quit it...*whack!*
drag, I don't blame Zero for deleting things like that that don't really add anything to the disscussion. I always try to support my opinions and show why someone else is wrong, even though I'm pretty sure I'm right and could just as easily say the same thing.
BTW, drag is right, and has noticed that which I will never give up on, despite its futility: it is that Zero is usually wrong and one can't prove it to him.

Originally posted by Jonathan
Well Zero, you make an interesting point, supported by psychology, and might have something there too. But you must also keep in mind that the Jews have been wrongfully persectuted for much of recorded history, and so each time they 'lash out' it really isn't that illogical. If someone where here with me, poking me incessantly, I would say: quit it...quit it...quit it...*whack!*
drag, I don't blame Zero for deleting things like that that don't really add anything to the disscussion. I always try to support my opinions and show why someone else is wrong, even though I'm pretty sure I'm right and could just as easily say the same thing.
BTW, drag is right, and has noticed that which I will never give up on, despite its futility: it is that Zero is usually wrong and one can't prove it to him.
That's funny...I would say you were dead wrong...such is life, I suppose.

kat
Zero, you really need to stop tossing slogans around. It interferes with your capability to discuss with others who don't see exactly eye to eye with you. Honestly, it makes you look unreasonable and fanatical to those who might otherwise be willing to listen and maybe be influenced by our opinion.

Originally posted by Zero
\
After the Holocaust, should we be surprised that some Israelis should adopt the behaviors of their oppressors?
I would like to say something sarcastic such as..."oh, yes I hear the furnaces firing up now...or oh yes..I saw all of the small children and old palestinian women lined up against the wall and mowed down by machine guns by the hundreds by those Nazi Israeli's" ...well..I did say it..but, this is the type of response you should expect when you use loaded language with the intention to demonize.

This is what happens, on every scale, where the cycle of violence plays out over and over again.
What do you mean, on every scale?
The drive to not be weak, expecially when it has been proven that you are vunerable, often causes a lashing out with the exact sort of violence that has ben suffered.
[/B} Exact? I think you also need to pull out your dictionary.
I'm sure for all Israelis, every suicide bombing causes a strong reaction, but for some I think they have a reaction that includes every wrong ever done to a Jew. Their reaction is irrational from the outside, but for them it is a perfect response...except this time they don't have to cower in basements, they don't have to grin and bear it and hope they aren't next to go to the death camps. This time, THEY have the power, they can strike back!
More hyperbole, com'on Zero. They do grin and bear it, every day when they walk out into the public street, sit in a restaurant or take a bus. Everyday when their children leave the school and start their trek home. If they were to use the "power" that they have to "strike back" and to react in equal force to every wrong ever done to them..from the pogroms of eastern Europe, from the Dhimmi position the held in the Arab world, right through the Holocaust..they would already have inhilated the Palestinians or at least a good solid 6 million of them.

Originally posted by Zero
After the Holocaust, should we be surprised that some Israelis should adopt the behaviors of their oppressors? This is what happens, on every scale, where the cycle of violence plays out over and over again. The drive to not be weak, expecially when it has been proven that you are vunerable, often causes a lashing out with the exact sort of violence that has ben suffered. I'm sure for all Israelis, every suicide bombing causes a strong reaction, but for some I think they have a reaction that includes every wrong ever done to a Jew. Their reaction is irrational from the outside, but for them it is a perfect response...except this time they don't have to cower in basements, they don't have to grin and bear it and hope they aren't next to go to the death camps. This time, THEY have the power, they can strike back!
That's funny, and I thought that was just because of
the blown-up bus or restaurant or civilian vehicle
people see on TV every week. Intresting analysys Zero.

Live long and prosper.

FZ+
That's funny, and I thought that was just because of
the blown-up bus or restaurant or civilian vehicle
people see on TV every week.
It takes two sides to fight a war.

They do grin and bear it, every day when they walk out into the public street, sit in a restaurant or take a bus. Everyday when their children leave the school and start their trek home. If they were to use the "power" that they have to "strike back" and to react in equal force to every wrong ever done to them..from the pogroms of eastern Europe, from the Dhimmi position the held in the Arab world, right through the Holocaust..they would already have inhilated the Palestinians or at least a good solid 6 million of them.
I guess by that rationale, the Egyptians have the right to slaughter all of Israel's firstborn?

One wrong does not justify another. The people who are grinning and bearing it are the Israeli people, whilst all of Israeli government's actions amount to little more than childish retribution.

but, this is the type of response you should expect when you use loaded language with the intention to demonize.
Excuse me, but I don't notice this intention to demonise. I notice the point being made is that Israel cannot use the Holacaust as a source of justification to all this, and that the Israeli actions can only continuate the violence - lessons have not been learned.

Concentration camps were not all that was done by the Nazis. The first step is always to establish that the Jews/Palestinians are somehow inferior, do not belong, and that the crimes of the few of them can be transposed as "racial crimes". This sort of thinking is very prevalent in the Israeli far right, and they are gaining influence. The violence follows naturally.

If peole were bombing bus stations in the US twice a week, then we'd have a "freedoms from" problem.
Freedom's from/freedoms of are not a matter of problems, or whatever. Freedoms from/of are a matter of driving principle that underlines government action. It is always a question of which side of the balance. The rhetoric of many world leaders is now to sacrifice freedoms of for dubious levels of freedom from.

You cannot safeguard freedom of, by losing it. By doing so, the situation is to gravitate towards a state where the original values that we are meant to be fighting for are lost, and we essentially have a totalitarian state - utter safe, from free thought. That in my opinion is not what Israel should be aiming for, if they do not seek to be like their prior oppressors.

We need to sort out what the various politicians mean when they talk of the advance of freedom - the type they are aiming for is extremely important.

Mentor
Originally posted by FZ+
One wrong does not justify another. The people who are grinning and bearing it are the Israeli people, whilst all of Israeli government's actions amount to little more than childish retribution.
The only thing being justified is terrorism, by Zero. All drag and kat (and I) were doing was pointing out the absurdity of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Zero says the tactics are "exactly" the same. I don't see any death camps. I don't see any city-sized railyards for transporting millions to be slaughtered. No, Israel is NOT taking on the characteristics of Nazi Germany.

Originally posted by russ_watters
The only thing being justified is terrorism, by Zero. All drag and kat (and I) were doing was pointing out the absurdity of comparing Israel to Nazi Germany. Zero says the tactics are "exactly" the same. I don't see any death camps. I don't see any city-sized railyards for transporting millions to be slaughtered. No, Israel is NOT taking on the characteristics of Nazi Germany.

Jonathan
Zero: I think if he read again he would still think you're the bad guy.
FZ+: The Egyptians do not have the right to harm Israel because of a just act of God. Also, saying two wrongs don't make a right doens't make sense, that is exactly what all Jews believe! Eye for an eye, etc. We are a predominately Christian nation, and yet we do not turn the other cheek like Jesus said to do, because on a nation wide scale that doesn't work without continual intervention by God. Do you really expect the Isrealis to just sit back and take it?
Zero(again): Do you actually believe in democracy? Because if you did then you'd rethink your opinions considering average Joe American doesn't agree on almost every issue. And I don't want to hear that he does, statistics are numbers and are not subject to your flawed interpretation. I have yet to hear a single poll that suggests that average Joe American has similar beliefs to yours, and don't think I don't keep what you've said in mind whenever I hear a poll being mentioned. It is a rare instance that the public agrees with you. Are you so pompous as to believe that you know better than millions of people?

pelastration
This thread is 'CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists', but can we ask also: Did USA ever financed terrorists or bandits ... for a 'noble' cause?

Yet to warm up: Wheren't the Nicaragua contra's financied by CIA with drugs money? The drugs (Coke -> crack) went to California! Ethics ? Destroying the own US population in the name of freedom of Nicaragua? Bush I administration was involved. Even your VP.
Who financied Saddam (State terrorism) for years and years and delivered chemicals? I recently saw a photo (1983) of Rummy shaking hands with Saddam.

So when we do namecalling we might be also critical to ourselves.

Originally posted by drag
That's funny, and I thought that was just because of
the blown-up bus or restaurant or civilian vehicle
people see on TV every week. Intresting analysys Zero.

Live long and prosper.
That's what you get for trying to think...leave the thinking to those of us who are better suited to it, ok?

Originally posted by Jonathan
Zero: I think if he read again he would still think you're the bad guy.
FZ+: The Egyptians do not have the right to harm Israel because of a just act of God. Also, saying two wrongs don't make a right doens't make sense, that is exactly what all Jews believe! Eye for an eye, etc. We are a predominately Christian nation, and yet we do not turn the other cheek like Jesus said to do, because on a nation wide scale that doesn't work without continual intervention by God. Do you really expect the Isrealis to just sit back and take it?
Zero(again): Do you actually believe in democracy? Because if you did then you'd rethink your opinions considering average Joe American doesn't agree on almost every issue. And I don't want to hear that he does, statistics are numbers and are not subject to your flawed interpretation. I have yet to hear a single poll that suggests that average Joe American has similar beliefs to yours, and don't think I don't keep what you've said in mind whenever I hear a poll being mentioned. It is a rare instance that the public agrees with you. Are you so pompous as to believe that you know better than millions of people?
This is funny...politics by way of fairy tales (the Bible), and truth in your eyes being determined by polls. Jeez, no wonder we don't agree on anything!

FZ+
The only thing being justified is terrorism, by Zero.
Please show me the bit where Zero proclaims terrorists to be heros we must all worship etc etc. It seems that Zero is trying to do something you aren't - understanding the terrorists, and figuring out why the million and one bombs the Israelis have thrown at them aren't working at all. I really do not see the purpose of continuously hitting at slight details, when Zero has made it clear that his intention is not to demonise the entire jewish people, indeed not even to accuse the Israeli government of genocide.

Try attacking the content of what he is saying, rather than the presentation.

Also, saying two wrongs don't make a right doens't make sense, that is exactly what all Jews believe! Eye for an eye, etc.
And who is being anti-semitic now?

That is exactly NOT what all jews believe. It is exactly what self proclaimed zionists on the far right of Israeli politics believe, whose voices have drowned out the more reconcilitory tones of the moderates. If this was true, and the Israelis are indeed so blind, so stupid as to be incapable of finding a peaceful solution, then all that terrorism is justified and the US should just pull out and leave the Israelis to the slaughter they are looking to receive. I hope to hell this isn't so.

The Egyptians do not have the right to harm Israel because of a just act of God.
Dear lord. Can't you see what you are saying? Can't you realize that the sort of religious thing you are spouting is almost entirely the same as the fanatical justifications of the Islamist extremist fringe?

Do you really expect the Isrealis to just sit back and take it?
No, but if they don't, nothing they do will work. Nothing they did has worked. On the simplest consideration of military strategy, it is pretty clear - to defeat an enemy, you must understand it. And by refusing to attempt to understand, by ignoring those who have understood, Israel can not win its war. Not, at least, to leave an Israel that is any better than the totalitarian governments of the past. Doing nothing is dramatically better than jumping into senseless action.

Are you so pompous as to believe that you know better than millions of people?
Is America so pompous as to believe that it is better than billions who would burn flags, scream hatreds, stab and murder against its power? Yes. Yes it is.

Democracy is not a creed by which the will of the majority is right - the will of the majority is enforced or represented, but it is not followed with fanatical loyalty - its capacity to change or improve must be respected. To work for the good of the people, you may not ignore their strongest wills - but you can strive to change them. Diversity is what drives democracy, and "freedom from" indoctrination kills off the idea of diversity of thought.

Last edited:
FZ+, me and you keep forgetting that expressing anything except fanatical devotion to Israel means you are an anti-semitic Nazi terrorist sympathiser! Don't think too hard, don't look at the big picture or the real-life complexity of the situation. Instead, we should just repeat the mantra--"Israel good, everyone else evil"

Jonathan
You all wholly misconstrued what I said!
FZ+: You answered questions that weren't even directed at you, but I got my answer. I was not being antisemitic, must I quote directly from the Bible to show you that that is what Jews believe? If they don't believe eye for an eye etc. they aren't really Jewish, it is at the heart of all Jewish law. Zero never outright claims that we should worship the terrorists, he says it implicitly with his sympathy for them. You used the Bible to come to the conclusion that the firstborn of Egypt were killed didn't you? There are no other historical records that I can think of that say it happened. If the Bible is a fairy tale, why are you allowed to use it to support your points, even sarcastically suggesting that it is Israel's fault, when Israel has no control over God. Yes, I do see the similarity between what I say and what the Islamic terrorists say. That similarity is that we both believe strongly in our God. The difference is that my 'interpretation' of the Bible isn't an interpretation at all, the Bible just says what it says. The Islamic terrorists are extremists, taking things out of context and
misconstruing the meaning to justify their own causes. However, in that way you are more like them than me, because as I pointed out above, you use the Bible, a known source of BS, to come to conclusions to argue against someone. SO I did the same thing against you, and you cried foul. How'd you like them apples?

Zero: The Bible is not a fairly tale. Without some source of higher truth, whatever it is, all we have is our unreliable, often contradictary, human minds. Human minds have been convinced throughout history of all sorts of stupid things, but that doesn't make them true. I don't care if it come from God, aliens, or is spelled in the stars, objective truth is out there, and is the only true truth. All otheres are mere approximations.
I didn't say that truth in my eyes is determined by polls, I was using polls as an example, one well could have used actually voting numbers, but that is slower and harder to do. My point is, if we don't have access to the objective truth, all we have is our best approximations of it. If that is all we have, then we must have all people speak and be heard and counted evenly, and then we should do a little math and see what the human race as a whole thinks is the closest thing to right, correct and/or true. Our only way to do that on huge world wide scales is to conduct polls, and so by dening the existence of a God given objective truth, then yes, polls are all we have(of course assuming such a poll were done where everyone is well informed enough to answer their true opinions). *EDITED FOR PF VIOLATIONS*

Last edited by a moderator: