Iraqi 9/11 connection validated in court case
- Thread starter bulldog
- Start date
bulldog said:
No it is not possible that the judge is right, because the intelligence community would have reported those claims by now, and the mainstream media would have spanked it hard...that has not happened, so the only logical explanation can be that the Bushies made that shit up so that they had just one more bullshit reason to go to war...
...and as to setting a precedent...that would never happen now, because the evidence does not support the claim...in fact, if enough people bitched about it, an Appellate Court should overturn that decision...
bulldog said:
It's not null and void. nobody said that. Unlike many other systems of justice, the American System of Justice distinguishes between criminal and civil cases. The more well-known distinction between a criminal case and a civil case is probably the levels of the burden of proof.
In a civil case, the plaintiff (the party who initiated the law suit) has to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidences, i.e., more than 50%. In a criminal case, the government has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
And in this case the government did not present any evidence, the plaintiff did. See the difference?
RE: Iraqi 9/11 connection
Well what kind of ruling would you expect from a judge in New York anyways? He has no credibility. If it was an International judge who was not bias, it would be worth listening too. The fact that Cnn, ABC,NBC,CBS or Faux News never covered it, should tell you something. Faux news would be in its glory for a story like this.
Well what kind of ruling would you expect from a judge in New York anyways? He has no credibility. If it was an International judge who was not bias, it would be worth listening too. The fact that Cnn, ABC,NBC,CBS or Faux News never covered it, should tell you something. Faux news would be in its glory for a story like this.
:-| Not to mention that if a Judges decision was right and infalliable, then why his it that there are many false convictions and people jailed while innocent.
I'm willing to bet if the ruling had any wings to fly on, the mass media & gov't would be all over it like a fat kid on a smartie and it would've been their mantra to repeat over and over for the last couple years. Strange enough they've been quiet on the subject. Even the Gov't.
I'm willing to bet if the ruling had any wings to fly on, the mass media & gov't would be all over it like a fat kid on a smartie and it would've been their mantra to repeat over and over for the last couple years. Strange enough they've been quiet on the subject. Even the Gov't.
Jo Canadian said:
I don't think you are understanding the civil case suit Jo. It's the same thing when a woman spilled hot coffee on her and sued McDonalds and won.
This is another example of civil lawsuits:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/09/national/main572343.shtml
Bulldog, that is another bullshit link you posted up there. That story in that blog comes from guess who :roll: :roll: :roll: It comes from these Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff. Bwhahahhahahahhaahhaha. You cannot be serious 8O 8O Right wing lying zealots...
I think not said:
Yes, I remember hearing about those situations. As useful as civil suits may be, it seems that many people take advantage of them to play dirty.
:lol: Speaking of the McDonalds, here's a bunch of Stupid lawsuits that are on par with old coffee crotch.
These two I find the most amusing:
Too hot to handle
You think you would know when to stop!...Dumbass
peapod said:
Excuse me, but this is nothing to sneeze at: "The court awarded plaintiffs $104 million based on the Baer's findings."
AND, I found the court ruling, which was accurately reported in the blog. So you are calling the US court's decision bullshit?
Mog posts a blog, and it's the WORD OF GOD. I post a court link and it's bullshit. What's going on here?
Bull Dog
bulldog said:
You know, a good rule of thumb is to second guess info whether it's from a blog or a news outlet. It really depends on the amount it's been circulated, reported, and researched.
In the case of a US court finding the Missing link, if it had any significance for war that article would have been regurgitated time and time again by the whitehouse and it's news outlets. Instead the article hides in the deep bowles of the internet in some forgotten corner.
If a court in Iran ruled that the US is actually the Great Satan, does it really make it so? In this case courts are arbitrary, it's all on who believes what the most, whether it's true or not. Which is an unfortunate but popular mode of modern politics.
Blog posts, whether yours or Mogs, or anyone elses including my own, may have the ring of truth but exaggeration may make it questionable. It seems the left and the right like to use exageration to get the point across, but since the right seems to successfully buy & control the mainstream media, it's much easier to raise an eyebrow when they proclaim something to be true...or false.
Bulldog, I am not talkin about if its true or not, I am talking about the links you post, they are relgious zealots neo cons. Can't you find any legitmate links?? Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff are nothing but a bunch of lairs best at distorting the truth. Ist cousin to that sicko Jerry fawell. We are just posting our opinions here, don't take it so personally. That picture is cruel, Its amazing the theatre that goes on around here :? :?
peapod said:
How about the National Review as a source? None of you will acknowledge a New York court case. The National Review is a respected news source, and I will not take bullshit for an answer.
Nor hogwash - anything like that. If you have something to reply about - make it meaningful. I am really trying hard to provide a look at the other side of the story.
The Day That Binds
The September 11 attacks were so important and so horrific that they never should be mentioned again. That at least seems to be the position of the Left and establishment media. Images of the planes hitting the towers on that day have been all but banned from the public airwaves. And the president of the United States cannot mention 9/11 when explaining the stakes in a fight against jihadists supported by Osama bin Laden in Iraq without prompting howls of outrage. Bush was absolutely justified in invoking repeatedly Sept. 11 and the fight against terrorism in his speech from Fort Bragg Tuesday night. Let's count the ways.
There never would have been an Iraq war without 9/11, which drastically reduced the country's tolerance for a hostile Arab who had sought weapons of mass destruction before and was likely to do so again.
Saddam's regime had a web of connections to Islamic extremists and terrorists, as explained by Andy McCarthy elsewhere on NRO.
Foreign jihadists are now pouring into Iraq to fight on behalf of Abu Zarqawi, who has explicitly allied himself with Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. The case for a connection between the Iraq war and the sort of terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 is — sadly — stronger than ever.
Bin Laden himself has, as Bush noted Tuesday night, called the Iraq war a crucial front in the war on terror. He has said that the war will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”
If we lose in Iraq, a Sunni rump state could emerge that would provide a haven for terrorists, the same way Afghanistan provided a haven for the 9/11 terrorists.
If we fail in Iraq, it will be a blow to America's prestige. One reason the terrorists struck on 9/11 is that they thought America was weak and making it bleed would prompt it to abandon its allies in the Middle East. The signal of weakness sent by a loss in Iraq wouldn't placate our enemies, but invite more attacks.
“The war on terror began
in earnest on 9/11.”
Supporters of a radical Islamic ideology struck American on 9/11. The war on terror is not a fight against a tactic (as the name falsely suggests), but against that ideology. The appeal of an ideology ebbs and flows with perceptions of its success. Communism advanced in the third world after its victory in Vietnam. The Islamists would get a similar boost if they were to prevail in Iraq.
Competing interpretations of Islam are at war in Iraq — that of Aytollah Sistani, who says Islam is compatible with democracy, and that of Zarqawi, who believes like bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers that Islam is a religion of violence. It is imperative that Sistani win out.
Islamic extremists justifiably fear a Middle East that turns away from radicalism and anti-Americanism. Victory in Iraq will be a step toward that goal.
In short, not only was it defensible for Bush to talk of 9/11 Tuesday night, it would be impossible for him to make the case for the Iraq war without reference to it. The war on terror began in earnest on that day, and Iraq is properly understood as a front in that larger, necessary war. — The Editors
* * *
URL: http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200506291143.asp
Bull Dog
Doesn't take a rocket scientist mentality to figure out that bush would tie the Iraq invasion with 9-11.....even obliquely or by inference. There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11 BEFORE he invaded. After he invaded , the destabilized nation became an invite to terrorist training camps and groups. All bush is doing is using spin and justifying his actions by the circumstances he created. He uses a verbal hall of mirrors that only distorts the issue more than before. deception and disinformation and spin.
( ps. Bd. the photo you posted reflects poorly on you
Ocean Breeze said:
Doesn't take a rocket scientist mentality to figure out that bush would tie the Iraq invasion with 9-11.....even obliquely or by inference. There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11 BEFORE he invaded. After he invaded , the destabilized nation became an invite to terrorist training camps and groups. All bush is doing is using spin and justifying his actions by the circumstances he created. He uses a verbal hall of mirrors that only distorts the issue more than before. deception and disinformation and spin.
( ps. Bd. the photo you posted reflects poorly on you
Yeah, right. The photo was explained - it was the way I felt.
Like this forum had a gun on me if I made a move. See, you just did it again. If you would take your head out of Mogzilla's arse long enough, you might come to your senses.
Bull Dog
OFF TOPICbulldog said:Ocean Breeze said:
Doesn't take a rocket scientist mentality to figure out that bush would tie the Iraq invasion with 9-11.....even obliquely or by inference. There was no connection between Iraq and 9-11 BEFORE he invaded. After he invaded , the destabilized nation became an invite to terrorist training camps and groups. All bush is doing is using spin and justifying his actions by the circumstances he created. He uses a verbal hall of mirrors that only distorts the issue more than before. deception and disinformation and spin.
( ps. Bd. the photo you posted reflects poorly on you
Yeah, right. The photo was explained - it was the way I felt.
Like this forum had a gun on me if I made a move. See, you just did it again. If you would take your head out of Mogzilla's arse long enough, you might come to your senses.
Bull Dog
bulldog said:
Well, I'm not giving up even though I feel a bit like the dog in this picture. Is that the Rev's wallet?
Bull Dog
:lol: When I saw the picture I was looking for the caption about "Read the links or the puppy gets it!".
But that wasn't the caption. It's pretty good though.
:-| Let's not forget that Bin Laden himself had said this quite some time after 9/11, in fact he said it after the invasion of Iraq. At the time he did say it (I believe it was the October suprise message) Iraq was a crucial front on this war on terror because Bushs actions has lined up many disgruntled people into the ranks of Those Against Him. But between the Invasion of Iraq and 9/11, BL had not mentioned anything besides the usual rethoical threats about the Great satan and stuff like that.
:roll: So tecnically Bushs statement from Tuesday doesn't fly because when he did invade, Bin Laden had said no such thing Prior to that in regards to Ay-Rak at all. Bush is slick that way, because he's quoting things that were said that conflict with the Timeline of events....And most people are buying it.
:? It seems the collective Western memory is becoming as short lived as the top 20 in music.
