Looks like those who thought the WMD had been smuggled out of Iraq now have
something more than a hunch to go on.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...06 0215c.html

And it seems there is new evidence of Saddam having ties to terrorists.

"The documents also demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard
gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer
of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were
not present in Iraq. The papers showed that Iraq trained dozens of
terrorists inside its borders."

From: - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 12:37 pm
Email:

Um, nob, here's how you do it:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20060202a.html

A second-hand account which has never come up before even though the
author served as spokesman for the US-backed interim PM just when
bushie and crew need to shore up Iraq support seems just a bit suspect.
I'd say that it would be stupid to swallow this one whole.

Don't you agree?

And since when does heresay qualify as 'evidence?'

On Thu, 16 Feb 2006 18:37:43 GMT, wrote:


Looks like those who thought the WMD had been smuggled out of Iraq now have
something more than a hunch to go on.

take it to a newsgroup that cares

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 12:37 pm
Email:

Um, nob, here's how you do it:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialRe...20060202a.html

Um, Shhhhhit, I did it the way I wanted it done. You do it any way you
want, but you have shifted to a different topic entirely. I'm ponting to
recordings and you are pointing to hearsay.
Why?

A second-hand account which has never come up before even though the
author served as spokesman for the US-backed interim PM just when
bushie and crew need to shore up Iraq support seems just a bit suspect.
I'd say that it would be stupid to swallow this one whole.

Don't you agree?


I'd say if the rcordings are genuine and the voices confirmed, then it is to
be believed, don't you agree?

And since when does heresay qualify as 'evidence?'

Since when do the actual words of the person in question, not constitute
evidence?

The claim is that there exists recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing ways
to attack America with weapons of mass destruction. There is confirmation
that it is in fact his voice

From:
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 1:58 pm
Email:

Um, Shhhhhit, I did it the way I wanted it done. You do it any way you
want, but you have shifted to a different topic entirely. I'm ponting to
recordings and you are pointing to hearsay.
Why?

Because only the site that you posted calls it a 'smoking gun?' Because
you mislead with your statement, "The claim is that there exists
recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with
weapons of mass destruction?" Because this is still heresay, until the
tapes are aired? Because you are treating this as fact, when it is
anything but fact at this point? Because the site you posted is not
what one could consider mainstream media? Because you have an obvious
agenda? And finally, because the link I posted was the only one on the
homepage of cnsnews that pertained (yours was buried at the very
bottom)?

Other than that, I had no justification whatsoever.

Here's a little more 'fair and balanced' look at this story:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11299205/site/newsweek/

http://www.nysun.com/article/27110

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=11307

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184237,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185029,00.html

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From:
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 1:58 pm
Email:

Um, Shhhhhit, I did it the way I wanted it done. You do it any way you
want, but you have shifted to a different topic entirely. I'm ponting to
recordings and you are pointing to hearsay.
Why?

Because only the site that you posted calls it a 'smoking gun?' Because
you mislead with your statement, "The claim is that there exists
recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America with
weapons of mass destruction?"

I mislead nobody. I simply titled the thread WMD again. The topic has been
discussed before and now AGAIN, get it.

Because this is still heresay, until the
tapes are aired?

Do doubt the tapes will be aired?

Because you are treating this as fact, when it is
anything but fact at this point?

It is a fact that the tapes exist.

Because the site you posted is not
what one could consider mainstream media?

It was the first one that came up when I searched.
There are many others that discuss the topic, and Nightline is not exactly a
secret.

Because you have an obvious
agenda?

Learning the truth?

And finally, because the link I posted was the only one on the
homepage of cnsnews that pertained (yours was buried at the very
bottom)?

Funny I thought the one I posted pertained to the one I posted, which is why
I posted it.

Other than that, I had no justification whatsoever.

Figures. Misdirection is not your forte.

Here's a little more 'fair and balanced' look at this story:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/11373537/

I didn't sya they prove he had them, only that Saddam's government
possessed mustard
gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer
of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were
not present in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11299205/site/newsweek/

http://www.nysun.com/article/27110

Note the confirmation of the confirmation of the voice of Saddam.

http://www.kurdmedia.com/articles.asp?id=11307

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,184237,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185029,00.html

Wow! You went to Fox News? I'm stunned. Will you be OK?

From: - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 3:15 pm
Email:

Wow! You went to Fox News? I'm stunned. Will you be OK?

Um, because even *they* were more guarded in their reporting of it than
the source you quoted?

Note that even *they* did not call these tapes a 'smoking gun.'

And further note your 'misdirection' on stating that "Looks like those
who thought the WMD had been smuggled out of Iraq now have something
more than a hunch to go on. " Yeah. Heresay.

And your further misdirection stating that "The claim is that there
exists recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America
with weapons of mass destruction?"

Yeah, *I'm* the one who misdirects. LOL!

wrote:

Looks like those who thought the WMD had been smuggled out of Iraq now have
something more than a hunch to go on.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.as...06 0215c.html

And it seems there is new evidence of Saddam having ties to terrorists.........

" The New York Sun reported that the tapes have been authenticated " !!!!!

Now just who is in a postion to 'authenticate' these tapes ?

Graham

wrote:

I'd say if the rcordings are genuine and the voices confirmed, then it is to
be believed, don't you agree?

And how can it be shown that the voices are genuine ?

And since when does heresay qualify as 'evidence?'

Since when do the actual words of the person in question, not constitute
evidence?

The claim is that there exists recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing ways
to attack America with weapons of mass destruction. There is confirmation
that it is in fact his voice

As opposed to an actor ? This sounds like ********.

Graham

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 3:15 pm
Email:

Wow! You went to Fox News? I'm stunned. Will you be OK?

Um, because even *they* were more guarded in their reporting of it than
the source you quoted?

Note that even *they* did not call these tapes a 'smoking gun.'

And further note your 'misdirection' on stating that "Looks like those
who thought the WMD had been smuggled out of Iraq now have something
more than a hunch to go on. " Yeah. Heresay.

And your further misdirection stating that "The claim is that there
exists recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America
with weapons of mass destruction?"

Yeah, *I'm* the one who misdirects. LOL!

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...
From: - view profile
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 3:15 pm
Email:

Wow! You went to Fox News? I'm stunned. Will you be OK?

Um, because even *they* were more guarded in their reporting of it than
the source you quoted?

Note that even *they* did not call these tapes a 'smoking gun.'

And further note your 'misdirection' on stating that "Looks like those
who thought the WMD had been smuggled out of Iraq now have something
more than a hunch to go on. " Yeah. Heresay.

And your further misdirection stating that "The claim is that there
exists recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing ways to attack America
with weapons of mass destruction?"

Yeah, *I'm* the one who misdirects. LOL!

See what you say after the tapes have been played.

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I'd say if the rcordings are genuine and the voices confirmed, then it is
to
be believed, don't you agree?

And how can it be shown that the voices are genuine ?

And since when does heresay qualify as 'evidence?'

Since when do the actual words of the person in question, not constitute
evidence?

The claim is that there exists recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing
ways
to attack America with weapons of mass destruction. There is
confirmation
that it is in fact his voice

As opposed to an actor ? This sounds like ********.

There really is voice print technology.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/voice/

ScottW

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in message
oups.com...

Yeah, *I'm* the one who misdirects. LOL!

Here's a little misdirection. A brief look at many of the legal angles on
the NSA discussion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0602161544.asp

ScottW

ScottW wrote:

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


wrote:

I'd say if the rcordings are genuine and the voices confirmed, then it is
to
be believed, don't you agree?

And how can it be shown that the voices are genuine ?

And since when does heresay qualify as 'evidence?'

Since when do the actual words of the person in question, not constitute
evidence?

The claim is that there exists recordings of Saddam Hussein discussing
ways
to attack America with weapons of mass destruction. There is
confirmation
that it is in fact his voice

As opposed to an actor ? This sounds like ********.

There really is voice print technology.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/forensics/voice/

A don't believe a spectrogram can prove it's Saddam.

Any more than I believe that the techies in CSI can enlarge the reflected image
in a person's eyeball to get a perfect pic of the killer.

There's science and then there's 'fake science'.

Graham

"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...


There's science and then there's 'fake science'.


This isn't about pcabx.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 7:33 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Here's a little misdirection.

Thanks for being honest about it.

A brief look at many of the legal angles on the NSA discussion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0602161544.asp

It was nice of them to throw in a couple of token Dems. Makes it look
better.

Biographies- Board of Directors

Steve Forbes
Board Member
CEO Forbes Magazine

Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
Board Member

Jack Kemp
Chairman

Distinguished Advisors

Judge Louis J. Freeh
Sen. Joseph Lieberman
Newt Gingrich
R. James Woolsey

Board of Advisors

Gary Bauer
Charles Jacobs
Donna Brazile
Charles Krauthammer
Rep. Eric Cantor
Bill Kristol
Rep. Eliot Engel
Hon. Richard D. Lamm
Rep. Mark Foley
Rep. Jim Marshall
Frank Gaffney
Sen. Zell Miller
Amb. Marc Ginsberg
Richard Perle
Rep. J.D. Hayworth
Sen. Charles E. Schumer

From: ScottW
Date: Thurs, Feb 16 2006 7:33 pm
Email: "ScottW"

Here's a little misdirection.

Thanks for being honest about it.

A brief look at many of the legal angles on the NSA discussion.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0602161544.asp

It was nice of them to throw in a couple of token Dems. Makes it look
better.

Biographies- Board of Directors

Steve Forbes
Board Member
CEO Forbes Magazine

Dr. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick
Board Member

Jack Kemp
Chairman

Distinguished Advisors

Judge Louis J. Freeh
Sen. Joseph Lieberman
Newt Gingrich
R. James Woolsey

Board of Advisors

Gary Bauer
Charles Jacobs
Donna Brazile
Charles Krauthammer
Rep. Eric Cantor
Bill Kristol
Rep. Eliot Engel
Hon. Richard D. Lamm
Rep. Mark Foley
Rep. Jim Marshall
Frank Gaffney
Sen. Zell Miller
Amb. Marc Ginsberg
Richard Perle
Rep. J.D. Hayworth
Sen. Charles E. Schumer