Peter_Puget

Below is your post with the two references I was asking about. Both seem to me, and from your last response, to you as well completely nonresponsive to the Saddam/CIA question. Any references you posted after this I have not bothered to checkout. I am not sure why you posted these two here while discussing a sadaam/CIA connection since they appear to have no relation to the assertion you were making. Just spreading the "good news" I guess. PP Have you read the book I cited? No, of course not so rather than dispute the cited facts let's go to poison the well logic. This could go on all day, but rather than me listing sources you could read, why not try and do a little digging? Citation: Zwick, Jim, ed. Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935. Or "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service

Jim Quote: “I think your earlier reply was that I lost all credibility - I would encourage you do some reading - but I also noticed that you're not disputing the Saddam/CIA connection(?)” Jim – You lost credibility by referencing a book by someone I equate to a holocaust denier. What do I mean by that? Well simply that the facts you might present here on this board will not be as willingly accepted at face value as they were before your reference. Thanks for encouraging me to do more reading! I will endeavor to do so. As I have said several times I am not disputing a possible Saddam/CIA connection . Seems like it might be possible. I don’t know. I also think that conspiracy theories and a belief in shadowing organizations controlling the world are a new and I might add inferior religion often lead by former sinners who have seen the light. (maybe Blum for instance) Again I ask: Please explain how your two references help to support the CIA/Saddam connection! I notice one covers a period ended 1935. I do not believe the CIA was in existence then and Saddam was a little boy at best. The second list a series of engagement the US was involved in but specifically excludes covert actions. Reviewing the list of engagements I do not see anything in Iraq putting Saddam in power. What am I missing? PP

OW the latter! Jim - Jim Quote: That's not a logical arument, that's putting on blinders. And comparing the assertion that the CIA helped Saddam gain power with some who declare the Holocaust didn't happen is taking the low road. Here's some primary documents and another book. In addition if you go to the library and take a look at Chompsky's "Year 501" it is referenced in detail with primary sources. Also, just do a Google for news articles. It's not hard to find some facts. If you have some good sources that say this is all horseshit then we can talk about that. Otherwise it just looks like you don't want to belive what you hear. First to clarify. I never did this: “compar[ed] the assertion that the CIA helped Saddam gain power with some who declare the Holocaust didn't happen is taking the low road. “ What I did say was that Blum by denying a genocide took place in Kosovo is no different that if he was denying the Holocaust. Second – And for the umpteenth time I never stated a position on the CIAs role in Saddam taking power. Please show me where I did. Third – Please answer my questions about your two references that I made two posts ago. PP

OW - Jim suggested a book by Blum. Blum denies that there was genocide in Kosovo. I pointed that out and claimed that Blum was a kook. Jim suggested I was out to poision the well of logic. I replied that such denials of fact logically lead one to wonder about the credibility of an author's work. The issue at hand was specfically CIA putting Saddam in power. By the way I wasn't disputing this claim. I am however calling Blum a kook and believe that those reading his works should know more about him. The Gulf War is not an issue here. PP By the way I am so dense that I just realized what your intitaials stood for!

Jim Quote: Have you read the book I cited? No, of course not so rather than dispute the cited facts let's go to poison the well logic. Haven’t read it. Don’t plan to. I would ask if in your research you actually check the primary source documents yourself? I find such checking beyond my means. How do you know when you are being lied to? One way is to check out the credibility of the author. Someone who denies such well documented events is no different from someone who claims Dachau was a benign medical facility. You may say I am poisoning the well; I say the water isn’t worth drinking in the first place. Here are some pics for those interested. I chose not to post any of them directly to this thread. Photo Link - Some not pretty. PP NB - Citation: Zwick, Jim, ed. Anti-Imperialism in the United States, 1898-1935. How does this citation relate to Saddam? Just a question. How does yoru second citation support your assertion about the CIA and Saddam? Link An assertion I haven't disputed by the way.

Argh Jim you just lost all credibility. Link Blum's a kook! PP

Well not much of one at least!

Just some more thoughts on Media Bias: But first here is another reason why Columbia sucks: Professor Said: "[Al-Jazeera has shown] the resistance and anger of the Iraqi population, dismissed by Western propaganda as a sullen bunch waiting to throw flowers at Clint Eastwood lookalikes ... The idea that Iraq's population would have welcomed American forces entering the country after a terrifying aerial bombardment was always utterly implausible ... One can only wince at the way weak-minded policy hacks in the Pentagon and White House have spun out the 'ideas' of [bernard] Lewis and [Fouad] Ajami into the scenario for a quick romp in a friendly Iraq ... pity the Iraqi civilians who must still suffer a great deal more before they are finally 'liberated'." Edward Said, London Review of Books April 17 From his bio is this revealing paragraph about media. What a joke. Although he occasionally writes opinion pieces for leading American newspapers, he finds overseas publications and radio much more receptive to his critical view of events in the Middle East. He eschews the “sound bite” mentality of the American television networks, in favor of the longer pieces produced by NPR and similar radio networks abroad. He views major U.S. publications as “ideologically hostile” to his viewpoint. “I’ve lost my taste for this type of forum,” he said. Columbia Link Some headlines: "U.S. Troops Sweep Aside Hussein Rule" Washington Post "An End to 30 Years of Brutal Rule" The Guardian "Saddam Defeated Militarily" USA Today "U.S. Troops Free Iraq From Hussein's Control." LA Times "Iraqi Government Apparently Breaks Down But Fighting Persists in Parts of Capital." NYT (early edition at least) These beauties where published yesterday – the day Saddam’s Statue was toppled. Note no hedging of bets or unnamed sources just direct attributable nonesense - or perhaps just poor media. "The huge psychological victory for the coalition produced by the arrival of US tanks in front of the media centre in Baghdad has not finished off the regime, even though this coup came so soon after their shock arrival at the international airport. A compilation of the military detail in reports from journalists in Baghdad and an ear for the changing spin from Centcom gives a less victorious picture of the battle for the Iraqi capital than is shown in the media. For example, for three hours on Saturday Centcom said the US was in Baghdad to stay, not on a raid. Then, after some armoured vehicles had been damaged and some troops killed and injured, it became a raid as the troops withdrew. The selective and censored TV coverage obscures a military reality that has been neither as successful nor as difficult as it has seemed. Now, reports of total victory may be premature." Dan Plesch, Guardian "It looked grimly like that scene in A Bridge Too Far, Richard Attenborough's epic on the Arnhem disaster, in which a British officer walks slowly up the great span with an umbrella in his hand to see if he can detect the Germans on the other side. But I knew the Americans were on the other side of this bridge and drove past it at great speed. Which provided a remarkable revelation. While American fighter-bombers criss-crossed the sky, while the ground shook to the sound of exploding ordnance, while the American tanks now stood above the Tigris, vast areas of Baghdad – astonishing when you consider the American claim to be "in the heart" of the city – remain under Saddam Hussein's control." Robert Fisk, Independent J_B recommended the great site Buzzflash.com which carried at least five stories about Iraqi civilian deaths yesterday and mentioned the jubulation in Fridos Square only once in a reference titled "Ah, Yes, Democracy. Iraqis Looting and Dancing in Baghdad." It carried more stories about Haliburton and Enron than yesterday's Iraqi celebrations. Plenty of bias there. PP

Red Eye is a fun route!

The center hand crack on Fairview Crag! PP

Just had a minute to sneak in and check the poll. Hell Yes is way ahead followed by Yes. Forum! Forum! Forum! Scott – I need my cams back for the weekend! PP

Peace

Ah another skier!

Keep spreading the love! Let's Go Climbing! PP

And by the way Erik, did you vote "Hell yes"?

Well It really just a saying. Trying to raise team spirits get weveryone off the war stuff and back to the rock stuff!

That is where I draw the line!

Thanks for the thoughtful reply Syz! But you are wrong this idea What are you a skier? Let's Go Climbing! PP

Of course there is always FOX Balanced and unafraid: Taken from their webpage moments ago! Iraqi civilians are rising up against Saddam Hussein's militia in Baghdad and Basra

J-B thanks for the following: Quote from J-B reference: To conclude: Remember the following first rule of disinformation analysis: truth is specific, lie is vague. Always look for palpable details in reporting and if the picture is not in focus, there must be reasons for it. Hopefully the BBC will read your post as well! They seem to just be outright telling lies! , Gilligan had told World Service listeners that he was there, at the airport - but the Americans weren’t. Gilligan inferred that the Americans were lying. An hour or two later, a different BBC correspondent pointed out that Gilligan wasn’t at the airport, actually. He was nearby - but apparently far enough away that the other correspondent felt it necessary to mention that he didn’t really know if Gilligan was around, but that no matter what Gilligan had seen or not seen, the airport was firmly and obviously in American hands. It was important to the BBC that Gilligan not be wrong twice in two days. Whatever the truth was, the BBC, like Walter Duranty’s New York Times, must never say, "I was wrong." So, despite the fact that the appearance of American troops in Baghdad was surely one of the war’s big moments, and one the BBC had obviously missed, American veracity became the story of the day. Gilligan, joined by his colleagues in Baghdad, Paul Wood and Rageh Omaar, kept insisting that not only had the Americans not gone to the "center" - which they reckoned to be where they were - they hadn’t really been in the capital at all. Both Omaar and Wood told listeners that they had been on hour-long Iraqi Ministry of Information bus rides - "and," said Wood, "we were free to go anywhere" -yet they had seen nothing of an American presence in the city. From Qatar, a BBC correspondent helpfully explained that US briefings, such as that announcing the Baghdad incursion, were meaningless exercises, "more PR than anything else." Maybe, implied the World Service, the Americans had made it all up: all day long, Wood repeatedly reported that there was no evidence to support the American claim. Yawn…

No chat until you vote in the super important poll!

A forum dedicated to rock climbing both traditional and sport and bouldering. Heck the Town Walls appear in at least three different forums. The same with Darrington and Leavenworth. Imagine what a great forum it would be……Smith.. Squamish….Index…..Aid climbing….bouldering all in one place! Why heaven would be its name! PP

I'll have to look up the exchange rate to convert your vote to the US system!