Senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader held

[Chupacabra]

Saw this yesterday (Wednesday) morning... didn't figure it'd be posted on here. Here goes it:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/07/18/iraq.capture/index.html

[Chupacabra]

Commence with the typical "okay so now #2 will step up and fill the void" or "was he carrying his al Queda card" or "so what bush is an idiot" or etc etc etc.

[freak6]

They had him since July 4th.

I wonder why the announced that they caught him the day the NIE came out stating ver batim that the OCCUPATION of IRAQ is

KILLING OUR TROOPS IN AN EFFORT THAT IS

HELPING AL QAEDA!!!!!!

[Bronco Bob]

Yes, it is rather odd that the guy was caught two weeks ago and the Bush
administration is just now getting around to announcing it, on the heels
of a report that al-Quada has regrouped and is now as strong as it was
before 9/11. But then again the most senior al-Quada in Iraq leader is killed or
captured about once an month anyway according to the Bush administration,
so maybe the announcement about this guy fell behind a filing cabinet and
no one noticed it until the cleaning lady found it again yesterday.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Yes, it is rather odd that the guy was caught two weeks ago and the Bush
administration is just now getting around to announcing it, on the heels
of a report that al-Quada has regrouped and is now as strong as it was
before 9/11. But then again the most senior al-Quada in Iraq leader is killed or
captured about once an month anyway according to the Bush administration,
so maybe the announcement about this guy fell behind a filing cabinet and
no one noticed it until the cleaning lady found it again yesterday.

Ha!

"We're at war with Eurasia. We've always been at war with Eurasia."

http://www.bartcop.com/osama-forgettin.JPG

[Spider]

Well that backfired ........ROFL!

[Spider]

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2007/07/16/tomo/story.jpg

[mosca]

Good job on capturing the guy. Here's to getting more of 'em.

[Bronco Bob]

Good job on capturing the guy. Here's to getting more of 'em.

Only next time be forthcoming about it and report it the day it happens
instead of waiting weeks until some bad news for the administration comes
out and using the capture/killing as a deflection.

[Spider]

Good job on capturing the guy. Here's to getting more of 'em.

um how do you say ooops in College republican lingo ?
http://www.intelcenter.com/audio-video/MSC-DVD-V02-Cover-200.jpg
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_says_militant_that_Iraqi_government_0719.html
US says militant that Iraqi government once 'captured' never even existed
RAW STORY
Published: Thursday July 19, 2007

Print This Email This

According to the US, an Iraqi militant that the Iraq government had previously claimed it had "captured" never even existed.

Tina Susman writes in the Thursday edition of the L.A. Times, "In March, he was declared captured. In May, he was declared killed, and his purported corpse was displayed on state-run TV. But on Wednesday, Abu Omar Baghdadi, the supposed leader of an Al Qaeda-affiliated group in Iraq, was declared nonexistent by U.S. military officials, who said he was a fictional character created to give an Iraqi face to a foreign-run terrorist organization."

"An Iraqi actor has been used to read statements attributed to Baghdadi, who since October has been identified as the leader of the Islamic State of Iraq group, said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner," the article continues. "Bergner said the new information came from a man captured July 4, described as the highest-ranking Iraqi within the Islamic State of Iraq."

Excerpts from article:
#

There was no way to confirm the military's claim, which comes at a time of heightened pressure on the White House to justify keeping U.S. troops in Iraq. Critics of the Bush administration say the president has been trying to do so by linking Bin Laden's Al Qaeda terrorist network to the conflict in Iraq, even though the organization had no substantial presence here until after the U.S.-led invasion of March 2003. "The same people that attacked us on September the 11th is the crowd that is now bombing people" in Iraq, Bush said Tuesday.

The U.S. military's announcement Wednesday was the latest bizarre twist surrounding the figure known as Baghdadi. If the Iraqi government's reaction was anything to go by, it won't be the last. Defense Ministry spokesman Mohammed Askari rejected the U.S. assertion, insisting that Baghdadi is real. "Al-Baghdadi is wanted and pursued. We know many things about him, and we even have his picture," Askari said. However, he said he could not release a photograph or additional information because it could jeopardize attempts to capture Baghdadi.

....

In March, the Iraqi government announced it had captured him, but then said that it was someone else. In May, confusion reigned when both Iraqi and U.S. officials announced the death of a high-ranking Islamic State of Iraq member. Iraqis identified the man as Baghdadi and showed a body they said was his on television. The Americans said it was someone else and they had the DNA to prove it. The Iraqis countered by insisting it was the same man, but dropped the matter. At that time, U.S. officials hinted that they had doubts about Baghdadi's existence.
#

FULL LA TIMES ARTICLE AT THIS LINK

[mosca]

um how do you say ooops in College republican lingo ?
http://www.intelcenter.com/audio-video/MSC-DVD-V02-Cover-200.jpg
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/US_says_militant_that_Iraqi_government_0719.html
US says militant that Iraqi government once 'captured' never even existed

Interesting... the article you link to is referring to the mythical Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, not the guy the U.S. recently reported capturing, Khalid al-Mashadani. Kinda funny how the Rawstory article also has a picture of the late al-Zarqawi on there for some reason. Anyway, here's another story addressing al-Baghdadi, who may have just been a media invention of al-Qaeda:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/237525 (http://www.thestar.com/News/article/237525)

Insurgents' leader never existed: U.S.

Character created by Al Qaeda in Iraq to mask foreign influence in Iraqi group, military says

BAGHDAD–For more than a year, the leader of one the most notorious insurgent groups in Iraq was said to be a mysterious Iraqi called Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

As the titular head of the Islamic State in Iraq, al-Baghdadi issued incendiary pronouncements. Despite claims by an Iraqi interior ministry official in May that al-Baghdadi had been killed, he appeared to have persevered unscathed.

Yesterday, the chief U.S. military spokesperson here, Brig.-Gen. Kevin Bergner, provided a new explanation for al-Baghdadi's ability to escape attack: He never existed.

Bergner told reporters that a senior Iraqi insurgent captured this month said the elusive Baghdadi was actually a fictional character whose declarations on audiotape were read by a man named Abu Abdullah al-Naima.

Bergner said the ruse was devised by Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born leader of the insurgent group Al Qaeda in Iraq. While the group is mostly Iraqi, much of its leadership is foreign, and al-Masri was reportedly trying to mask the outsiders' dominance.

Bergner said al-Masri's ploy was to invent al-Baghdadi, a figure whose very name was meant to establish an Iraqi pedigree, install him as the head of a front organization called the Islamic State of Iraq, and then arrange for al-Masri to swear allegiance to him.

Adding to the deception, he said, the deputy leader in Osama bin Laden's group Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, publicly supported Baghdadi in a video and Internet statements.

The captured insurgent who was said to have alerted the Americans was identified as Khalid Abdul Fatah Daoud Mahmud al-Mashadani. He was said to have been detained by U.S. forces in Mosul on July 4.

(continued at link)

[mosca]

Only next time be forthcoming about it and report it the day it happens
instead of waiting weeks until some bad news for the administration comes
out and using the capture/killing as a deflection.
If that's the reason they waited to announce it, it's detestable. I won't rule out the possibility of other, valid, reasons for delaying the announcement of his capture. Namely the fact that announcing it could affect ongoing military or intelligence operations in the field.

[Chupacabra]

Nobody knows why they waited to announce this tidbit... but I would guess because, like mosca noted, it could affect ongoing military/intelligence operations. Much like criminal investigations here in the homeland, details are often kept from the public to prevent it from interfering with the investigation. Suppose they announced the capture the day it happened. What would the captured's associates do? I would imagine they would stop operations, hideout, flee, etc. My guess, is that they would try to get as much information out of him as possible in order to hunt down his associates/superiors. Letting the news out immediately would, without a doubt, hinder the investigation.

But, then again... what you all say could be true... It could be a government coverup, witheld from the public until need be. But my question to you people, what would be the point? Would the administration not want news like this to hit the press asap to thwart the idiot conspiracy theorists and liberals who hate good news from Iraq? As you and I both know, Bush is feeling the heat on Iraq.

[Spider]

oh mosca

LOL a little slow on the uptake I see , but it proves my point , we cant trust anything we are told when it comes to Iraq .....So why should we believe the lead story ? I guess you want to believe the lead story Cause it fits your agenda , you want to believe it , desperate to have something , anything to cling to ,in hopes Bush was right ...........
thats ok we have identified your problem , In my professional opinion , we can cure you in about 20 years , with 3 days a week 1 hour sessions of therapy .....

[Chupacabra]

I know it is next to impossible for most of you to understand........ but the government/military does need to withold some information from the public in order to do maximize its performance/results.

In this case, it is rather simple. Let the news out immediately, what happens to all this guy's leads?

[Chupacabra]

oh mosca

LOL a little slow on the uptake I see , but it proves my point , we cant trust anything we are told when it comes to Iraq .....So why should we believe the lead story ? I guess you want to believe the lead story Cause it fits your agenda , you want to believe it , desperate to have something , anything to cling to ,in hopes Bush was right ...........
thats ok we have identified your problem , In my professional opinion , we can cure you in about 20 years , with 3 days a week 1 hour sessions of therapy .....

To fit my agenda...perhaps. However, it has nothing to do with Bush.

My question to you, Spider...... For what good reason would the uppers withold this story? And the "to save it for a rainy day" excuse is idiotic.

[Spider]

I know it is next to impossible for most of you to understand........ but the government/military does need to withold some information from the public in order to do maximize its performance/results.

In this case, it is rather simple. Let the news out immediately, what happens to all this guy's leads?

Grasp away http://www.bostonmamas.com/images/2006_07/straws.jpg
:rofl:

[Spider]

To fit my agenda...perhaps. However, it has nothing to do with Bush.

My question to you, Spider...... For what good reason would the uppers withold this story? And the "to save it for a rainy day" excuse is idiotic.

are you mosca ? we already know you have a bad case of Hero worship
but to answer your ?
Same reasons they held they released the Bin Laden tapes during the elections .....Counter bad news , with a ray of hope of good news .......

[Chupacabra]

My agenda is to spread the good news that comes from Iraq. I think the media doesn't report on any of the good stories that happen.

I had lunch with one of my HS buddies who just got back from Iraq. He is a sergeant in the Army. He is going back Saturday. I asked him what he thought about the media's take on the war. He leans left and made it clear that he thinks the war is pointless. But he strongly stated that the media's perception of the war undermines the mission that he and his fellow soldiers risk their lives to accomplish. He said good things are happening in Iraq and people at the homeland should know about these things.

[Spider]

My agenda is to spread the good news that comes from Iraq. I think the media doesn't report on any of the good stories that happen.

I had lunch with one of my HS buddies who just got back from Iraq. He is a sergeant in the Army. He is going back Saturday. I asked him what he thought about the media's take on the war. He leans left and made it clear that he thinks the war is pointless. But he strongly stated that the media's perception of the war undermines the mission that he and his fellow soldiers risk their lives to accomplish. He said good things are happening in Iraq and people at the homeland should know about these things.

even if it turns out to be false .......good plan

[Chupacabra]

are you mosca ? we already know you have a bad case of Hero worship
but to answer your ?
Same reasons they held they released the Bin Laden tapes during the elections .....Counter bad news , with a ray of hope of good news .......

So the "save it for a rainy day" excuse.... hmmk. I will say, the theory does have a chance. IMO, a remote chance.

And you absolutely deny the possiblity that the witholding of the story had anything to do with possible complications of military intelligence/investigation? Really? Completely deny the possibility? Are you so blinded by your partisanship that you would deny common sense?

[Spider]

So the "save it for a rainy day" excuse.... hmmk. I will say, the theory does have a chance. IMO, a remote chance.

And you absolutely deny the possiblity that the witholding of the story had anything to do with possible complications of military intelligence/investigation? Really? Completely deny the possibility? Are you so blinded by your partisanship that you would deny common sense?
LOL you may want ot reread this post and make a few changes .... but in the meantime I gave rock solid evidence of our government , using the rainy day excuse before , so tell me why it has a remote chance of working ROFL!

[Spider]

did you find the error in your post yet Chuck ?

[mosca]

oh mosca

LOL a little slow on the uptake I see , but it proves my point , we cant trust anything we are told when it comes to Iraq .....So why should we believe the lead story ? I guess you want to believe the lead story Cause it fits your agenda , you want to believe it , desperate to have something , anything to cling to ,in hopes Bush was right ...........
thats ok we have identified your problem , In my professional opinion , we can cure you in about 20 years , with 3 days a week 1 hour sessions of therapy .....
I don't trust anything coming out of Iraq blindly, whether it come from the U.S. military, the mainstream media, bloggers, or even al-Qaeda propaganda. They must all be viewed with a critical eye. What, if any, story I choose to believe has nothing to do with Bush. The truth, while often hard to discern, is the truth. If other facts come to the surface later, I have no problem saying "Oops" and acknowledging that the truth may in fact be different than what I had thought it to be earlier. A wise man sees failure as progress.

Funny that the lead story (the capture of Khalid al-Mashadani) actually supports the story that you posted (about Abu Omar al-Baghdadi being an al-Qaeda created myth). Are you questioning whether or not al-Mashadani was actually captured?

[Spider]

I don't trust anything coming out of Iraq blindly, whether it come from the U.S. military, the mainstream media, bloggers, or even al-Qaeda propaganda. They must all be viewed with a critical eye. What, if any, story I choose to believe has nothing to do with Bush. The truth, while often hard to discern, is the truth. If other facts come to the surface later, I have no problem saying "Oops" and acknowledging that the truth may in fact be different than what I had thought it to be earlier. A wise man sees failure as progress.

Funny that the lead story (the capture of Khalid al-Mashadani) actually supports the story that you posted (about Abu Omar al-Baghdadi being an al-Qaeda created myth). Are you questioning whether or not al-Mashadani was actually captured?

one is the same as another , only thing they have in common is they are all Al Qadea #2 man when we kill them or capture them , but I gave up trying to discern what is true what isnt about Iraq , the breaking point for me is when the media released a picture of a mural of 9-11 on a Iraqi hospital wall ...turned out to be a bunch of **** ..........

[mosca]

one is the same as another , only thing they have in common is they are all Al Qadea #2 man when we kill them or capture them , but I gave up trying to discern what is true what isnt about Iraq , the breaking point for me is when the media released a picture of a mural of 9-11 on a Iraqi hospital wall ...turned out to be a bunch of **** ..........
The thing that struck me as different about these stories is that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi's identity was reportedly invented by al-Qaeda, unlike some of the other guys who have reportedly been invented/exaggerated by the U.S. military.

I agree that it is very hard to figure out what's going on over there, from over here on the sidelines, especially if you're only depending on mainstream media and U.S. military reports. I know he's been mentioned before, but one of the only sources that I consider very credible is Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/). Check his stuff out, Spider, I think you'd like it. He may be pro-American in his reporting but he doesn't spin or have a political angle, just reports what he sees for the most part.

[Spider]

The thing that struck me as different about these stories is that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi's identity was reportedly invented by al-Qaeda, unlike some of the other guys who have reportedly been invented/exaggerated by the U.S. military.

I agree that it is very hard to figure out what's going on over there, from over here on the sidelines, especially if you're only depending on mainstream media and U.S. military reports. I know he's been mentioned before, but one of the only sources that I consider very credible is Michael Yon (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/). Check his stuff out, Spider, I think you'd like it. He may be pro-American in his reporting but he doesn't spin or have a political angle, just reports what he sees for the most part.

pro American ?

[mosca]

pro American ?
Well, he is ex-military and mostly covers what the U.S. military does over there, with some cooperation from the military. He doesn't embed with Iraqi insurgents and follow them around.

[Chupacabra]

did you find the error in your post yet Chuck ?

I was in a rush to get to class and very well could have errored... but I'm not seeing what you are. What is it?

[Chupacabra]

This has NOTHING to do with Bush and EVERYTHING to do with supporting the troops. I wouldn't expect more from you all then to immediately brand me as Pro Bush and leave it at that. To those who do not, who are not completely blinded by ideals, Im talking to liberals, moderates, conservatives, THANK YOU.
Supporting the troops doesn't just mean supporting redeployment. It also means acknowledging and commending the missions that they accomplish. To ignore them, or to falsify them, is to undermine and minimize the extraordinary job they are doing in this hell on earth conflict. These soldiers risk their lives EVERYDAY, EVERY time they go out on a patrol, and with EVERY mission they take on. The media's liberal bias undermines their extreme sacrifice and risk. So to all who are reading this....I ask you to take note of the good thigns that do happen in Iraq. In the same respect, there is nothing wrong with noting the bad stories as well. But DO NOT belittle our soldiers and their efforts, DO NOT ignore their successes.

Or you can just guess (as most of you do regularly) and sink to the level of gaffney.

[TheDave]

is it just me or is the the 10th time they have captured/killed the #2 guy... Just seems like there are alot of #2 guys.

[mosca]

Supporting the troops doesn't just mean supporting redeployment. It also means acknowledging and commending the missions that they accomplish. To ignore them, or to falsify them, is to undermine and minimize the extraordinary job they are doing in this hell on earth conflict. These soldiers risk their lives EVERYDAY, EVERY time they go out on a patrol, and with EVERY mission they take on. The media's liberal bias undermines their extreme sacrifice and risk. So to all who are reading this....I ask you to take note of the good thigns that do happen in Iraq. In the same respect, there is nothing wrong with noting the bad stories as well. But DO NOT belittle our soldiers and their efforts, DO NOT ignore their successes.
Agree - to me, what the troops are doing is a great human interest story, and it matters to me greatly on a personal level. I don't view it as a political thing at all, though others clearly want to view it and any discussion of what they are doing as such.

[Chupacabra]

is it just me or is the the 10th time they have captured/killed the #2 guy... Just seems like there are alot of #2 guys.

And a little pee comes out every time. :)

[mosca]

is it just me or is the the 10th time they have captured/killed the #2 guy... Just seems like there are alot of #2 guys.
You have to keep in mind that al-Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but instead has offshoots and cells in various countries. So the #2 guy in Afghanistan may not be the same as a #2 guy in al-Qaeda in Iraq.

[Spider]

I was in a rush to get to class and very well could have errored... but I'm not seeing what you are. What is it?

LOL you accused me of being so partisan but you posted this ........ http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1650951&postcount=16
Now care to tell me why the rainy day excuse is only remotely possible

[Spider]

Well, he is ex-military and mostly covers what the U.S. military does over there, with some cooperation from the military. He doesn't embed with Iraqi insurgents and follow them around.

I see , just making sure you wasnt saying Pro American = Pro Bush

[Spider]

You have to keep in mind that al-Qaeda is not a centralized organization, but instead has offshoots and cells in various countries. So the #2 guy in Afghanistan may not be the same as a #2 guy in al-Qaeda in Iraq.

LOL nice try ....... when the #2 guy gets killed ( kinda like being one of Clint Eastwoods partners in a cop movie ) they find some idiot that stupid enough to want to be #2 .................

[Bronco Bob]

LOL nice try ....... when the #2 guy gets killed ( kinda like being one of Clint Eastwoods partners in a cop movie ) they find some idiot that stupid enough to want to be #2 .................

It's like the army.
If the general gets killed they promote the colonel.
If the colonel gets killed they promote the major.
If the major gets killed they promote the captain.
If the captain gets killed they promote the lieutenant.
If the lieutenant gets killed they promote the sergeant.
If the sergeant gets killed they promote the corporal.
If the corporal gets killed they promote the private.
And there are lots of privates so there is always somebody
there to move up in the ranks.

[mosca]

I see , just making sure you wasnt saying Pro American = Pro Bush
He's not pro-Bush at all, in fact, he rarely if ever mentions Bush. He does have a few opinion articles by Joe Galloway on his site that totally lambast Bush/Cheney.

nice try ....... when the #2 guy gets killed ( kinda like being one of Clint Eastwoods partners in a cop movie ) they find some idiot that stupid enough to want to be #2 .................
That happens as well... one #2 is killed or captured, and another guy moves in to take his place. I did notice that the guy they just announced the capture of was reported to be "the most senior Iraqi in al Qaeda in Iraq." I don't know that this necessarily translates into "#2 al-Qaeda guy". Obviously they have a many senior operatives on many levels, in many different countries.

[Chupacabra]

LOL you accused me of being so partisan but you posted this ........ http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1650951&postcount=16
Now care to tell me why the rainy day excuse is only remotely possible

I accused you of being partisan, yes. Where was I partisan? Because I admitted that it fitted my agenda? Well the posts following explained my agenda and it has nothing to do with politics.

And to answer you question...Because, IMO, in comparison to other reasonable theories (such as investigation interference; took 2 weeks to ID the guy, etc.), I think the rainy day excuse isn't likely. I would think Bush couldn't wait to unleash a story as such because of the public's wide opposition to the war. It would be ammo for him.

[Spider]

I accused you of being partisan, yes. Where was I partisan? Because I admitted that it fitted my agenda? Well the posts following explained my agenda and it has nothing to do with politics.
LOL Rainy day excuse = Idiotic ..........you didnt even think it through , I have plenty more cases of Rainy day / Lying examples ......

And to answer you question...Because, IMO, in comparison to other reasonable theories (such as investigation interference; took 2 weeks to ID the guy, etc.), I think the rainy day excuse isn't likely. I would think Bush couldn't wait to unleash a story as such because of the public's wide opposition to the war. It would be ammo for him.

you are full of **** ........ now all you are doing is spin control ....... but at least you understand that when it comes to any thing positive out of Iraq true or not , you got your head up your ass ......

[Spider]

He's not pro-Bush at all, in fact, he rarely if ever mentions Bush. He does have a few opinion articles by Joe Galloway on his site that totally lambast Bush/Cheney.

That happens as well... one #2 is killed or captured, and another guy moves in to take his place. I did notice that the guy they just announced the capture of was reported to be "the most senior Iraqi in al Qaeda in Iraq." I don't know that this necessarily translates into "#2 al-Qaeda guy". Obviously they have a many senior operatives on many levels, in many different countries.

LOL would you want to be called #2 ?

[Chupacabra]

LOL Rainy day excuse = Idiotic ..........you didnt even think it through , I have plenty more cases of Rainy day / Lying examples ......



you are full of **** ........ now all you are doing is spin control ....... but at least you understand that when it comes to any thing positive out of Iraq true or not , you got your head up your ass ......

As to the first part. You are right. I didn't think it through. My rhetoric was far too harsh. The rainy day theory is not idiotic. It is plausible. However, I stand by my claim that it is highly unlikely.

The second claim you make is completely unfounded. Sometimes I wonder how you connect certain things? Where have I conceded that positive news from Iraq is anything but what I've stated it to be: Positive news that should be noted because it took an enormous amount of courage, sacrifice, and risk to secure.

And spider... if we are to continue our discussions, I would appreciate it if you cut the personal attacks and otherwise /-\sshole remarks. I expect something a long the lines of "whaa whaaa whaaa if you dont like it, put me on ignore you %@&*!" But, please...just consider it. I listen to your points and sometimes even concede my points, as good debate and discussion should produce. Therefore, I would qualify most of our discussions as productive. If you really care about these issues then you care about the people who disagree with you, so much as you would like to show them your point of view and possibly change their's. This is the essence of debate. If you don't cut the personal attacks and cursing that are unfounded, I won't continue to debate you. And you can continue preaching to the choir which in turn will produce nothing for you or your colleagues.

[Spider]

And spider... if we are to continue our discussions, I would appreciate it if you cut the personal attacks and otherwise /-\sshole remarks. I expect something a long the lines of "whaa whaaa whaaa if you dont like it, put me on ignore you %@&*!" But, please...just consider it. I listen to your points and sometimes even concede my points, as good debate and discussion should produce. Therefore, I would qualify most of our discussions as productive. If you really care about these issues then you care about the people who disagree with you, so much as you would like to show them your point of view and possibly change their's. This is the essence of debate. If you don't cut the personal attacks and cursing that are unfounded, I won't continue to debate you. And you can continue preaching to the choir which in turn will produce nothing for you or your colleagues.

I dont pull punches , if I think you are being an asshole , or you are being full of **** ..... I come right out and say so ,no sense in taking the long way around to tell someone this ........
it maybe harsh , but you know what I think , I wont lie to you saying one thing here , then slipping off into a PM and start bad mouthing you ..........
I think this is a huge problem in our society , we run around worrying about what is or isnt polite , that we wind up lying to ourselfs , to be PC ......
and in case you are wondering , I tell people to their face what I say here ,when I am on a rig site , and a roughneck starts up with talking points , I tell him he is full of **** .............. so my advice is , dont put down statements you cant answer , or account for

[Chupacabra]

I dont pull punches , if I think you are being an a-hole , or you are being full of **** ..... I come right out and say so ,no sense in taking the long way around to tell someone this ........
it maybe harsh , but you know what I think , I wont lie to you saying one thing here , then slipping off into a PM and start bad mouthing you ..........
I think this is a huge problem in our society , we run around worrying about what is or isnt polite , that we wind up lying to ourselfs , to be PC ......
and in case you are wondering , I tell people to their face what I say here ,when I am on a rig site , and a roughneck starts up with talking points , I tell him he is full of **** .............. so my advice is , dont put down statements you cant answer , or account for

We had a discussion about PC in class today. By no means am I advocating being PC. Political correctness is one of the biggest things wrong in America today. You'll never see me attack one of your ideals because I think it is out of line. I don't think any real argument is out of line. Keyword: real argument. But in a debate, there is no place for personal attacks, cussing, or anything of the sort. It just adds garbage to whatever muddled point you are trying to make in the first place. If I'm being an a-hole, tell me...but I doubt I will be. As far as being full of s***, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but it doesn't help your argument. In your post, I was really talking about the part about my head being up a horse's ass or something or another. These type of things are both ignorant and stupid, should be ignored, but they just annoy me when I'm trying to have a productive discussion. I try to understand the points that you make and look at them through clear lenses. I also try to maintain respect for the person that I'm having a debate with in order to reach some level of productivity. I'm not on here typing arguments on here just for fun... I would like to learn and perhaps even teach. I would expect you to show some sort of respect in return. Rather than cuss at me and just limit your argument to "your full of ****," you ought to try to debate the specific points/issues that are raised. You will find that you get much more out of discussion this way.

[Chupacabra]

I dont pull punches , if I think you are being an a-hole , or you are being full of **** ..... I come right out and say so ,no sense in taking the long way around to tell someone this ........
it maybe harsh , but you know what I think , I wont lie to you saying one thing here , then slipping off into a PM and start bad mouthing you ..........
I think this is a huge problem in our society , we run around worrying about what is or isnt polite , that we wind up lying to ourselfs , to be PC ......
and in case you are wondering , I tell people to their face what I say here ,when I am on a rig site , and a roughneck starts up with talking points , I tell him he is full of **** .............. so my advice is , dont put down statements you cant answer , or account for

As to you "advice." I think I clearly posted rebuttal to what you said. Care to comment further, or are you just going to ignore them and accuse me of not answering/accounting to things I have posted.

[Spider]

As to you "advice." I think I clearly posted rebuttal to what you said. Care to comment further, or are you just going to ignore them and accuse me of not answering/accounting to things I have posted.

you didnt refute **** , just gave conjecture , what you thought may have happened .......... in other words you gave an opinion based on what you think , i gave an opinion based on history and clear cut examples of it happening before ....... perhaps you should take the time to realize the difference in the 2 ....... now you stated that the rainy day excuse has a remote chance of being true , I want to know what facts you base that on , not what you think .......

[Chupacabra]

you didnt refute **** , just gave conjecture , what you thought may have happened .......... in other words you gave an opinion based on what you think , i gave an opinion based on history and clear cut examples of it happening before ....... perhaps you should take the time to realize the difference in the 2 ....... now you stated that the rainy day excuse has a remote chance of being true , I want to know what facts you base that on , not what you think .......

I don't have a specific example of the military witholding a news story to maintain the integrity of an investigation. I'm sure I could find one if I really thought it necessary. I know I'm not going to change your skepticism, so I'll save myself an hour that could be devoted to my studies.

You don't have to accept my theory...I wouldn't in a 1000 years expect you to. But do you really deny the possibility that maybe they waited 14 days to break the news so they could investigate/interrogate the guy and possibly find his connection/accomplices? Is this unheard of? Is this out of the realm of possiblity?

What would you do, spider, if you were in charge of this guy that was captured? Would you break the news to the public immediately? Or would you wait until you determined that no further leads could be extracted from the individual?

And concerning the rainy day theory... Who would make the decision? The Bush administration? or the intelligence officers in charge of operations in Iraq where he was captured/detained?

[Chupacabra]

You don't have to accept my theory...I wouldn't in a 1000 years expect you to. But do you really deny the possibility that maybe they waited 14 days to break the news so they could investigate/interrogate the guy and possibly find his connection/accomplices? Is this unheard of? Is this out of the realm of possiblity?

Are you not able to see both sides?

[Spider]

I don't have a specific example of the military witholding a news story to maintain the integrity of an investigation. I'm sure I could find one if I really thought it necessary. I know I'm not going to change your skepticism, so I'll save myself an hour that could be devoted to my studies.

You don't have to accept my theory...I wouldn't in a 1000 years expect you to. But do you really deny the possibility that maybe they waited 14 days to break the news so they could investigate/interrogate the guy and possibly find his connection/accomplices? Is this unheard of? Is this out of the realm of possiblity?

What would you do, spider, if you were in charge of this guy that was captured? Would you break the news to the public immediately? Or would you wait until you determined that no further leads could be extracted from the individual?

And concerning the rainy day theory... Who would make the decision? The Bush administration? or the intelligence officers in charge of operations in Iraq where he was captured/detained?

2 things are in play here , bad news and history , you have to ask yourself why wasnt it released before the news of the surge , or Al Qadea being as strong as it was on 9-11 ?
doesnt take no 14 days to figure out who someone is .....
then you have to look at how this administration handles bad news , their past actions .........
as for who makes the decision ........ advisor's , this news isnt handed out to everyone , they come to Bush in a form of a PDB , and anyone under that leaks the info is clearly going against the rules , and the only people privy to the info before Bush are the ones that prepare it ....
it isnt that I want to believe the Rainy day excuse , it is I have no choice but to believe the Rainy day excuse , Lying has a way with catching up to a person ...... and the lies have caught up with Bush ...... Just like the Tillman thing ....

[NYBronco]

I know it is next to impossible for most of you to understand........ but the government/military does need to withold some information from the public in order to do maximize its performance/results.

In this case, it is rather simple. Let the news out immediately, what happens to all this guy's leads?

Agree, it's too simple.

Local law enforcement uses the information delay all the time to increase their opportunity of apprehending criminals.

[Spider]

Agree, it's too simple.

Local law enforcement uses the information delay all the time to increase their opportunity of apprehending criminals.

LOL so you are saying this is the case now ?
and if so , then what crime did they solve , that they could release this info ?
:rofl: goofy