ABC finds "Wiretap Secrets: "Saddam declared the war was over because President Bush had ordered a cease-fire"

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Now that is your speculation . . . Without a gunner but WITH an ESCORT? - sure, I'd take that chance.

Douglas Bader was a legless pilot for the RAF during WWII. He was shot down and had the good fortune to be captured by German airmen. He was given the opportunity to actually sit in an ME-109 but noticed his "escort" standing beside the cockpit had his hand on the butt of his pistol the entire time.

And you guys have nothing . . . not even links to support your claims . . . come to think of it, WHAT are you claiming? or are you just ridiculing?

If you seriously believe we let the guy ride in the gunner's seat of an Apache then yes, I have no cite to the contrary (lol) and I'm just ridiculing you...but with good reason. You're nuts

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: apoppin

Now that is your speculation . . . Without a gunner but WITH an ESCORT? - sure, I'd take that chance.

Douglas Bader was a legless pilot for the RAF during WWII. He was shot down and had the good fortune to be captured by German airmen. He was given the opportunity to actually sit in an ME-109 but noticed his "escort" standing beside the cockpit had his hand on the butt of his pistol the entire time.

And you guys have nothing . . . not even links to support your claims . . . come to think of it, WHAT are you claiming? or are you just ridiculing?

If you seriously believe we let the guy ride in the gunner's seat of an Apache then yes, I have no cite to the contrary (lol) and I'm just ridiculing you...but with good reason. You're nuts

No I don't "seriously believe" anything about the "helicopter ride" or whether it was just a "helicopter escort".

You're the juvenile nut that keeps trying to win an argument with ridicule. Quit putting words in my mouth!

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: etech
BS from BarneyFife

The Arabs just can't admit that they lost. Stories will be made up to save "face". This isn't all that surprising, it's actually pretty typical of the Arab media.

Who "lost"? Only Saddam and his supporters, I think . . .

You Bush supporters can't admit to the mistakes they have made in this war. What's the difference between your narrow-mind and the Arab narrow mind other than POV?

You forget the so-called Arab street. The street that was spoon-fed by their media that this was a war of the west against Islam. It wasn't of course but that was the way it was made out. That fact explains at least partially why so many Arabs from other countries were willing to go to Iraq to fight. But then of course Iraq collapsed so suddenly. I think that some find it rather humiliating.

It?s not surprising that stories are being made up to explain it.

"You Bush supporters can't admit to the mistakes they have made in this war. What's the difference between your narrow-mind and the Arab narrow mind other than POV?"

Who is in Baghdad, Saddam or the US forces?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: apoppin
No I don't "seriously believe" anything about the "helicopter ride" or whether it was just a "helicopter escort".

You're the juvenile nut that keeps trying to win an argument with ridicule. Quit putting words in my mouth!

Ok: "Originally posted by: apoppin: if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line."

Zzzzzzzzzz

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: etech

"You Bush supporters can't admit to the mistakes they have made in this war. What's the difference between your narrow-mind and the Arab narrow mind other than POV?"

Who is in Baghdad, Saddam or the US forces?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: apoppin
No I don't "seriously believe" anything about the "helicopter ride" or whether it was just a "helicopter escort".

You're the juvenile nut that keeps trying to win an argument with ridicule. Quit putting words in my mouth!

Ok: "Originally posted by: apoppin: if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line."

Zzzzzzzzzz

I see I am dealing with children.

You can only quote part of what I say and you simply don't have the facilities to grasp the meaning of what I am saying. . . .

. . . in that case, I apologize and will try to keep my responses 'simple' and explain a lot over and over until you get it . . .

Who knows if Le Monde knows the difference between an Osprey and an Apache? Or - if it was a "real deal", he may have got the gunners spot with weapons off-line.

I really don't know and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that I don't know. However I do know you will nitpick the tiniest irrevelent detail. I also don't believe that you actually know anything about whether he would be allowed to fly as a passenger in an Apache (I agree, it is UNlikely). However, I also quoted where the Apache was used as an ESCORT (in other words, he may have been in ANOTHER vehicle ESCORTED by an Apache - LeMonde is TRANSLATED from the French; but you didn't bother to mention that).

 

[LunarRay]

If the CIA folks had those documents they may be able to find some of the Bio and Chem before someone spills it on the floor. This is starting to be like Kukla, Fran and Ollie... speaking of Ollie... has he found any of the documents he may have sent Saddam and had them Shredded? I saw no mention of it... so the evidence still may exist... what is the statute of limitations.
But, for a newspaper guy to find a cache like that and not the snoopy folks is indicative of the intel obtained thus far...

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HJD1
If the CIA folks had those documents they may be able to find some of the Bio and Chem before someone spills it on the floor. This is starting to be like Kukla, Fran and Ollie... speaking of Ollie... has he found any of the documents he may have sent Saddam and had them Shredded? I saw no mention of it... so the evidence still may exist... what is the statute of limitations.
But, for a newspaper guy to find a cache like that and not the snoopy folks is indicative of the intel obtained thus far...

OK, for the sake of ARGUMENT . . . (for the kiddies here, this is a "disclaimer")

Let's say Bush and Saddam made a Deal . . . then the WMD would be left for the US to find as a guarantee Saddam would get away . . . I'd feel "safer" if the deal actually was brokered . . .



(but then, I don't really think we know IF a deal was made . . . after all, it's a handwritten note)

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: apoppin
I really don't know and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that I don't know. However I do know you will nitpick the tiniest irrevelent detail.

It goes to credibility. You posted a specious claim and the first think that pops out is the notion of a joyride in an Apache. I don't consider it irrelevant as far as the credibility of your source.

I also don't believe that you actually know anything about whether he would be allowed to fly as a passenger in an Apache (I agree, it is UNlikely).

It's not my burden to prove anything. This is your party. Both of us apparenly agree that it's high unlikely this would be allowed so your source isn't very credible.

However, I also quoted where the Apache was used as an ESCORT (but you didn't bother to mention that).

You also quoted "his transfer via an American Apache helicopter to an undisclosed safe haven.".

The only thing that can be certain is that your source is suspect at best. You don't seem to want to admit that but that's your problem.

 

[etech]

Has anyone compared the handwriting on that note to Baghdad Bob's?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: etech
Has anyone compared the handwriting on that note to Baghdad Bob's?

We should find him and ask him. I hear we let him borrow an A-10 and he flew to Atlantic City.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: apoppin
I really don't know and it doesn't bother me in the slightest that I don't know. However I do know you will nitpick the tiniest irrevelent detail.

It goes to credibility. You posted a specious claim and the first think that pops out is the notion of a joyride in an Apache. I don't consider it irrelevant as far as the credibility of your source.

I also don't believe that you actually know anything about whether he would be allowed to fly as a passenger in an Apache (I agree, it is UNlikely).

It's not my burden to prove anything. This is your party. Both of us apparenly agree that it's high unlikely this would be allowed so your source isn't very credible.

However, I also quoted where the Apache was used as an ESCORT (but you didn't bother to mention that).

You also quoted "his transfer via an American Apache helicopter to an undisclosed safe haven.".

The only thing that can be certain is that your source is suspect at best. You don't seem to want to admit that but that's your problem.

You have give no "proof" but your OPINION. I do not agree that a MISunderstood 'detail' would make one of my sources INcredible.

You are conveniently ignoring that I have posted this 3 times already and it MAY explain the apparent "error":

Shortly thereafter an Apache helicopter escorted Sufyan from the Al Rashid camp, east of Baghdad, to an unknown location.

It does NOT say he was a pasenger in the helicopter.

Are you really that dense?

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: apoppin

You have give no "proof" but your OPINION.

One that you agree with. Funny that, eh? Kinda makes me wonder why you're so riled up about it.

I do not agree that a MISunderstood 'detail' would make one of my sources INcredible.

So how many details have to be misunderstood for it to lose credibility as far as you're concerned?

You are conveniently ignoring that I have posted this 3 times already and it MAY explain the apparent "error":
Shortly thereafter an Apache helicopter escorted Sufyan from the Al Rashid camp, east of Baghdad, to an unknown location.
It does NOT say he was a pasenger in the helicopter.

The first part insinuates he was a passenger. The second could perhaps be interpreted that he wasn't but what was the Apache "escorting"...a camel? Calling it speculation is being quite gracious.

The bottom line remains simple...your source seems a bit confused. That doesn't work to your advantage. You want to keep defending them have at it but I'm going to bed.

 

[cpumaster]

ABCnews.com
A senior editor at Abu Dhabi TV told ABCNEWS the footage was shot by Iraqi TV and given to Abu Dhabi TV's Baghdad correspondent by former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al Sahaf on April 9.

hey the Iraqi Inf. minister MSS is still alive

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: NightTrain

Originally posted by: apoppin

You have give no "proof" but your OPINION.

One that you agree with. Funny that, eh? Kinda makes me wonder why you're so riled up about it.

I do not agree that a MISunderstood 'detail' would make one of my sources INcredible.

So how many details have to be misunderstood for it to lose credibility as far as you're concerned?

You are conveniently ignoring that I have posted this 3 times already and it MAY explain the apparent "error":
Shortly thereafter an Apache helicopter escorted Sufyan from the Al Rashid camp, east of Baghdad, to an unknown location.
It does NOT say he was a pasenger in the helicopter.

The first part insinuates he was a passenger. The second could perhaps be interpreted that he wasn't but what was the Apache "escorting"...a camel? Calling it speculation is being quite gracious.

The bottom line remains simple...your source seems a bit confused. That doesn't work to your advantage. You want to keep defending them have at it but I'm going to bed.

No, you are the confused ones.

Ok . . . let's dissect the apparent dissimilarities in the two TRANSLATED sentences (I guess you fell asleep in English class or 'cut' it):

(1)The French daily reports that Maher Sufyan, Commander of the Republican Guard reached an agreement with American forces in which he ordered his forces to surrender in exchange for his transfer via an American Apache helicopter to an undisclosed safe haven.

Quoting anonymous sources, Le Monde?s correspondent in Baghdad said that Sufyan ordered all Republican Guard forces to lay down their arms and go home. Shortly thereafter an Apache helicopter escorted Sufyan from the Al Rashid camp, east of Baghdad, to an unknown location.

via
1. By way of: went to Pittsburgh via Philadelphia.
2. By means of: sent the letter via airmail.

From strict dictionary definition, (1) "via" would mean the Apache was the "means" (the "way of") the transfer. It facilitated the transfer as made CLEAR by (2) he was ESCORTED, not a passenger.

Since this plausable explanation is probably beyond your comprension as evidenced by your other replys to me, I will retire for the night and hope someone more patient than I can explain it to you.

Aloha

 

[LunarRay]

Quote by Appopin

Let's say Bush and Saddam made a Deal . . . then the WMD would be left for the US to find as a guarantee Saddam would get away . . . I'd feel "safer" if the deal actually was brokered . . .



(but then, I don't really think we know IF a deal was made . . . after all, it's a handwritten note)

[/quote]

I'd have made such a deal if I were president... in a heart beat...even suggest it to him.. let him fly to Siberia and live in a cabin in the woods and send him cuban cigars..

 

[dahunan]

I just thought about something.....

Did George call a cease fire so we could prepare to strike North Korea next

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: HJD1
Quote by Appopin

Let's say Bush and Saddam made a Deal . . . then the WMD would be left for the US to find as a guarantee Saddam would get away . . . I'd feel "safer" if the deal actually was brokered . . .



(but then, I don't really think we know IF a deal was made . . . after all, it's a handwritten note)

I'd have made such a deal if I were president... in a heart beat...even suggest it to him.. let him fly to Siberia and live in a cabin in the woods and send him cuban cigars..[/quote]Heck, he could live on Bikini atol.

And I just can't figure why the kids are beating up on tiny unrelated details. I'd imagine - after dozens of posts someone would have picked up on this - something MAJOR - from the first post:

He said they proved the Iraqis had been spying on U.N. weapons inspectors. Among the documents was a list of frequencies the Iraqis tapped, including foreign embassies, the Iraqi military itself, and special frequencies the documents say were used by U.N. weapons inspectors.

:Q

G'nite.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: etech
BS from BarneyFife

The Arabs just can't admit that they lost. Stories will be made up to save "face". This isn't all that surprising, it's actually pretty typical of the Arab media.

Who "lost"? Only Saddam and his supporters, I think . . .

You Bush supporters can't admit to the mistakes they have made in this war. What's the difference between your narrow-mind and the Arab narrow mind other than POV?

Mistakes were made and will be made in the future. Afterall none of us are perfect. There have been far more successes than failures in this opperation and folks like you seem to be having a hard time with this fact.

No one is debating that, what we're trying to say is that I personally (for one) have yet to find one thread in this forum where one known conservative who has provided some level of constructive debate (ie. Alistar7, etech et al) has admitted the US was EVER wrong in ANYTHING.

 

[Jeriko]

Um... Ya'll do realize that the communique to his security forces was probably just a face-saving measure on Saddam's part to excuse his high-tailing out of town, right? You all are taking it WAY too seriously.

As for deals with Republican Guard commanders, Rumsfeld and others had said for weeks that there were negotiations ongoing with people of importance in the Iraqi military. Not exactly news if you bother listening to the press conferences.

-J

 

[NightTrain]

Originally posted by: apoppin
via
1. By way of: went to Pittsburgh via Philadelphia.
2. By means of: sent the letter via airmail.

I can't believe the lengths you will go to rather than admit your source is just wrong. You started out by ignoring the question completely. Then you said maybe he could have been riding in the gunners seat with the weapons offline. Now you're doing these linguistic gymnastics hoping the other failed approaches don't get noticed. Your credibility isn't any better than Le Monde's.


BTW the Mirror is carrying this garbage too...notice their "interpretation"...you better fire off an email correcting them

US 'PAID OFF ARMY LEADERS' Apr 16 2003
By Chris Hughes
MANY of Saddam's top military henchmen were secretly paid off and air-lifted to safe havens by US special forces as Baghdad fell, it was claimed last night.
The double-dealing Republican Guard leader Maher Sufyan ordered his division to lay down their arms after the US agreed to take him by Apache helicopter to a secret location

 

[Pocatello]

Arabs fighting to the death is a big myth.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: apoppin

He said they proved the Iraqis had been spying on U.N. weapons inspectors. Among the documents was a list of frequencies the Iraqis tapped, including foreign embassies, the Iraqi military itself, and special frequencies the documents say were used by U.N. weapons inspectors.

:Q

G'nite.

activities at 30 sites, trucks removed equipment before inspectors arrived -- abnormal pattern of behavior.

I remember how some people on this board had so much fun ridiculing the suggestion that the trucks loading up at sites before the UN inspectors arrived there meant anything at all. It would be fun to find the thread and see just who that was.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: apoppin

He said they proved the Iraqis had been spying on U.N. weapons inspectors. Among the documents was a list of frequencies the Iraqis tapped, including foreign embassies, the Iraqi military itself, and special frequencies the documents say were used by U.N. weapons inspectors.

:Q

G'nite.

activities at 30 sites, trucks removed equipment before inspectors arrived -- abnormal pattern of behavior.

I remember how some people on this board had so much fun ridiculing the suggestion that the trucks loading up at sites before the UN inspectors arrived there meant anything at all. It would be fun to find the thread and see just who that was.

None of this is hard to find . . . "search" is working pretty well now.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: etech
BS from BarneyFife

The Arabs just can't admit that they lost. Stories will be made up to save "face". This isn't all that surprising, it's actually pretty typical of the Arab media.

Who "lost"? Only Saddam and his supporters, I think . . .

You Bush supporters can't admit to the mistakes they have made in this war. What's the difference between your narrow-mind and the Arab narrow mind other than POV?

Mistakes were made and will be made in the future. Afterall none of us are perfect. There have been far more successes than failures in this opperation and folks like you seem to be having a hard time with this fact.

No one is debating that, what we're trying to say is that I personally (for one) have yet to find one thread in this forum where one known conservative who has provided some level of constructive debate (ie. Alistar7, etech et al) has admitted the US was EVER wrong in ANYTHING.

I think you dont find alistar7 or etech only dwelling on the errors made. I think both both of them would admit that the operation has gone well, but not perfect.