TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I've been saying this all along
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I've been saying this all along - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Quote:
And I quote:

Funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
And does another simple search explain the foundation and where it's money comes from? Too many studies have been tainted with funding from questionable sources. Finding the money has stymied seasoned reporters, so I think simple searches are not so simple. I don't think my question has been answered by quoting the obvious.
post #32 of 45
Thread Starter 
Well, I guess one could say that about anything. I answered your question.
Maybe you can dig and see where they got their money to fund the research.
So, we should never believe any research? I would think Harvard is a pretty respectable, prestigious University that could be believed most likely.

But people believe what they want to believe so I guess researchers at Harvard would seem suspect if you don't WANT to believe what they are saying anyway. But people believe Al Gore about Global Warming, LOL.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
So, we should never believe any research?
I believe we should question all research and resulting studies. We need to use critical thinking skills when reading them and not automatically accepting them as true, irregardless of the source.
post #34 of 45
Thread Starter 
Perhaps you can post some research showing this isn't true.
LOL, you edited your post.
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
But people believe Al Gore about Global Warming, LOL.
Yes, lots of people do. By your own argument of `so, we should never believe any research?' are you saying that we should only believe it if it fits in with our personal ideologies? Or are you saying that even research that seems distasteful to us should be considered? I would hope you are saying the latter, but it seems you are saying the former.
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I love the History Channel and the programs on Sadaam were the truth, so what's the problem with them?
Part of the problem is that in the time just after 9/11, people were (rightfully so) riled up and ready to go after whoever was responsible for the attacks.

It seemed to me that the president had a personal agenda to get Saddam Hussein because "That guy tried to kill my dad!" He was very quick to tie S. Hussein to the 9/11 attacks in support of his "War on Terror" by playing on the public's reaction to the attacks. (Recall the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq.)

Declaring a war on extreme Islamic orgs is one thing, but using fear-mongering (threats of nuclear weapons which did not exist) to rally support for the war is something else. IMO, there was a purposeful misinformation going on there.
post #37 of 45
Thread Starter 
LOL,Bush didn't tie Saddam to 9-11, that is liberal misinformation.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9659C8B63

I read some of what the FBI agent that spent hours every day for months with Saddam said and that idiot Saddam did everything he could to make us and Iran think he had WMD. EVERYONE thought he had them, all the Democratic politicians (who, incidentally, voted to go to War with Iraq) and even his own Scientists who defected and told us the same thing



Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
Part of the problem is that in the time just after 9/11, people were (rightfully so) riled up and ready to go after whoever was responsible for the attacks.

It seemed to me that the president had a personal agenda to get Saddam Hussein because "That guy tried to kill my dad!" He was very quick to tie S. Hussein to the 9/11 attacks in support of his "War on Terror" by playing on the public's reaction to the attacks. (Recall the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq.)

Declaring a war on extreme Islamic orgs is one thing, but using fear-mongering (threats of nuclear weapons which did not exist) to rally support for the war is something else. IMO, there was a purposeful misinformation going on there.
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by jean-ji View Post
Set aside all the rhetoric and politics for a few minutes and ask this first:
Who funded the money for this research? That can tell more of a story than anything written in some of these studies.
bottom line is that this war makes those private companies who are funded by our government very, very rich......
post #39 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
bottom line is that this war makes those private companies who are funded by our government very, very rich......

LOL, Nice spin, are you a politician?
post #40 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
LOL,Bush didn't tie Saddam to 9-11, that is liberal misinformation.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...5AC0A9659C8B63

I read some of what the FBI agent that spent hours every day for months with Saddam said and that idiot Saddam did everything he could to make us and Iran think he had WMD. EVERYONE thought he had them, all the Democratic politicians (who, incidentally, voted to go to War with Iraq) and even his own Scientists who defected and told us the same thing
LOL? I don't see anything funny about Saddam Hussein, 9/11, or media misinformation.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...eda/index.html
(Is CNN liberal media?)

Many U.S. scientists did not believe that Iraq had WMDs. He would have needed quite a large accelerator for nuclear weapons, and it would not have taken extensive searches to detect such an accelerator?

My point is that any mention of a connection between Hussein and Al-Qaeda, was misleading. Why bring it up at all? The president doesn't have the best speaking skills, but he needs to be careful when he says things like the following:

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda."

Many Americans still believe that Hussein had a hand in the September 11 attacks. I find it embarrassing that my fellow Americans would have their head in the sand about an issue that directly affects all of us.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n3253552.shtml
post #41 of 45
Thread Starter 
I see CNN even admits Bush said that Saddam wasn't involved in 9-11.
Saddam was a terrorist, he paid off the families of suicide bombers that killed innocent men, women and children in Israel.

The LOL, was in regards to your post, not 9-11 or Saddam.
post #42 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
I see CNN even admits Bush said that Saddam wasn't involved in 9-11.
Saddam was a terrorist, he paid off the families of suicide bombers that killed innocent men, women and children in Israel.

The LOL, was in regards to your post, not 9-11 or Saddam.
Yes, the question was not whether Bush said Saddam was or wasn't involved in 9/11.
It's that he mixed up the issues of Hussein, Iraq, and Al-Qaeda by discussing them all in the same forum. This resulted in Americans believing that Hussein had something to do with 9/11. The president should have clearly stated from the beginning that his gripe was with Islamic extremists, not necessarily those involved in 9/11. Some people might feel differently about the war in Iraq if they understood that Iraq was not behind the 9/11 attacks.

Many people believe that Iraq was behind 9/11- that's my point. Plain and simple. It has nothing to do with anything else.
post #43 of 45
Thread Starter 
In this post you say "He was very quick to tie S. Hussein to the 9/11 attacks"
I just posted disputing that with back-up is all.

Please, 9-11 had happened. Saddam violating 17 UN Resolutions had happened. If people got that mixed up, that is their fault. I didn't get it mixed up, did you? People are mixed up alot of the time anyway.

The president's "gripe" is with Islamic extremists, ALL of them. The ones that perpetrated 9-11, the ones that bombed the WTC in 1993 and the ones that bombed the USS Cole, shall I go on?
If people believe that Iraq was behind 9-11, Bush shouldn't be blamed, the people in question need to get better informed. But I understand what you are saying now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
Part of the problem is that in the time just after 9/11, people were (rightfully so) riled up and ready to go after whoever was responsible for the attacks.

It seemed to me that the president had a personal agenda to get Saddam Hussein because "That guy tried to kill my dad!" He was very quick to tie S. Hussein to the 9/11 attacks in support of his "War on Terror" by playing on the public's reaction to the attacks. (Recall the so-called "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq.)

Declaring a war on extreme Islamic orgs is one thing, but using fear-mongering (threats of nuclear weapons which did not exist) to rally support for the war is something else. IMO, there was a purposeful misinformation going on there.
post #44 of 45
Thread Starter 
Here is a good article on some Iraq-Saddam - Al-Queda connections.

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdoc...0407211107.asp
post #45 of 45
Thread Starter 
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams031908.php3

Very thought provoking article.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080330/..._cia_hayden_dc

On yahoo news today. Great, I suppose this is just fear mongering though and nothing to be concerned about.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › I've been saying this all along