Re: Telco Hand-Off of Call Data to Israeli Company?

["Brian Loe" <knobdy () gmail com>]

On 5/18/06, Michael Graham <jmgraham () gmail com> wrote:
> I'm sorry, but some of this is just too uninformed to let go.

I'm sure you will inform all of us - you having been there and all...


> 1.  The UN inspectors whose job is was to know what Iraq was or wasn't
> hiding did not believe that Iraq had significant stores of anything worth
> worrying about.

F* the UN, one. They have no credibility - and lots of reasons for not
wanting us to enter Iraq, as did Russia, China, France and Germany.
You talk a good game of following the money but don't do it so well
yourself.

Second, the UN was NEVER allowed complete access to Iraq.

Third, most of our intelligence was coming from a top-level cabinet
informant. It wasn't just Saddam boasting publicly, it was Saddam
boasting to his cabinet!

> 2. Iraq never supported Al Queada.

You've stated as fact that which no other intelligence agency has been
able to establish. Good for you. <chuckle>

I never stated they DID have anything to do with Al Queada - as a
re-reading of my comments would show you. However, "the enemy of my
enemy is my friend". 'Nuff said.

I wasn't trying to mislead by mentioning the suicide bomber support
either, I was merely pointing out that the tactics they were willing
to employ (Saddam and AQ) were not all that different.

Further, it should be pointed out that AQ isn't necessarily even the
group that carried out the attacks on 9/11 - but simply supported Bin
Laden's group who did. AQ was, when the world finally shined a light
into their vile corner of the world, a "government" controlling SOME
of Afghanistan.

> 3.  The Atta meeting was conclusively proven to be a non-starter.  Basically
> "OK what do you know?  OK here's what I know.  OK let's not work together."
> Again, common enemies do not always make friends.

Like I said, "what about it?"

> 4.  Yellowcake?  You cannot be serious.

Why can't I?

> 5.  Um, Salman Pak? Again, this shows that you are either completely
> uninformed or being deliberately misleading.

That's a pretty stupid remark - considering I didn't make a comment on it.

> 6.  What?  I can't even being to refute something that stupid.  Provide a
> source.

Source for what - who the hell are you replying to?!

> 7. Again.  Source please.

Yeah, really...


> I'd like to leave this whole "LOL Fox news more like FAUX NEWS, am I right?"
> conversation with the following:
> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ04Ak01.html (and
> multiple various other sources for the same info abound).
>
> Basically, the more you watch Fox news as a primary news source, the more
> likely you are to be massively misinformed about multiple vectors of the
> whole Iraq/Saddam/WMD thing.

Dumbest friggin' thing I've ever heard. So, 60% of the population
watches FNC. 80% of the people are stupid, disinclined to pay that
much attention to all aspects of a story, or don't have the time to
stay up to speed beyond a sound bite. Whats the cause of them being
"misled" again?

Again, show me where they've done such a crappy job of covering a
story as their peers (CNN, NYT), or failing that, a story that is
lopsided and obviously favoring Bush. The stories on their site stay
around forever, surely someone with all your knowledge can find at
least one.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.