Heres Your Smoking Gun

[Richard G]

Am I the only one that has seen this?

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html

If true, it would certainly convince me at last.

[Reginald]

Its been posted on another thread. However Given that is effectively (if proven) sufficient evidence to let rip with everything, I cant help wondering why there seems to be no mention of it on either CNN or the BBC? If anyone can find any further data on this please post.

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by Richard G
Am I the only one that has seen this?

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,5921220%5E663,00.html

It's the first time I saw it. If it was true, it would've been shouted from the rooftops, so my money's on it being fake.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

This has only just begun to circulate. Israel wanted it kept quiet right now anyway, since the Powell speech is tomorrow.

Most of the information is already known to US and British intelligence, but the question has always been when and how to make it known. Two weeks ago Tony Snow (FOX) gave a Friday afternoon five minute brief to Sean Hannity on Hannity's national radio program. Snow mentioned that Bush was holding onto something, apparently, until the very last moment which was exceptionally hot, and which was exceptionally convincing. The material would be released, he said probably the same time the bombs dropped. The thing is, releasing the information would mean some one who gave us the information (and his family) would die for giving it to us. As the attack begins we would be sending in teams to bring out the informer(s) and his/their family, but they didn't expect the extraction teams to completely succeed.

Now comes this news that the Israelis have brought out this bodyguard and his family. I can only HOPE that this is the same source Snow was referring to. If so, we don't have to worry about that source being killed for supplying us with that sensitive information, which we already have. If not, well, we have some one else to rescue.

[Brown]

My only comment is that the photo of Hussein reminds me of the famous photo of Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung) swimming in the Yangtze River.

[Mr. Skinny]

Is the Herald Sun a reputable newspaper, or is it considered a tabloid, or matriarchial totalitarian leftist communist publication? I'm not familiar with it, sadly.

[Baggle]

I am also curious about this....Anybody know anything about this newspaper, and has the story been corroborated anywhere else? Are all of the big news agencies just feeling like being real nice to Bush and not ruining his big surprise? The evidence Powell says he will reveal sounds nothing like this. :confused:

-Baggle

[ssibal]

I saw it on rense.com last month, which leads me to believe that the story is not credible. Here is the link:
http://www.rense.com/general34/arsenal.htm

[Pyrrho]

Looks like a typical tabloid to me...

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,1658,234475,00.jpg

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by ssibal
I saw it on rense.com last month, which leads me to believe that the story is not credible. Here is the link:
http://www.rense.com/general34/arsenal.htm

Rense is not only a UFO believing nut, but is also an unabashed anti-semite. Note how he posts massive amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jew articles. With this article...to his assumed credit, he publishes it....(in a nod to fairness perhaps)....yet he can't help but append anti-Israeli commentary that he gets from his devotees who are angry that the article was posted at all.

Now, understand, this is not the first defection of a Saddam confidante from Iraq. Saddam's own son-in-law defected in 1995 and told of massive NBC programs being concealed by Iraq.

For you to assume this story is not credible has no logic. It is not the first inkling of Iraqi non-compliance. It is not enough to attempt to rebut this article,...you must also attempt to rebut this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904)

After you read that thread I'd be curious to know whether you still believe the information concerning this article is still "not credible".

Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well. :rolleyes:

In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world.

-zilla

[Brooklyn Dodger]

I don't know about the UNSC, but it looks like we have a pretty good handle on coordinates of targets in Iraq. It appears that this will be bloody, short, and will feature some use of WMDs ... ours.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
I don't know about the UNSC, but it looks like we have a pretty good handle on coordinates of targets in Iraq. It appears that this will be bloody, short, and will feature some use of WMDs ... ours.

Don't bet the rent on that. I could well imagine all hell breaking loose in the Security Council if that were to happen.

Bloody and short? I'm not so sure about that, either. Part of the force that's in place now no doubt includes Civil Affairs people, who have probably been bombarding Iraqis near the border with leaflets and the like, not to mention shortwave broadcasts (which would be necessary, given that many Iraqis from what I understand are illiterate), all of which would be suggesting strongly that it would make more sense to surrender early, rather than die late.

And as far as "short," don't forget that if we get Hussein out, we'll have to work on nation-building in the area. Not an easy task, given that Hussein has had years to build on the antipathy we generated by not only leaving him in power, but by ignoring the atrocities against the Kurds.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Rense is not only a UFO believing nut, but is also an unabashed anti-semite. Note how he posts massive amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jew articles. With this article...to his assumed credit, he publishes it....(in a nod to fairness perhaps)....yet he can't help but append anti-Israeli commentary that he gets from his devotees who are angry that the article was posted at all.

Sorry, but after so many bogus articles being printed on the site you have to doubt the credibility of whatever else is posted. I read rense.com for laughs really. Obviously there is some truth in there but you have to dig for it. With respect to the article in question, the story has been out for a long time yet has not been picked up by any major media outlets. I think that is enough to doubt its credibility.

Now, understand, this is not the first defection of a Saddam confidante from Iraq. Saddam's own son-in-law defected in 1995 and told of massive NBC programs being concealed by Iraq.

I understand but this particular defection and the information that is claimed is too big to just be ignored by the mainstream media.

For you to assume this story is not credible has no logic. It is not the first inkling of Iraqi non-compliance. It is not enough to attempt to rebut this article,...you must also attempt to rebut this (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12904)

After you read that thread I'd be curious to know whether you still believe the information concerning this article is still "not credible".

Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well. :rolleyes:

In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world.

-zilla

Hey, I have never said that Iraq was in compliance. I believe they are in non-compliance, I believe they still have banned weapons. Powell's presentation further strengthened that belief. I still do not believe, however, that they are a threat to the U.S.. But as I have said before, I have no problem with our going into Iraq and removing Saddam. That is the only way to effectively deal with him.

[DanishDynamite]

Roadtoad:Don't bet the rent on that. I could well imagine all hell breaking loose in the Security Council if that were to happen. And not just in the Security Council. IIRC, the so called "tactical" nukes have about a third the power of the Hiroshima bomb which destroyed a city. No one in world, however, will care about this detail. The only thing that will be remembered is that the US used nukes to invade a Third World country.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Roadtoad: And not just in the Security Council. IIRC, the so called "tactical" nukes have about a third the power of the Hiroshima bomb which destroyed a city. No one in world, however, will care about this detail. The only thing that will be remembered is that the US used nukes to invade a Third World country.

Yes, and I hope North Korea takes note of it.

[DanishDynamite]

Brooklyn Dodger:Yes, and I hope North Korea takes note of it. They will, and if they don't already have nukes, the pressure to make some will increase.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Brooklyn Dodger: They will, and if they don't already have nukes, the pressure to make some will increase.

I think we can handle that.

[DanishDynamite]

Brooklyn Dodger:I think we can handle that. By nuking them as well?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Brooklyn Dodger: By nuking them as well?

No. Remember Osirak?

[DanishDynamite]

Never heard of it. Enlighten me.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Never heard of it. Enlighten me.

That's was the Iraqi nuclear reactor that the Israeli's bombed in the early 1980s.

[DanishDynamite]

So your way of "handling it" would be to bomb NK's nuclear reactors and thus unleashing the second Korean War. Nice.

[c0rbin]

Wasn't that the same dude that went down in Columbia last weekend?

Allah be merciful!

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So your way of "handling it" would be to bomb NK's nuclear reactors and thus unleashing the second Korean War. Nice.

A second technique is to bomb their "million target army".

A third technique is to just tell the South Koreans that they are on their own, remove our forces from South Korea, and let others worry about it.

What is your preference?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Wasn't that the same dude that went down in Columbia last weekend?

Allah be merciful!

Yes, the Israeli astronaut was one of the pilots from the Osirak mission. You are correct!

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger


A third technique is to just tell the South Koreans that they are on their own, remove our forces from South Korea, and let others worry about it.


You know, if we cared at all about the South Koreans this might not be so good, but that's not why our troops are there. Our government is not nor has it ever been concerned about the well-being of the South Koreans, only about stopping the spread of the evil red hoard.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


You know, if we cared at all about the South Koreans this might not be so good, but that's not why our troops are there. Our government is not nor has it ever been concerned about the well-being of the South Koreans, only about stopping the spread of the evil red hoard.

Yeah, it's all about their oil.

[Doctor X]

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Sorry . . . that made me laugh . . . so is this true or should I buy a "Q" bracelet. . . .

--J.D.

[karl]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well. :rolleyes:

In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world.


Well, it didn't take long before Iraqi officials had "rebutted" every little piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented. I tend to believe Bush over Saddam, but I was disappointed -- though not surprised -- that the US didn't have anything that would "stand up in court." It's easily within the power of the US government to fake all of it if they needed to, which is what the Iraqis are saying. There is no meaningful chain of custody for the evidence, so it's essentially worthless. The conversations on the tapes could have been made by a couple of actors and a sound technician for all we know. And the problems with the satellite photos are too numerous to list. Conspiracy nuts worldwide must be having a field day.

What was the point of this? I don't see how Colin Powell could have expected to convince anyone who wasn't already firmly in his camp.

[Doctor X]

Let me field that one. . . .

Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm.

However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded.

This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important.

--J.D.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Let me field that one. . . .

Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm.

However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded.

This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important.

--J.D.

Half the time, I'm convinced no one will take action until there's a smoking crater where there used to be American troops. I'm sorry, I think France is simply looking for an excuse to avoid any action, to avoid acting like adults.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by karl


Well, it didn't take long before Iraqi officials had "rebutted" every little piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented. I tend to believe Bush over Saddam, but I was disappointed -- though not surprised -- that the US didn't have anything that would "stand up in court." It's easily within the power of the US government to fake all of it if they needed to, which is what the Iraqis are saying. There is no meaningful chain of custody for the evidence, so it's essentially worthless. The conversations on the tapes could have been made by a couple of actors and a sound technician for all we know. And the problems with the satellite photos are too numerous to list. Conspiracy nuts worldwide must be having a field day.

What was the point of this? I don't see how Colin Powell could have expected to convince anyone who wasn't already firmly in his camp.

First, I disagree about the nature of the evidence. No, it isn't that it was courtroom evidence. It was not meant to be. But it was not faked either. It will convince those who will be convinced by evidence, and those who will never be convinced will remain unconvinced.

In the United States the debate over the last few months was less over whether Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, or whether he had or was attempting to get WMDs, but whether the war on terrorism was waylaid when President Bush had been going after Osama bin Laden. Instead of going after him and Al Qaeda, we are now going after Iraq. Sec. Powell's final segment addressed this question, and it was here that people needed to be convinced. I believe this is where he did a very good job. If he did nothing else in his presentation that was worthwhile, establishing the connection between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups finally puts to an end the presumption of innocence many had given Iraq in the war on terror.

Actually, the WMD issue will be dealt with by President Bush the day the war begins. It is he, not Sec. Powell, who is the Salesman in Chief. I'm sure he will do a good job. But the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection was the one link that had eluded the US government in the debate until now, and the one thing that many Americans held out as the very thing whose absense kept them from supporting the war. Well, Sec. Powell has stated a pretty good case for that link. For all the publicity the WMD issue will get tomorrow in the news, it's the terrorist connection that is the REAL smoking gun.

[karl]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm.

However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded.

This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important.


Unfortunately, that's not the way it worked out on an international level. France, Russia and China each have the option to veto a UN resolution that supports a war against Iraq. And they are still opposed. The typical response to the evidence is just that it warrants further investigation.

France is looking for an "out" not to start a war, and they got one. The evidence wasn't beyond every reasonable doubt, which is what it would take before they approve what is effectively a death sentence for maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by karl

France is looking for an "out" not to start a war, and they got one. The evidence wasn't beyond every reasonable doubt, which is what it would take before they approve what is effectively a death sentence for maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

I can't tell you how I hope for the scenario you describe. First of all, we will go along with the UK in requesting a new UNSC resolution, despite our understanding that a new one isn't required. My hope is that it is vetoed. We will be going to war against Iraq anyway, and we will have the support of many nations as we do.

Once the dust settles it will become apparent that the UNSC, and indeed the UN itself is irrelevant. Much as the League of Nations was irrelevant in its time. Fine for small conflicts, but when something really major comes along, we see what we are seeing now.

The land on the East River can be better used as the site of the new Yankee Stadium as well as new office and apartment space. The UN can relocate its headquarters to Paris or Beijing.

[karl]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

I can't tell you how I hope for the scenario you describe. First of all, we will go along with the UK in requesting a new UNSC resolution, despite our understanding that a new one isn't required. My hope is that it is vetoed. We will be going to war against Iraq anyway, and we will have the support of many nations as we do.


Most people are convinced the US and the UK will go to war against Iraq even without UN approval, but which nations do you seriously expect will support it, apart from perhaps Israel? Voting for your side is one thing -- cheering you along when you disregard the result of the vote and go to war anyway is quite another.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by karl


Most people are convinced the US and the UK will go to war against Iraq even without UN approval, but which nations do you seriously expect will support it, apart from perhaps Israel? Voting for your side is one thing -- cheering you along when you disregard the result of the vote and go to war anyway is quite another.

You mean aside from most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt (that's right!), and most of the Middle East. Nelson Mandela will give us a raspberry, maybe, nut he might want to explain the high rate of child rape in South Africa and why GWB has to come to his rescue on AIDS. And why Mandela's relatively quiet about Zimbabwe.

In the meantime, we will have to go and do the world's work on Iraq, since the world averts it's eyes.

Oh, and that new site for Yankee Stadium is looking better and better.

[karl]

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

You mean aside from most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt (that's right!), and most of the Middle East.
...


That sounds a lot like wishful thinking. According to recent polls, 90 percent of Italians are opposed to a war against Iraq (MSNBC), and 87 percent of the Spaniards (BBC). Berlusconi and Aznar don't strike me as the kind of people who would commit political suicide.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by karl

Berlusconi and Aznar don't strike me as the kind of people who would commit political suicide.

Does Tony Blair?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

What about Australia?

[Brooklyn Dodger]

Originally posted by karl


That sounds a lot like wishful thinking. According to recent polls, 90 percent of Italians are opposed to a war against Iraq (MSNBC), and 87 percent of the Spaniards (BBC). Berlusconi and Aznar don't strike me as the kind of people who would commit political suicide.

Were these polls taken before or after the Al Qaeda cells were broken up in Spain and Italy? If these guys ignore Al Qaeda, THAT would be political suicide.

[Doctor X]

As to what the French will ultimately do, time will have to tell.

France and Russia have become a minority. What will turn opinion is that despite all of these "chances" Hussein refuses to disarm.

--J.D.

[karl]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Does Tony Blair?

The Guardian reported that (according to an ICM poll) a mere 47% of UK citizens opposed the war a couple of weeks ago. And that was the highest since last summer. A politician can live with that.

On the other hand, 81% said a new UN resolution was necessary, so it remains to be seen what Tony Blair will do if one or more of the other permanent Security Council members use their veto.

[Doctor X]

Karl:

Thanks. Chalk it up to my Economist subscription running out, but over on this side of The Puddle it seemed the numbers were much greater--particularly in his party--against war. . .

. . . that and everyone there is suicidal because Madonna moved to a warmer climate.

--J.D.

[Roadtoad]

I got this from my therapist, a retired Sacramento City Fire Captain. It's nice to have a shrink who's got a sense of humor...

The Difference Between The Liberal and Conservative "Debate" Over The War On Terrorism:

Question:
You're walking down a deserted street with your wife and two small children. Suddenly, a dangerous looking man with a huge knife comes around the corner and is running at you while screaming obscenities.

In your hand is a .357 Magnum and you are an expert shot. You have mere seconds before he reaches you and your family. What do you do?


Liberal answer:

Well that's not enough information to answer the question! Does the man look poor or oppressed? Have I ever done anything to him that is inspiring him to attack? Could we run away? What does my wife think? What about the kids? Could I possibly swing the gun like a club and knock the knife out of his hand? What does the law say about this situation? Is it possible he'd be happy
with just killing me? Does he definitely want to kill me or would he
just be content to wound me? If I were to grab his knees and hold on, could my family get away while he was stabbing me? This is all so confusing! I need to debate this with some friends for a few days to try to come to a conclusion.



Conservative Answer:

B A N G ! ! !

[Doctor X]

Actually:

BANG!

BANG!
BANG!
BANG!

BANG!
BANG!

Click, Thock, Tinkle, Swip, Thack, Cha-CHOCK!

BANG!
BANG!
BANG!

--J.D.

[Richard G]

This is the correct answer:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13257