OT: training video of Columbine shooters...(very off topic)

[maximus]

...foxnews.com has the video available on their front page. How those kids could get their hands on all those guns just makes me sick.

I believe the video was shot only six weeks before the killings. I also believe that it is know they had been planning it out for a while so Im sure this video probably took place during their preparing stage.

[NoMyths]

I still urge everyone who hasn't already done so to see Bowling for Columbine.

[maximus]

Originally posted by NoMyths
I still urge everyone who hasn't already done so to see Bowling for Columbine.

You know, I haven't seen that yet. I hear that was very interesting. I don't know though.....kinda weird stuff.

edit. spelling

[Draft Dodger]

Originally posted by maximus
...foxnews.com has the video available on their front page. How those kids could get their hands on all those guns just makes me sick.

I believe the video was shot only six weeks before the killings. I also believe that it is know they had been planning it out for a while so Im sure this video probably took place during their preparing stage.

...no valid reason at all that I can think of to make me want to waste another second thinking about those 2 losers...

[EagleFan]

Bowling for Columbine is just like any other piece of fiction movie that you can go see. The Columbine tragedy was bad enough, now we have dirtbags like Moore trying to make money and fame off the situation.

[maximus]

Originally posted by EagleFan
Bowling for Columbine is just like any other piece of fiction movie that you can go see. The Columbine tragedy was bad enough, now we have dirtbags like Moore trying to make money and fame off the situation.

Oh, I didn't realize it ws a movie. I thought it was more of interviews and such. Ya, thats pretty sad.

[EagleFan]

It's a sort of documentary but there were a lot of instances like him filming people buying guns in a store that he had set up the scene with store management prior to filming. The stores were rather upset when the film comes out and makes it look like they were in the wrong.

[maximus]

Originally posted by EagleFan
It's a sort of documentary but there were a lot of instances like him filming people buying guns in a store that he had set up the scene with store management prior to filming. The stores were rather upset when the film comes out and makes it look like they were in the wrong.

Then this is something I wouldn't like. More or less it seems staged.

[rexallllsc]

Larry Elder is making a movie called "Michael & Me"...pretty awesome, huh?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34367

http://www.larryelder.com/michael.html

http://www.moorewatch.com/

[maximus]

Wait a second! This is the same idiot that said crap about George W. Bush!. I won't be seeing it now. I can't stand the slob.

[Easy Mac]

God forbid someone say crap about Bush... next thing you'll tell me there are people who don't believe in God.

For shame.

[maximus]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
God forbid someone say crap about Bush... next thing you'll tell me there are people who don't believe in God.

For shame.

Well, its not that he said something about Bush but what he said. I cannot remember what exactly he said but it pissed *me* off.

[Ksyrup]

God forbid someone should create a documentary and purposely use clips out of context to create a "reality" that does not exist. I was fine with JFK, since that was openly presented as one person's take on how the assassination went down, but there's no way this guy (or anyone, regardless of their political persuasion) should be allowed to get away with passing a work of fiction off as a documentary.

[NoMyths]

It's not a work of fiction. See the film. He makes a pretty strong case that the reason so many Americans kill each other with guns is because we are a culture steeped in fear.

[mckerney]

Originally posted by rexallllsc
Larry Elder is making a movie called "Michael & Me"...pretty awesome, huh?

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=34367

http://www.larryelder.com/michael.html

http://www.moorewatch.com/

And who can forget Michael Moore Hates America

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Ksyrup
God forbid someone should create a documentary and purposely use clips out of context to create a "reality" that does not exist. I was fine with JFK, since that was openly presented as one person's take on how the assassination went down, but there's no way this guy (or anyone, regardless of their political persuasion) should be allowed to get away with passing a work of fiction off as a documentary.

Exactly, what does believing in God have to do with an man who tells bold face lies as though they were fact.

I force mysel to read opposing opinions to what I believe. I think it's critical to understand the other side of a debate.

What I can't read, is people who lie about their side of the debate. I'm not talking about trying to skew statistics. Everyone does that. It's to be expected. When you lie to me, I can't trust anything you say.

Michael Moore has made a habit of lying to me. He's done it repeatedly, as if to remind me that it wasn't an accident the first time. He's a scumbag who I will not read, watch, or take seriously.

TroyF

[TroyF]

Originally posted by NoMyths
It's not a work of fiction. See the film. He makes a pretty strong case that the reason so many Americans kill each other with guns is because we are a culture steeped in fear.

The point is that he uses lies to do it. Splicing together speeches and telling me about a missle factory that specializes in shooting TV satellites into space isn't proving a damned thing to me.

TroyF

[Ksyrup]

Originally posted by NoMyths
It's not a work of fiction. See the film. He makes a pretty strong case that the reason so many Americans kill each other with guns is because we are a culture steeped in fear.

...a fear he couldn't demonstrate without tacking a bunch of clips together out of sequence and out of context to make his point.

I don't necessarily have a problem with his conclusions, I have a problem with how he attempted to legitimize his conclusions. One can make a pretty solid case for just about any proposition one can think of, if one is not bound by presenting facts in an accurate fashion.

[mckerney]

Plus his whole 'History Lesson' was a little, shall we say, interesting...

[CamEdwards]

I've interviewed the "Michael Moore Hates America" director twice now. Funny, funny guy. And it is a little ironic that Michael Moore is now just as evasive to his critics as Roger was in "Roger and Me".

As for Moore's books... can't stand 'em. I try and read them and end up just putting them aside. I can get through Al Franken books, but Moore's just another ranting crackpot.




he should get his own radio show.

[rexallllsc]

Originally posted by NoMyths
It's not a work of fiction. See the film. He makes a pretty strong case that the reason so many Americans kill each other with guns is because we are a culture steeped in fear.

Yet he barely mentions inner-city violence at all...where the majority of gun murders happen. Why do you think that is?

[mckerney]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I've interviewed the "Michael Moore Hates America" director twice now. Funny, funny guy. And it is a little ironic that Michael Moore is now just as evasive to his critics as Roger was in "Roger and Me".

As for Moore's books... can't stand 'em. I try and read them and end up just putting them aside. I can get through Al Franken books, but Moore's just another ranting crackpot.




he should get his own radio show.

Is the guy making "Micheal Moore Hates America" from Minneapolis?

[maximus]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I've interviewed the "Michael Moore Hates America" director twice now. Funny, funny guy. And it is a little ironic that Michael Moore is now just as evasive to his critics as Roger was in "Roger and Me".

As for Moore's books... can't stand 'em. I try and read them and end up just putting them aside. I can get through Al Franken books, but Moore's just another ranting crackpot.



he should get his own radio show.

CamEdwards, what do you do for a living? Sounds like you now some real "hihg" people in Hollywood land.

I'm an actor (I can explain) if anyone is looking for one!

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by EagleFan
It's a sort of documentary but there were a lot of instances like him filming people buying guns in a store that he had set up the scene with store management prior to filming. The stores were rather upset when the film comes out and makes it look like they were in the wrong.

Um, the stores were upset? Have you even seen this movie, cause I can't imagine where that scene was. The chain that the 2 Columbine killers bought their ammo from ended up looking very good in this movie. I agree some gun nut psycho's were probably not happy by the way they were depicted but hey, it would have been tough showing them in a good light.

[Killebrew]

Dola

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I've interviewed the "Michael Moore Hates America" director twice now. Funny, funny guy. And it is a little ironic that Michael Moore is now just as evasive to his critics as Roger was in "Roger and Me".

As for Moore's books... can't stand 'em. I try and read them and end up just putting them aside. I can get through Al Franken books, but Moore's just another ranting crackpot.

he should get his own radio show.

That is just plain pitiful. I shudder to think that more American sheep will listen to this kind of "We are free, except if you don't believe what I believe" bullshit. The one ray of hope with these kinds of information pornographers is that the people that suck up this mind drool are usually already set in their twisted ways, whether it be far left or far right.

Seriously Cam, do you think there is even a shred of cleverness in exposing Michael Moore as a less than honest media hound? Nuts like these (again nuts on the left & right) are great for radio shows so I'm hoping you are taking this stuff with a boulder of salt, and not swallowing the rather large load they are shooting.

[Killebrew]

Double Dola: Oh and maximus - rent to own an opinion. If I told you black was white would you believe that as well?

[maximus]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Double Dola: Oh and maximus - rent to own an opinion. If I told you black was white would you believe that as well?

Yes...yes I would.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Dola

That is just plain pitiful. I shudder to think that more American sheep will listen to this kind of "We are free, except if you don't believe what I believe" bullshit. The one ray of hope with these kinds of information pornographers is that the people that suck up this mind drool are usually already set in their twisted ways, whether it be far left or far right.

Seriously Cam, do you think there is even a shred of cleverness in exposing Michael Moore as a less than honest media hound? Nuts like these (again nuts on the left & right) are great for radio shows so I'm hoping you are taking this stuff with a boulder of salt, and not swallowing the rather large load they are shooting.

What the hell? Michael Moore produces documentaries and books rife with bias and mischaracterizations, and that's okay. But someone ponies up his own money to produce a movie about Michael Moore and it's somehow wrong?

You say the "the only ray of hope with these kinds of information pornographers is that people that suck up this mind drool are usually set in their twisted ways, whether it be far left or far right." You do realize you're describing Michael Moore supporters, right? In fact, one could argue that you're describing yourself. I (and other conservatives on this board) have critisized some actions by this administration, but I don't believe I've ever seen you support any action by a conservative.

I don't know how much you know about the guy who's directing "Michael Moore Hates America", but after interviewing him twice, I'd hardly call him a nut.

As to the cleverness of exposing Michael Moore as a liar... I don't know how clever it is. Sometimes being right doesn't involve fitting some hipper-than-thou definition of "clever".

[Dutch]

What's the difference between Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh?

In the States, Michael Moore drives, and in England, Rush gets the honors.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
What the hell? Michael Moore produces documentaries and books rife with bias and mischaracterizations, and that's okay. But someone ponies up his own money to produce a movie about Michael Moore and it's somehow wrong?

Well, it is actually more stupid than wrong, stupid and funny.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
You say the "the only ray of hope with these kinds of information pornographers is that people that suck up this mind drool are usually set in their twisted ways, whether it be far left or far right." You do realize you're describing Michael Moore supporters, right?

I'm describing anyone that does not have and use a mind of their own. These people do not need to be right wing nuts, they can just as easily be left wing nuts, and it is certainly as possible that some of them might be Michael Moore supporters as some of them might be George W. Bush supporters.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
In fact, one could argue that you're describing yourself. I (and other conservatives on this board) have critisized some actions by this administration, but I don't believe I've ever seen you support any action by a conservative.

Well that's just ignorant, I have to agree with you on an issue or else I am twisted - wtf!

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I don't know how much you know about the guy who's directing "Michael Moore Hates America", but after interviewing him twice, I'd hardly call him a nut.

I was generalizing him as a nut since he made such a nutty decision - the concept of creating this kind of media is laughable. If some left wing film maker made an entire film deriding Ann Coulter that decision would be just as laughable.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
As to the cleverness of exposing Michael Moore as a liar... I don't know how clever it is. Sometimes being right doesn't involve fitting some hipper-than-thou definition of "clever".

Clever means intelligent, and I believe it is intelligent to question things you are told. If you have questioned something you have been told and researched your own answers that were not spoon fed to you then I would describe you as clever, whether you were hip or not. Making generalizations about someone is rarely clever, but many of us do that and I admit I enjoy it as well. For example, George W. Bush is a liar, and anyone who doesn't agree with that statement is simply wrong. There, that was not particularly clever, but it was certainly fun.

[TroyF]

Well that's just ignorant, I have to agree with you on an issue or else I am twisted - wtf!

Did you read a word of the paragraph you quoted?

TroyF

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Clever means intelligent, and I believe it is intelligent to question things you are told. If you have questioned something you have been told and researched your own answers that were not spoon fed to you then I would describe you as clever, whether you were hip or not. Making generalizations about someone is rarely clever, but many of us do that and I admit I enjoy it as well. For example, George W. Bush is a liar, and anyone who doesn't agree with that statement is simply wrong. There, that was not particularly clever, but it was certainly fun. [/b]

Yet you call a guy a nut for going out an investigating Michael Moore and his past. I just don't understand. You want people to think for yourself, yet when someone actually does it, you deride him and chide him for buying into some media myth.

There's been no movie made about Ann Coulter. There has, however, been an entire book written about her, O'Reilly, and others by Al Franken. I guess he's just as much of a clown as the director of "Michael Moore Hates America"?

Please. You piss and moan about people acting like sheep, when you're as predictable as they come.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Yet you call a guy a nut for going out an investigating Michael Moore and his past. I just don't understand. You want people to think for yourself, yet when someone actually does it, you deride him and chide him for buying into some media myth.

With regards to this movie maker your are being sensitive about: That is not free speech, it's free garbage. But seriously, I am not saying this guy is a sheep, people who would blindly accept his view over someone elses without looking into the issues involved would be a sheep. I think you might be able to learn as much from his film as any of Michael Moores, as long as you were prepared to do some actual independent research instead of just watching FOX news with a trusty bag'o'Dorito's.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
There's been no movie made about Ann Coulter. There has, however, been an entire book written about her, O'Reilly, and others by Al Franken. I guess he's just as much of a clown as the director of "Michael Moore Hates America"?

Al Franken's book is not solely about Coulter or O'Reilly - if it was the idea of it would be as stupid as the concept for the movie by Michael Moore's stalker. I don't doubt Al Franken would *like* to write a book soley about Ann Coulter but he is either not that stupid or his publisher has talked some sense into him.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Please. You piss and moan about people acting like sheep, when you're as predictable as they come.

I might be predictable to you, but that is not the same as being a political sheep. Why does it bother you if I am troubled by blind following - is this becoming a disagreement about religion?

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Draft Dodger
...no valid reason at all that I can think of to make me want to waste another second thinking about those 2 losers...

Heroin shooting single mom decapitates her four year old daughter with a butter knife, we'll have the video next on FOX!!!

[scooper]

How about the possibility that somebody can choose to agree with another's opinions on their own accord? So anybody who chooses to watch this movie and go along is a sheep? There is no chance at all that they have looked at facts, made up their own mind, and their own decisions are in line with the movie?

That's what I don't get about anybody (on either side of any debate) that plays the "sheep" or "think for yourself" cards. They completely disregard any chance that a person who thinks for themselves can choose to agree with somebody else.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by scooper
How about the possibility that somebody can choose to agree with another's opinions on their own accord? So anybody who chooses to watch this movie and go along is a sheep? There is no chance at all that they have looked at facts, made up their own mind, and their own decisions are in line with the movie?

That's what I don't get about anybody (on either side of any debate) that plays the "sheep" or "think for yourself" cards. They completely disregard any chance that a person who thinks for themselves can choose to agree with somebody else.

Word. Especially because, in this case, so much of it does involve opinion and political leanings. Coming from the left, when I read the supposed "lies" Michael Moore has told they just seem to be putting a left-leaning spin on facts rather than lying. If you are a conservative, you are going to be more prone to consider it lying. If you are a lefty like myself, you will think it isn't. Two people can have the same information but come to completely different conclusions.

[TroyF]

Yeah, but the kicker is something Cam mentioned in the paragraph Killebrew responded to incorrectly.

When all we choose to believe is one side EVERYTIME an issue comes up, that's when we really become sheep.

I lean to the right. I didn't like Clinton at all. Clinton made some good decisions.

Look at those three sentences for a second. You can lean toward one side and still admit the other side does some good and isn't purely evil. I know this is a tough concept to grasp for some people. I'm not sure WHY it is, but there is no doubt it is the truth.

The real "sheep" are the people who are so caught up in their belief system that they cannot and will not accept the other side did something good. Furthermore, they usually can't even accept that the other side is honestly trying to do good and isn't an evil group of bastards. Those are the people I'm scared of.

TroyF

[scooper]

Good post, Troy. I agree fully. Sometimes I think we are becoming two nations.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by scooper
How about the possibility that somebody can choose to agree with another's opinions on their own accord? So anybody who chooses to watch this movie and go along is a sheep? There is no chance at all that they have looked at facts, made up their own mind, and their own decisions are in line with the movie?

That's what I don't get about anybody (on either side of any debate) that plays the "sheep" or "think for yourself" cards. They completely disregard any chance that a person who thinks for themselves can choose to agree with somebody else.

I agree the term could be simply used as an insult for anyone who disagrees with you, but how do you account for stats like 70% of Americans thinking there is a Saddam - 9/11 link? I cannot understand how that could happen without a sheep like mentality.

[scooper]

How do I account for it? Sheep exist. I didn't deny that. But to automatically assume one is a sheep like finding someone guilty without a trial. You can't assume someone who agrees with an opinion opposite of yours is a sheep. If they give you no reason other than "so and so said" then you are dealing with a sheep.

[GrantDawg]

Originally posted by TroyF
Yeah, but the kicker is something Cam mentioned in the paragraph Killebrew responded to incorrectly.

When all we choose to believe is one side EVERYTIME an issue comes up, that's when we really become sheep.

I lean to the right. I didn't like Clinton at all. Clinton made some good decisions.

Look at those three sentences for a second. You can lean toward one side and still admit the other side does some good and isn't purely evil. I know this is a tough concept to grasp for some people. I'm not sure WHY it is, but there is no doubt it is the truth.

The real "sheep" are the people who are so caught up in their belief system that they cannot and will not accept the other side did something good. Furthermore, they usually can't even accept that the other side is honestly trying to do good and isn't an evil group of bastards. Those are the people I'm scared of.

TroyF

Here, here

[heybrad]

Originally posted by TroyF
The real "sheep" are the people who are so caught up in their belief system that they cannot and will not accept the other side did something good. Furthermore, they usually can't even accept that the other side is honestly trying to do good and isn't an evil group of bastards. Those are the people I'm scared of.

TroyF

This is a great point. In this country is is somewhat understandable (although still unaceptable IMO) that in politics its usually party over country. Career politicians keep it that way because they have to get reelected. Why the average Joe American thinks he has to pick a party line and defend it to the death is beyond me.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Killebrew
I agree the term could be simply used as an insult for anyone who disagrees with you, but how do you account for stats like 70% of Americans thinking there is a Saddam - 9/11 link? I cannot understand how that could happen without a sheep like mentality.

Well this is easy. I don't believe for a second that 70% of the people think that Saddam has been linked directly to 9-11. I suspect that the company who did this poll was the same one that said Cruz Bustamante was ahead in California.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Killebrew



Al Franken's book is not solely about Coulter or O'Reilly - if it was the idea of it would be as stupid as the concept for the movie by Michael Moore's stalker. I don't doubt Al Franken would *like* to write a book soley about Ann Coulter but he is either not that stupid or his publisher has talked some sense into him.

So, in other words, a book called something like... I dunno...

"Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" is just as stupid as a movie entitled "Michael Moore Hates America"? Just want to be clear on this.

Originally posted by Killebrew

I agree the term could be simply used as an insult for anyone who disagrees with you, but how do you account for stats like 70% of Americans thinking there is a Saddam - 9/11 link? I cannot understand how that could happen without a sheep like mentality.

I suppose it could have something to do with a federal judge (Clinton appointee, btw) already determining that Iraq was partly to blame for the first WTC attack in 1993, which had al Queda ties. I'm one of the 70%, but not because I know nothing. In fact, it's because I keep informed through a variety of different sources.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
So, in other words, a book called something like... I dunno...

"Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" is just as stupid as a movie entitled "Michael Moore Hates America"? Just want to be clear on this.

I have not read that book so I could not tell you just how stupid it may or may not be. If the book is an angry diatribe against Rush Limbaugh then yes, that would be stupid, shallow and needless. I suspect it is not that shallow but I won't read it soley for pissy forum disagreement ammo.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I suppose it could have something to do with a federal judge (Clinton appointee, btw) already determining that Iraq was partly to blame for the first WTC attack in 1993, which had al Queda ties. I'm one of the 70%, but not because I know nothing. In fact, it's because I keep informed through a variety of different sources.

Okay, we have redefined our terms and I have learned something. I honestly did not imagine that someone who could believe this was not either a sheep or simply a lazy person. I admit defeat in that assumption but I reserve the right to be horrified you believe this. Do you feel you have researched this as best as you can and if so, in your opinion how big a part (say % blame) did Iraq and/or Sadam play in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

[rexallllsc]

Can anyone account for Moore's glossing over of the inner-city homicide problem? Is it because the majority of those involved aren't white that makes him not want to bring it up?

[mckerney]

Originally posted by Killebrew
I have not read that book so I could not tell you just how stupid it may or may not be. If the book is an angry diatribe against Rush Limbaugh then yes, that would be stupid, shallow and needless. I suspect it is not that shallow but I won't read it soley for pissy forum disagreement ammo.

I have that book, and although I disagree with Franken politically it's not a bad read.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Killebrew
I have not read that book so I could not tell you just how stupid it may or may not be. If the book is an angry diatribe against Rush Limbaugh then yes, that would be stupid, shallow and needless. I suspect it is not that shallow but I won't read it soley for pissy forum disagreement ammo.


Okay, we have redefined our terms and I have learned something. I honestly did not imagine that someone who could believe this was not either a sheep or simply a lazy person. I admit defeat in that assumption but I reserve the right to be horrified you believe this. Do you feel you have researched this as best as you can and if so, in your opinion how big a part (say % blame) did Iraq and/or Sadam play in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

But you haven't seen the movie yet, Killebrew, yet you're more than willing to call it "stupid, shallow, and needless." You might want to be consistent. It will make you appear less partisan and sheeplike.

As to Iraq and 9-11, I can't assign a percentage blame. I believe Iraq harbored terrorists, may have offered training to terrorists, and certainly was not the opponent of Al Queda that some believe. It appears Iraq had the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy going. It served them well against Iran... why wouldn't they have the same philosophy when it comes to their enemy America?

A quick summation of the evidence that Iraq and al-Queda weren't the enemies some believe them to be can be found :

here . This does not include the recent allegation by an Iraqi officer in a weekly Iraqi paper that Iraqi special forces were training about 100 al Queda members at Salman Pak in July of 2001.

Now, if I may ask... what's led you to believe that Iraq had no connection to the 9-11 attacks?

[Dutch]

Do you feel you have researched this as best as you can and if so, in your opinion how big a part (say % blame) did Iraq and/or Sadam play in the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

Here's a hypothetical. After the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam Hussein decides not to attack Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but instead decides he wishes to maintain neutral relations with the west and presents his arguments of slant drilling to the UN instead of invading Kuwait and instigating Saudi Arabia in border skirmishes.

Would the WTC and Pentagon attacks still have commenced? And why or why not?

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
But you haven't seen the movie yet, Killebrew, yet you're more than willing to call it "stupid, shallow, and needless." You might want to be consistent. It will make you appear less partisan and sheeplike.

The concept of a movie like that is stupid, shallow, and needless, if I have not made that clear already that certainly was/is my intention. I have also said that a book or movie with a similar concept would be as stupid, shallow, and needless regardless of which nutbar side it exposed. About appearing sheeplike - I really don't mind appearing sheeplike to you Cam, is that something I should be concerned about?

Originally posted by CamEdwards
As to Iraq and 9-11, I can't assign a percentage blame. I believe Iraq harbored terrorists, may have offered training to terrorists, and certainly was not the opponent of Al Queda that some believe. It appears Iraq had the "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" philosophy going. It served them well against Iran... why wouldn't they have the same philosophy when it comes to their enemy America?

That was like the Bush mantra - "if you are not with us you are against us". Come to think of it those phrases are basically the same - holy crapoly. If there is any link, I'll grant you that this "enemy of my enemy" idea is likely the only chance in hell of making it wash down.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
A quick summation of the evidence that Iraq and Al-Queda weren't the enemies some believe them to be can be found :
here . This does not include the recent allegation by an Iraqi officer in a weekly Iraqi paper that Iraqi special forces were training about 100 Al Queda members at Salman Pak in July of 2001.

Regarding the idea of using a quote from the National Review in *any* argument: Don't spit on my head and tell me it's raining, and I promise to not do that to you, ditto for those equally reliable "Iraqi Weeklies". Good god man, I hope that is not what you consider the basis of an informed, non-sheeplike opinion. If you only read the news you agree with, you will never see the other side.

Regarding an Iraq/Al-Queda link fact-off: I don't have the time for fact-off BS, but will point out that when asked, Bush and Rumsfield have emphatically denied they have any proof of a link between Saddam and the 9/11 Terrorists. Maybe I am naive, but it seems to me that these fellows who know enough to run an entire country, would probably know by now if there was any freaking link between Saddam & the 9-11 terrorists already. I can't imagine they would be remotely shy about this knowledge either, as they have made it a practice to release every thread of evidence they can find to justify the controversial choice of going to war, even when that evidence was obviously forged. That pretty much explains my apprehension to jump in that particular blind faith camp.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Now, if I may ask... what's led you to believe that Iraq had no connection to the 9-11 attacks?

I think the main thing most westerners would first point to would be the great religious & ideological differences between Al-Queda and Saddam's Iraq. They were enemies, so it would seem that unless there was some kind of abrupt Scooby-Doo-ending style temporary agreement between the two sides that the default position would be "why would they have a connection", not "what was the connection". After that the next red flag would be the fact that Bush had many reasons for wanting to attack Iraq, and without a Saddam-9/11 link he would simply not have had public support for this war. Even with 70% believing this Saddam/9-11 link the support for the war was still not overwhelming. After that the fact that none of the 9-11 hijackers were from Iraq would probably make my top 10 list of convincing arguments. After that another red flag would be some of the other um, misinformed statements (lies or ignorance?) that the Bush Admin has made leading up to and during this war, specifically declarations of proof of WMD. The Administration talking heads repeated the WMD accusation ad nauseum all spring, I am relieved that there is almost no talk of that nowadays and I think we probably all know the reason for the omission of this term from regular press conferences these days.