|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
Tiger 
Group: Members
Posts: 606
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,10:52 am |
|
   |
Goodyear, do you have 100% facts and proof that Saddam is not involved with al Queida? Or do you only go by what you hear or read?
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
LisaMarie
Group: Members
Posts: 367
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,11:06 am |
|
 |
| Quote (Guest @ Dec. 14 2003,10:02:pm) | | Newsflash! Got the wrong guy, Saddam didn't do 911. |
Uh, newsflash, no one here said he was behind 9-11!  He's an evil, evil man, but apparently since he wasn't behind 9-11 we should just let him go?
--------------
Bush & Son - Sending America to war since 1990
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
g
Unregistered
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,11:17 am |
|
|
| Quote | News Flash Osama Bin Laden is part of Al Quieda!!.
Goodyear, do you have 100% facts and proof that Saddam is not involved with al Queida? |
Tiger, you can not point to anything as proof that Saddam was part of Al-Qaeda! So essentially you are saying that if I do not have proof to the contrary then he must be guilty? You would have made a great juror in the Salem Witch Trials!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Tiger
Group: Members
Posts: 606
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,11:30 am |
|
|
So, let's say he isn't involved in Al Qaeda, does that mean he is innocent? We have proof that he is an evil man. I honestly can't believe people are actually trying to put up a defense for this man? His own people are celebrating his capture.
Goodyear keeps asking for this so called *proof* that is all I was asking of him. You haven't provided any *proof* here either to back up your arguments.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,11:48 am |
|
|
Interesting discussion, been quite a while since I seen one of these on here!
To start off, I for one am glad to see Saddam finally captured. Hopefully this action has an affect on the groups inside Iraq that are attacking our troops by signaling an end to the hope that Saddam can return to power. Looking at his conditions upon capture however, I would have to say that Saddam has had very little if anything at all to do with the recent attacks.
Now comes the question “What do we do with him now?” I think there is plenty of time to figure that out. I would like to see him be one of the first tried under the new Iraqi constitution, but for that to happen they need to have elections and for that to happen they need a constitution (catch-22?). As long as he is in custody, I do not see the need to rush to some sort of trial right now, because unless he is tried by the Iraqis themselves, many will believe it will be nothing but a puppet trial court. Again, as I see it there is no hurry.
Now we come to comments from Tiger & Archer. I guess I will have to add my name to the list of people that say that until you can show unequivocal proof that Saddam was behind 9-11 I suggest you drop the argument. Since before the start of the war with Iraq, this administration has pounded on the fact that Saddam had WMD’s and subtly suggested that Saddam had ties with Al-Qaeda, neither of which has yet to be proven. Yes, I read your link Jim, and what they found looks to be interpreted several different ways and is in no way proof of anything. For all anyone knows it was about an attack on Israel, and the fact that the terrorist had ties with Al-Qaeda in itself does little to prove that Saddam was in any way behind 9-11. If I remember correctly, that guy was named Bin-Laden. I am really starting to doubt the intelligence level of the average American if they can not even distinguish one man for the other.
Was Saddam an evil man? I believe so. Should he be tried for his crimes? I believe so. But before you try to tie Saddam to 9-11 I suggest some of you people out there try and support your argument with as Goodyear Pimp asked for, proof. No, Tiger, I do not expect anyone showing up with proof to prove his innocence but I don’t believe anyone has to. Remember the rule of law, innocent until proven guilty? Or is that right only reserved for Americans? All I am saying is that we need to try this man for his crimes and his crimes alone, and not the actions of another. If we are going to start the “guilty by association” game then I want to see Bush Sr. tried along side Saddam as a butcher of Iraqis!
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
Tiger
Group: Members
Posts: 606
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,12:00 pm |
|
|
I am only asking for the same thing you both have asked for, PROOF he is not tied to Al Qaeda. I realize the mastermind behind the 911 attacks was in fact Osama bin Laden. I am not denying that. But I do believe that Saddam has ties with Osama. I never said he should be put on trial for the Sept 11th attacks. I agree with CPU, I don't see a need to rush this procedure. I think we need to get as much info out of him as we can.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,12:42 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | I am only asking for the same thing you both have asked for, PROOF he is not tied to Al Qaeda. |
You are asking for proof to prove a negative, virtually impossible. It would be like asking for proof that you were not involved with that meth lab. So Tiger, can you prove you were not involved with that meth lab or do we assume your guilt since you can not? My hope was not to upset you Tiger, but to try to simply make a point about proving a negative.
This is the same argument I have heard about the WMD's, people demanding proof that Saddam did not have them rather than providing proof that he did. I believe the burden is placed upon the accuser to provide proof, and not the accused to provide proof of innocence.
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
KODIAK
Group: Members
Posts: 57
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,1:20 pm |
|
|
Hussein's Chief of Intelligence (oximoron?) also had in his possession documents showing that 911 skyjacker Atta trained in Bahgdad (also London Telegraph reporting) Is the conjecture that we should not have gone in? Maybe we should have surrendered? Whether Iraq had WMD at the time is irrelavant, Hitler's WMD was systematic extermination of a population, and it could not be allowed to continue.
--------------
"Dyin ain't much of a living.....boy" Clint (Outlaw Josie Wales)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
jimhanson
Group: Moderator
Posts: 8491
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,1:43 pm |
|
|
From CPUslave| Quote | Interesting discussion, been quite a while since I seen one of these on here!
|
Wholeheartedly agreed, Slave--there hasn't been a good argument on the board for a while--but there HAS been a lot of "trash talking" and name-calling.| Quote | | Yes, I read your link Jim, and what they found looks to be interpreted several different ways and is in no way proof of anything. |
I agree, that's why I said it was preliminary and unauthenticated--just throwing it out for discussion without editorial comment--we need to do SOMETHING to get a dialogue going here again.
Good point about trying him in Iraq, when there are no laws, judicial system, or Constitution. Can you try someone for a crime that there is no law against--other than the "crimes against humanity" statute?
While the rest of the world has to see this as a legitimate trial, I, for one, wouldn't want this adjudicated in the "world court", either. The U.S. doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the world court--it would put our soldiers at risk of being tried for anything that any member THOUGHT was a crime. It would be hypocritical of the U.S. to try him there.
Saddam is a "tar baby" for the U.S.--no matter what we do, Moslems will consider the punishment unfair, or Saddam as a martyr. Muslims believe in the code of sharif--let the punishment fit the crime. This often manifests itself in what Westerners consider harsh punishments--beheadings, cutting off of hands, stonings, blindings, etc. Bring Saddam to one of the Kurdish villages by helicopter and leave--let the Kurds deal with him as prescribed by "the religion of peace".
--------------
"If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
cpu_slave
Group: Members
Posts: 297
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 15 2003,3:25 pm |
|
|
| Quote | | Hussein's Chief of Intelligence (oximoron?) also had in his possession documents showing that 911 skyjacker Atta trained in Bahgdad (also London Telegraph reporting) |
And we also know that the terrorists trained to be pilots at a US Flight school, so does that make Bush and the US a sponsor of terror?
| Quote | | Is the conjecture that we should not have gone in? |
So you are saying that in this case the ends justify the means? Come on, the US could have done this in several different ways, ones that would not have cost US taxpayers $166 billion (do date, expect that to rise exponentially) and would not have cost the lives of all those US soldiers. Sure, Saddam was a bad guy, no one here is arguing, but what about the scores of other countries with “brutal dictators”? Why was the whole rush to war predicated on Saddam possessing WMD’s but when none are found it suddenly becomes a humanitarian mission? I aint buying the bullsh!t the administration is shoveling!
| Quote | | Whether Iraq had WMD at the time is irrelavant, |
Spoken like a true shrub ditto-head! Before we invaded Iraq, the whole reason given by the administration was that we had to invade because Saddam had WMD's, and now it’s irrelevant?
| Quote | | Hitler's WMD was systematic extermination of a population, and it could not be allowed to continue. |
Ahem- here is a clue for you, the world had no idea what Hitler was doing with the jews until AFTER we invaded and found the camps! We did not invade Germany on a humanitarian mission, we did so because Hitler invaded and occupied most of eastern and western Europe! The US only intervened AFTER the Japanese attacked the US! Christ, a perfect example of ‘those who do not understand history are doomed to repeat it!’ Read a history book, and short of that watch the history channel to learn something!
Yes Jim, I understand why you threw that point out for discussion, and I was just responding to it and was not faulting you for pointing it out. I also agree that no matter what the fate of Saddam, there will be many people who will not be happy. I simply want to make sure that when this event is looked back onto as history, that it will be seen as a righteous act and not the political assassination that many will perceive if the US tries to rush this through. Again, this whole lack of a plan goes to show once again how ill-conceived this whole war really was!
And yes, a good point based debate is getting rare in here. Apparently if you can not win with facts or an argument based on such the rebuttal by many is simply name calling. Here is something else I noticed, ever since the capture of Saddam I have not seen a post from the minnow, are they perhaps one in the same? 
--------------
An age is called Dark, not because the light fails to shine, but because people refuse to see it.-James A. Michener
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.-Albert Einstein
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men.- Marcus Cato
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
