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. :rolleyes:

[rexallllsc]

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

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_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/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34367

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

http://www.moorewatch.com/

And who can forget Michael Moore Hates America (www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com)

[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 (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp) . 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.

[CamEdwards]

Hmmm... why would Al Queda and Iraq work together.

Let's see... Osama bin Laden wanted the United States military out of Saudi Arabia.

Saddam Hussein wanted the United States military out of Saudi Arabia.

sounds like a pretty logical reason to me.

The reason I gave you the national review article (which was critical of Bush, btw) was because it contained a tidy list of things that I didn't have to go back and research. I too am a little busy for "fact off BS", but I like the fact that you can demand it of me without taking the time to do so yourself.

I wouldn't worry about appearing sheeplike to me, either. After all, sheep don't seem to mind what others think of them. There's a lot we can learn from the noble sheep. :)

[Bearcat729]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Hmmm... why would Al Queda and Iraq work together.

Let's see... Osama bin Laden wanted the United States military out of Saudi Arabia.

Saddam Hussein wanted the United States military out of Saudi Arabia.

sounds like a pretty logical reason to me.

The reason I gave you the national review article (which was critical of Bush, btw) was because it contained a tidy list of things that I didn't have to go back and research. I too am a little busy for "fact off BS", but I like the fact that you can demand it of me without taking the time to do so yourself.

I wouldn't worry about appearing sheeplike to me, either. After all, sheep don't seem to mind what others think of them. There's a lot we can learn from the noble sheep. :)


Actually in Moore's newest book he says that Bin Laden hated Hussein for invading Kuwait and bringing the US into the Holy Land along with Hussein not being a fundamentalist and allowing other religions in the country. That the Al Queda ties were actually in Northern Iraq with the Kurds which was supposed to be out of reach for Saddam.

You can believe what you want about Moore's word. He's keeping links to all his notes and sources on his web site. Link (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/notessources/index.php)

[TroyF]

Would it have mattered? Say Sadaam really was training and letting Al Queda occupy Iraq. . . would Michael Moore or any of the far left agree with us eliminating them anyway?

Look at the opposition to the war in Afghanistan where we had the proof.

Moore is using the fact the link was a loose one to bash the evil GWB. It's why I don't listen to his opinion about anything. Bush isn't perfect by a long shot. He's not the pure scumbag he's made out to be by Moore.

Go to Snopes and you'll find that Moore spent a lot of time citing sources as proof of his rhetoric. . . incorrectly. Why would that change here? As for the movie, I think it's one hell of an idea. I hope it wins an Oscar. Maybe it'll actually adhere to the rules of a documentary and deserve it.

TroyF

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by CamEdwards
Hmmm... why would Al Queda and Iraq work together.
Let's see... Osama bin Laden wanted the United States military out of Saudi Arabia. Saddam Hussein wanted the United States military out of Saudi Arabia.
They want the USA out of Saudi Arabia so they bomb America - are you serious?:D

Originally posted by CamEdwards
sounds like a pretty logical reason to me.
Oh. Maybe you are serious. I am slightly suspicious that you are just trolling me on here, in which case the laugh is certainly on me. I should know better than to jump into these things.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
The reason I gave you the national review article (which was critical of Bush, btw) was because it contained a tidy list of things that I didn't have to go back and research.
Media fed sheep do tend to be lazy, but I am not saying you are a media fed sheep Cam, hell, you are the media!

Originally posted by CamEdwards
I too am a little busy for "fact off BS", but I like the fact that you can demand it of me without taking the time to do so yourself.
Your fact off BS was a lone link to a right wing editorial so don't talk to me about taking the time. I assure you my responses were not taken from any website, and in fact, if you had the energy I bet you could find some holes in my response. I really was not sure about the point on none of the 9-11 terrorists being from Iraq - is that actually accurate? Holy. Shit.

Originally posted by CamEdwards
There's a lot we can learn from the noble sheep. :)
Okay dokey, as long as their uninformed submissiveness does not help precipitate the destruction of the planet!

[Tasan]

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.

Not that I really want to get into this debate or anything, but being a BA in History, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" quote has been around for a long time, and has shown itself through history. I'm NOT saying that it does or doesn't fit here, but its not something that is a recent creation of the current administration.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Killebrew
They want the USA out of Saudi Arabia so they bomb America - are you serious?:D


Oh. Maybe you are serious. I am slightly suspicious that you are just trolling me on here, in which case the laugh is certainly on me. I should know better than to jump into these things.




Killebrew,

I don't know if you know anything at all about Al Queda, but yes, the reason given for things like the attacks on the African embassies, the USS Cole bombings, the first WTC bombing, etc. was because the United States military was entrenched in the "holy land".

Your ilack of knowledge of the very basic facts in this make me think any more discussion on this will be fruitless, so I'll make this my last post in this thread and wish you the best in your continued learning of current events.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Killebrew
They want the USA out of Saudi Arabia so they bomb America - are you serious?:D



You are kidding right? You understand that "getting the infidels out of the holy land" IS the motivating factor for Osama and company. I think we may need to put an IQ test on the registration screen.

[astralhaze]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0914/p6s1-wogi.html

Killebrew, you may want to read this article. Of course, it purports to be about the origins of bin Laden but leaves out the CIA's role in funding and training Islamic fundamentalists in the early 80's, but what can ya do? Anyway, his reasons for fighting the U.S., and he has said this consistently over time so there is no reason not to believe him, are U.S. support for Israel, U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. The last is likely the most important motivation as Saudi Arabia contains Mecca, the most holy place in Islam.

[Raven Hawk]

I just thought that I would introduce a different view point here. What we have seen is the left, the right and the middle. I will show you the apathetic viewpoint.

This is the way that I see it:

1) I don't have the time, nor the resources to validate anything on a national level. We are always prey to our information sources, none of which our completely free of bias. If I had the time and the wherewithal, I would investigate deeply into the matter. However, my vote for president counts (or doesn't count in some elections) for 1/280,000,000th of a vote. Therefore, I devote 1/280,000,000th of my time to considering my vote.

2) All presidents are USA homers. None of them want to be the one who let the US go to shit. They will all do what they think is best for the country. We may not agree, but we elected them to do a job. How they do it is up to them.

3) The president and all elected officials are paid to do a job. I pay taxes that pay my elected officials. They are paid to do their job. If they don't do their job. I will vote for "the other" candidate at the next election. "The other" candidate being the only other valid choice in a crappy bi-partisan system.

Are there any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Have we found any? Who cares, it's his problem. I don't have time to look into it. However, on November 3, 2004 I will spend my 1/2 hour reviewing his performance and spend my 1/280,000,000th piece of power accordingly.

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by astralhaze
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0914/p6s1-wogi.html

Killebrew, you may want to read this article. Of course, it purports to be about the origins of bin Laden but leaves out the CIA's role in funding and training Islamic fundamentalists in the early 80's, but what can ya do? Anyway, his reasons for fighting the U.S., and he has said this consistently over time so there is no reason not to believe him, are U.S. support for Israel, U.S. sanctions against Iraq, and the presence of U.S. military bases in Saudi Arabia. The last is likely the most important motivation as Saudi Arabia contains Mecca, the most holy place in Islam.


It is actually a very well perpetuated myth that the US funded Osama during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Even at that time Osama hated Americans. There were essentially two factions fighting the soviets. The first were the Mujaheidien(sp?) that were native Afghanis, and the second that were Muslim Arabs that came to fight the Soviets. Osama was a leader among the second group. The United States was providing funding to the first. The two groups did not coordinate or even cooperate on a large scale. So Yes the CIA funded the resistance, but not the part of the resistance that Osama was in.

I first learned of this while watching a special on Afghanistan on MSNBC, and have seen a couple of opinion pieces written on it since. The MSNBC piece involved a former CIA asset in Afghanistan.

So while I agree that the US is responsible for some of the weapons in "wrong hands" as a result of our covert assistance to Afghanistan, we can't be blamed for "creating" Osama, as some have contended.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
It is actually a very well perpetuated myth that the US funded Osama during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Even at that time Osama hated Americans. There were essentially two factions fighting the soviets. The first were the Mujaheidien(sp?) that were native Afghanis, and the second that were Muslim Arabs that came to fight the Soviets. Osama was a leader among the second group. The United States was providing funding to the first. The two groups did not coordinate or even cooperate on a large scale. So Yes the CIA funded the resistance, but not the part of the resistance that Osama was in.

I first learned of this while watching a special on Afghanistan on MSNBC, and have seen a couple of opinion pieces written on it since. The MSNBC piece involved a former CIA asset in Afghanistan.

So while I agree that the US is responsible for some of the weapons in "wrong hands" as a result of our covert assistance to Afghanistan, we can't be blamed for "creating" Osama, as some have contended.

Learn something new every day. Of course, I will have to verify this myself, but thanks :) I had not read that before.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Bearcat729
Actually in Moore's newest book he says that Bin Laden hated Hussein for invading Kuwait and bringing the US into the Holy Land along with Hussein not being a fundamentalist and allowing other religions in the country. That the Al Queda ties were actually in Northern Iraq with the Kurds which was supposed to be out of reach for Saddam.

You can believe what you want about Moore's word. He's keeping links to all his notes and sources on his web site. Link (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/notessources/index.php)

Bearcat,

Just FYI, if you can go back and look at news stories from say... 1993-2002, you can find many instances of Hussein sending symbolic deliveries of books, medicine, and other goods into Northern Iraq. While he might not have exercised control over northern Iraq, I think it's a bit unrealistic to assume he knew nothing and was not able to get to Al Queda.

[Killebrew]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
You are kidding right? You understand that "getting the infidels out of the holy land" IS the motivating factor for Osama and company. I think we may need to put an IQ test on the registration screen.
Please share your wisdom Glen since my IQ may not meet your high standards;), how does bombing America get the USA out of the Saudi Arabia? I think we might be speaking of 2 things here, Osama's building rage-on versus the USA (for reasons we would likely all agree on), and attempts at connecting al-queda and Saddam because of Osama's rage-on.

[Killebrew]

Dola -
Originally posted by CamEdwards
Killebrew,

I don't know if you know anything at all about Al Queda, but yes, the reason given for things like the attacks on the African embassies, the USS Cole bombings, the first WTC bombing, etc. was because the United States military was entrenched in the "holy land".

Your ilack of knowledge of the very basic facts in this make me think any more discussion on this will be fruitless, so I'll make this my last post in this thread and wish you the best in your continued learning of current events.
Thanks Cam!

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Please share your wisdom Glen since my IQ may not meet your high standards;), how does bombing America get the USA out of the Saudi Arabia?

Don't ask us, ask Osama. Unbelievable.

:rolleyes:

TroyF


:rolleyes:

[Killebrew]

Clarification for those unclear: Nobody here is doubting the al-queda terrorist intentions on the USA and the reasons they had/have for those intentions. That said, it seems to me that no matter how much Saddam also hated the USA, he and his country would be the ones to suffer the main retribution for a terrorist attack on a scale of 9-11. How does mutual hate case Saddam to join forces in an endeavor that he has to know will be his undoing? This seems like a long shot connection, but I'm open to enlightenment on what I am missing. I think there are some other area's of evidence that might support a Saddam-al-queda temporary alliance, but I can't understand why Saddam Hussein would consider something like that.

[astralhaze]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Clarification for those unclear: Nobody here is doubting the al-queda terrorist intentions on the USA and the reasons they had/have for those intentions. That said, it seems to me that no matter how much Saddam also hated the USA, he and his country would be the ones to suffer the main retribution for a terrorist attack on a scale of 9-11. How does mutual hate case Saddam to join forces in an endeavor that he has to know will be his undoing? This seems like a long shot connection, but I'm open to enlightenment on what I am missing. I think there are some other area's of evidence that might support a Saddam-al-queda temporary alliance, but I can't understand why Saddam Hussein would consider something like that.

On that point I am with you. I never understood it myself. Especially since Saddam, as a dictator, is mainly only interested in himself and his own power. Why he would do something so stupid as to help Al-Qaeda is beyond me. I have yet to see, and yes Cam I have looked, any compelling evidence to suggest that he did support them in any way, shape, or form. The burden of proof is on those who say there was a connection and that burden has not been met.

[TroyF]

Well, we know for a fact Sadaam supported the suicide bombers families in Israel. (we also know Saudi Arabia did as well, but that's for another time)

We also know that US troops in Saudi Arabia were never a good thing for Sadaam. Anything he could do to end US presence in the region would be beneficial to him.

Did he conspire with Al Queda on 9/11? I have my doubts. I don't doubt for a second he provided support for Al Queda operatives or that he "looked the other way" while Al Queda trained people.

It may come as a shock to some people, but many of us for the war didn't give a damn about the link. There were other reasons for doing it. I'm glad we did and do not have any regrets in that regard.

TroyF

[Glengoyne]

Originally posted by Killebrew
... how does bombing America get the USA out of the Saudi Arabia? ...

Is it your position that the first WTC attack, the Bombing of the Cole, The bombing of the U.S. Embasies in Africa, and the September 11th attacks were NOT Al Quaida striking US interests to force us out of Saudi Arabia specifically and the Middle East in general? A yes or no answer please. I mean feel free to elaborate on it, but throw down a yes or no on the question.

My sources ... It is common knowledge. Do a google search on Osama Bin Laden. Maybe toss in a word or two like infidel, satan, Saudi Arabia, "most holy". It won't be hard to find somewhere where his position is documented.

Hell, do you have any kids? Ask one of them.

[TroyF]

Originally posted by Glengoyne
Is it your position that the first WTC attack, the Bombing of the Cole, The bombing of the U.S. Embasies in Africa, and the September 11th attacks were NOT Al Quaida striking US interests to force us out of Saudi Arabia specifically and the Middle East in general? A yes or no answer please. I mean feel free to elaborate on it, but throw down a yes or no on the question.

My sources ... It is common knowledge. Do a google search on Osama Bin Laden. Maybe toss in a word or two like infidel, satan, Saudi Arabia, "most holy". It won't be hard to find somewhere where his position is documented.

Hell, do you have any kids? Ask one of them.

LOL, I love the last line. :)

TroyF

[Killebrew]

To sum up...
- We have 70% of Americans believing there is a Saddam - 9/11 link (some here are among those 70%, some are doubting the poll's accuracy, while others wish this thread would just go away).
- The reason we have come up with so far in this thread: Saddam participated in the 9-11 attacks in order to get the USA out of the middle east.

Originally posted by Glengoyne
Is it your position that the first WTC attack, the Bombing of the Cole, The bombing of the U.S. Embasies in Africa, and the September 11th attacks were NOT Al Quaida striking US interests to force us out of Saudi Arabia specifically and the Middle East in general? A yes or no answer please. I mean feel free to elaborate on it, but throw down a yes or no on the question.
I'm not sure if anyone here absolutely knows that answer Glen - but I guess that relates to what I was searching for, a reason why 70% of Americans believing there is a Saddam - 9/11 link. Shall I take it you agree with the above statement about Saddam thinking the USA would leave the middle east region if he attacked the continental United States?

My sources ... It is common knowledge. Do a google search on Osama Bin Laden. Maybe toss in a word or two like infidel, satan, Saudi Arabia, "most holy". It won't be hard to find somewhere where his position is documented. Hell, do you have any kids? Ask one of them.
What does this mean, common knowledge that Osama was a bad man? Common knowledge that Osama had a rage on against the USA? Nobody is doubting those things. We're also not doubting he wanted the US out of that region as well if that is what you mean, but I think that is veering off the argument of Saddam participating in 9-11.

To Troy - PM sent.

[Glengoyne]

Must stop....Can't resist responding.....


Originally posted by Killebrew
To sum up...
- We have 70% of Americans believing there is a Saddam - 9/11 link (some here are among those 70%, some are doubting the poll's accuracy, while others wish this thread would just go away).
- The reason we have come up with so far in this thread: Saddam participated in the 9-11 attacks in order to get the USA out of the middle east.


First off. I am one of the people that don't believe for a second that 70% of Americans think there is a direct link between Iraq and the September 11th attacks.

Secondly as for why the thread went this far. I can only tell you why I started posting. It was when you indicated it was a laughable notion that Al Quaeda attacked the US to get us out of the Middle East. You seem to be back pedaling a bit on that position in this post, claiming to only doubt Saddam's motivation.

Originally posted by Killebrew

I'm not sure if anyone here absolutely knows that answer Glen - but I guess that relates to what I was searching for, a reason why 70% of Americans believing there is a Saddam - 9/11 link. Shall I take it you agree with the above statement about Saddam thinking the USA would leave the middle east region if he attacked the continental United States?


I think everyone here knows the answer to that question. Yes without a doubt Al Queda attacked the United States in an attempt effect change in US foreign policy, and pull out of the middle east. I think even you could have answered that honestly in the affirmative. Not doing so certainly doesn't lend credibility to your overall position.

Oh that last question there. I have said NOTHING about Saddam's motivation for the september 11th attacks. I have clearly been addressing Al Queda, and only Al Queda. So no I don't think you should infer I would agree to that position.

Originally posted by Killebrew
What does this mean, common knowledge that Osama was a bad man? Common knowledge that Osama had a rage on against the USA? Nobody is doubting those things. We're also not doubting he wanted the US out of that region as well if that is what you mean, but I think that is veering off the argument of Saddam participating in 9-11.


Read your posts, read my posts. You are the one doubting that Al Queda attacked the US in order to drive us out of the middle east. It was your position on that point of fact that drew me into this. You seem to now be backing off of that, and trying to redirect debate onto a portion of this thread where you have some ground to stand on.

For the record.

I DO NOT believe that Saddam has been directly tied to the September 11th attacks.

I DO believe that Saddam was sympathetic towards terrorism.
I DO believe that Saddam helped fund and fuel terrorism.
I believe these statements because he was on the record supporting the suicide bombing efforts in Israel. I also believe this is fuel to the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" theory.

I DO believe that Saddam's regime was friendly with some terrorist elements.
My belief in this point, stems from reports that an Iraqi intelligence officer attended what was described as a "Terrorist Convention", I believe somewhere in Palestine. I have also seen some of the reports Cam refers to, and while I don't accord them the weight of a report from a major media source, I can't readilly dismiss them.

I DO believe I should have responded in a Private Message, rather than bumping this thread, but I am too lazy to cut and paste it now.

[Dutch]

Originally posted by Killebrew
Clarification for those unclear: Nobody here is doubting the al-queda terrorist intentions on the USA and the reasons they had/have for those intentions. That said, it seems to me that no matter how much Saddam also hated the USA, he and his country would be the ones to suffer the main retribution for a terrorist attack on a scale of 9-11. How does mutual hate case Saddam to join forces in an endeavor that he has to know will be his undoing? This seems like a long shot connection, but I'm open to enlightenment on what I am missing. I think there are some other area's of evidence that might support a Saddam-al-queda temporary alliance, but I can't understand why Saddam Hussein would consider something like that.

Yet, you and Astralhaze are so quick to believe that Osama Bin Laden would receive help and support from the USA during their fight against the Soviets.

I'm not denying it, but you can't say, "Shame on the USA for supporting their enemies to fight the Soviets" and then say, "There's no way Iraq and Al Qaeda worked together, afterall, they hated each other."

That's not good argument logic. Anything is possible, and it's my belief that the more direct enemy is always your biggest enemy and joining forces with anybody else is enviable, even if it's somebody you don't particularly care for.

The US and USSR were allies in WWII and we were a democracy and they were a communist state....but we have a similar and more direct enemy in socialist Germany.

So I don't buy the "Iraq and Al Qaeda hated each other, so shame on Bush!" routine.

[CamEdwards]

no fair using logic, guys.

[maximus]

WOW! Did this thread get off topic or what....

[Dutch]

training video of Columbine shooters....
training video of Al Qaeda terrorists....
training video of Bush's daughters doing shooters....

it's all related in the end.