Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLast December, Mike McConnell, the outgoing director of national intelligence, said that Osama bin Laden's son, Saad bin Laden "has left Iran" and is "probably in Pakistan." Yesterday came the news that Saad bin Laden is dead, that even the CIA is not certain and the Taliban is denying the report. He was reportedly killed in one of the CIA's Predator drone attacks in Taliban-controlled tribal areas of Pakistan.
It's a mystery worthy of a spy novel.
In 2001, fleeing the US invasion of Afghanistan, Saad bin Laden and a small number of other top Al Qaeda officials ended up in Iran, though the vast majority of Taliban and AQ officials headed south and east into Pakistan. The choice of Iran was a curious one, since the anti-Taliban force in Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance, was supported by Iran, Iran had nearly gone to war with the Taliban-controlled Afghanistan in the past, and Al Qaeda's militant Sunni fundamentalist ideology put it at odds with Iran's Shiite version of political Islam.
Exactly what Saad bin Laden and his allies were doing in Iran is also a mystery. Most analysts that I've spoken with over the years say that they believe the AQ leaders were under close watch and house arrest, and that they had no operational capabilities. Despite claims in some quarters that the Iranian-based AQ group, including Saad bin Laden, were responsible for directing acts of terrorism aimed at Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, no real evidence emerged to back up that theory. Nevertheless, during the Bush administration, officials -- including Nick Burns, a top State Department official -- often charged Iran with harboring Al Qaeda, adding that to the list of anti-Iran grievances that they piled up against Tehran. Yet it seemed extremely unlikely that Iran would expose itself to charges that it was cooperating with AQ. More likely, some analysts suggested, Iran was holding Saad bin Laden (who apparently stayed in Iran from 2001 to 2008) as a kind of bargaining chip, and that Tehran was willing to trade him and his comrades to the United States as part of a deal, perhaps involving the leaders of the anti-Iran Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) that was based in Iraq and protected by US forces.
The Washington Post makes an explosive (and unsourced) charge in an offhand manner in its story today:
"In addition to his alleged involvement in a 2003 al-Qaeda bombing in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, he also is said to have served as a link between the terrorist group and the Quds Force, an Iranian special operations group that has attacked U.S. troops in Iraq."
Does the Quds Force, about which almost nothing is known, maintain a secret liaison with Al Qaeda? It might -- stranger things have happened in the shadowy world of intelligence -- but there's precious little evidence that it does, certainly not enough for the Post to say that it "is said" that it does without providing detailed sourcing and some contrary opinion as well.
In contrast, the New York Times shies away from incendiary charges such as a Quds-AQ alliance, and it offers a different theory:
"Saad bin Laden was one of a number of Qaeda operatives detained inside Iran in recent years. American officials have long puzzled over the exact circumstances of their captivity, but they think that Iran was holding the militants in part as a deterrent against a Qaeda attack on Iranian soil."
I'm not willing to give Iran and the Quds Force, which is an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a free pass. But it seems unlikely that Iran would need to use AQ for any real purpose, since it has plenty of operatives of its own to play with. (Hezbollah comes to mind.) Using AQ would expose Iran to a direct US assault, among other things, and then there's that little matter of the ideological divide. (As the Times points out, Iran is more likely an AQ target than a sponsor!) But then there is this question: why, and how, did Saad bin Laden leave Iran for Pakistan last year? Did he escape? That seems preposterous. Did Iran let him go? If so, why? Did Tehran get tired of holding the hot potato? Was it a gesture to the United States? And then this question: Is Saad bin Laden really dead?
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
Mr. Dreyfuss raised a lot questions, but w/Osama bin Laden having something like 50 kids, how much resources should be expended to mount this goose chase of Saad's role? How much of a risk would this chase present to any human assets we may have inside Iran or AQ?
There must've been a reason Saad's death was made known, considering he allegedly was hit several months ago......maybe someone inside our intelligence, thinking like Mr. Dreyfuss, got a bit frustrated, ranted internally like Professor Gates, and decided to use the media to make his demand.....
I say, give him/her the apology and make him go away...LOL!
Posted by Happy at 07/24/2009 @ 11:28am
Posted by Happy at 07/24/2009 @ 11:28am
You gotta love a lecture from HAPP about somebody being "frustrated and ranting".
LOL
Posted by Mask at 07/24/2009 @ 11:37am
I speculate that Iran certainly does not need AQ operatives to engage in covert operations in any of the nations neighboring Iran. The accusation normally levied against Iran is that it is operating even Israel and Lebanon via proxies. There are Shiite groups in Iraq, certainly, that would work with Iran if the goal was to attack US troops in Iraq, perhaps in response to US covert operations in Iran, presumably accomplished with the US own proxies. Therefore, Iran would not tolerate the presence of AQ unless, as Dreyfuss speculates, the AQ operatives being *held* in Iran would serve as a deterrent against attacks by for example AQ itself, or other groups maybe based in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
Finally, when are media operations such as the Post or the NYT (or Dreyfuss) going to acknowledge that the US operates covertly in Iran and so Iran might be justified in counter-operating? Iran is always presented out of context in American mass media.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/24/2009 @ 6:44pm
IlyaKuryakin is a more hysterically deluded pathological liar and/or ignoramus than even, say, Ted Rall. He starts off by sarcastically calling AQ "Big Bad super-villians," the implication being that their denunciation in the media is based on distortion and, possibly, outright fabrication. Indeed, AQ may very well be innocent of all charges according to him; he has no reason of his own to dislike them. Next, he shows that he did not understand the article he is commenting on. Dreyfuss wrote it to respond to allegations of an Iran-AQ link by asserting their baselessness. IK nonetheless argues that Dreyfuss "created" the very claim he is arguing against EVEN THOUGH Dreyfuss quoted the newspapers that actually originated the assertion before challenging their argument. Why IK finds even responding to the claim so objectionable if it means acknowledging the existence of the argument is unknown, since he just asserted that AQ is innocent. He suddenly argues that AQ is actually a branch of the US government (he has no evidence for this at all, though he states it as a fact), meaning that if by chance it WAS guilty of, say, 9/11, that attack would be still REALLY a secret inside job. He then says, falsely, that Iran captured and returned some of "our" AQ operatives. His post is devoid of facts, quotes, links, or sources. He argues that Dreyfuss is passing on "sourceless innuendos" while complaining about other sourceless assertions. He does not realize that the sourceless assertions Dreyfuss argues against are actually the same ones he condemns Dreyfuss for secretly trying to pass on. He follows this by praising himself for his (alleged) intellectual superiority to everyone else here. Never one to underestimate the scope of his efforts, he declares...
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/24/2009 @ 8:11pm
...that Dreyfuss MUST be terrified of his "fact-checking" and vows "I am not going away". What a vulgar fool.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/24/2009 @ 8:16pm
Looks like Illie has got past the white coats in the mad house again. Dreyfuss is always informative and well worth reading.
Posted by lrjones4 at 07/24/2009 @ 8:44pm
God invented the muzzle for a reason, now we need either the keyboard equivalent or an IQ test requirement prior to setting hands on a keyboard.
Posted by syfriendly at 07/24/2009 @ 9:14pm
a good read, as always for me. Several ideas, though, don't make sense to me:
"Yet it seemed extremely unlikely that Iran would expose itself to charges that it was cooperating with AQ."
Expose itself to who, exactly? To which *charger* do we refer? As far as exposure, Iran seems far from prudish imho.
" Iran was holding Saad bin Laden (who apparently stayed in Iran from 2001 to 2008) as a kind of bargaining chip, and that Tehran was willing to trade him and his comrades to the United States as part of a deal, perhaps involving the leaders of the anti-Iran Mujaheddin-e Khalq (MEK) that was based in Iraq and protected by US forces."
Didn't the U.S. freeze Iranian assets? Do we still owe the mullahs money? I think the Iranians must think of the pocketbook closer to home than out there in Iraq, no? Probably no.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 07/25/2009 @ 04:10am
ilya-You have no love for your fellow man and are mad at the world and come on here ranting and raving in order to express that anger at the world and to avoid discussions since you know that no one will discuss anything with someone who is ranting..
Posted by i'm nobody at 07/25/2009 @ 10:44am
Dreyfuss here wallows in fog and shimmer and delights in throwing it like a kind of snow ball, even if nothing hangs together. It is the favorite mode of the old LaRouchian ghostrider, all stink and periphrasis, phony and dishonest to the bone.
Where there actually is something real, the Quds Force, he claims, "about which almost nothing is known."
Plenty is known about the Quds Forde , since its weapons, its money, its trainers, even its leaders have been captured in Iraq.
What a strange, perverse creature this Dreyfuss. A perfect fit for the Nation menagerie.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 07/25/2009 @ 12:16pm
This is really getting weird....
Posted by pyeatte at 07/25/2009 @ 1:32pm
IK, Dreyfuss speculating that if Iran gave up Saad, it was probably as a gesture towards America does not mean that he is secretly a radical racist imperialist Zionist propagandist and that only you have the courage to call him what he is. You having a day job is irrelevant. I'm glad you have a grandiose enough sense of love towards your fellow man to take time out of your very, very, VERY busy day in order to post incoherent, internally contradictory rants filled with swear words on the message board of a blog on the Nation. Does your love lead to moral outrage on your part against Iranian mullahs responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their own citizens, or is your hatred only extended towards free countries like Kuwait, Iraq, Israel, and America? Dreyfuss is as far-left as an intelligent person can be without embracing delusion.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/25/2009 @ 4:07pm
Ilya may not be the most polite, but he's got some great points. Anyone who thinks the media and general, and Mr. Dreyfuss by extension (and record) has been even-handed in the Great Zionists vs. The World Debate, needs their sanity checked. You don't have to agree with him, but with Gaza a prison, Iraq in the toilet, Lebanon covered in white phosphorous and cluster bombs, Joe Lieberman and Hillary doing everything they can think of to see Iran nuked, Cheney STILL screaming for more war, Goldman Sachs and the Fed doing everything possible to trash our economy and steal what's left, you'd have to be dumber than toiletries not to take what he has to say VERY seriously.
Posted by DejaVu at 07/26/2009 @ 10:38am
Well, I guess I am dumber than toiletries. I don't take everything Ilya says, as you put it, "VERY seriously". He claims that AQ is a branch of the US government, 9/11 is an inside job, and Iran has free elections. He is fundamentally unserious. I would agree, though, that the "liberal media" is largely a myth.
Gaza is a prison. Don't blame Israel. Gaza was liberated from Israeli occupation. The Israelis gave the Gazans free elections, a flourishing civil society, and normal diplomatic relations. They promised them peace. The greenhouses the Israelis left behind were left for ruin. The Gazans elected to power a terrorist dictatorship that pledged genocide to Jews everywhere. It tortures Gazans to death every day. It uses crucifixion. It has eliminated any trace of civil society in Gaza and destroyed the infrastructure of the state. It has pledged perpetual war and is brainwashing the children of Gaza through anti-semitic media and education into being the next generation of jiihadists. It has kidnapped and murdered Israelis, set up terrorist training camps, and fired thousands of rockets illegally into Israel. It vows to wipe Israel off the map. Israel responded after years of tolerating this bad behavior with a brief offensive in which it sacrificed the lives of its own soldiers to save Gazan civilians by giving up the element of suprise to alert them. When the offensive ended, Hamas still reserved the right to attack Israel without retalliation. Israel supplies most of the humanitarian aid that goes to Gaza.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009 @ 6:40pm
By the way, do you wonder why free elections have been canceled by Gaza's terrorist dictatorship? Because it knows that most Gazans regret voting for it. Far from what leftists belive, Israel strengthens Hamas only when it gives Gaza humanitarian aid that Hamas takes credit for. If Israel had toppled its cowardly and despicable (not to mention barbaric and primitive) regime despite the civilians it hid behind when it had the chance, most Gazans would have celebrated as long as they were promised another chance at freedom and independance.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009 @ 7:07pm
Israel is demonized beyond the extent to which all other states are denounced. It is held to a standard unlike that to which all other countries are subjected. After sacrificing its own soldiers to minimize the loss of civilian life in Gaza in a brief attack on Gaza in response to Gaza attacking it for years without any counterattack, Tariq Ali said that its attack was comparable to the Nazi Holocaust. In These Times said Israel is as bad as apartheid South Africa was. The Nation said that Israel should be investigated for charges of crimes against humanity and genocide. The UN and even George W. Bush forced Israel to unilaterally accept a cease-fire even though Hamas vowed to keep attacking Israel even if Israel did not fight back.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009 @ 7:30pm
Tell Syria to stop illegally sabotaging Lebanese attempts at democracy if you care so much about Lebanon.
I for one am glad that Iraq is free of a genocidal dictatorship responsible for the deaths of millions of people, since the regime was going to collapse anyway in the future. I'm glad America had a hand in the process.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009 @ 7:43pm
Gaza is a prison. Don't blame Israel. Gaza was liberated from Israeli occupation. Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009 @ 6:40pm
The one and only comprehensive scholarly history of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories was by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar , called "Lords of the Land", by Idith Zertal and Akiva Eldar . Here's what 2 Israeli scholars said about Gaza's liberation.
"After Israel withdrew it's forces from Gaza, in August 2005, the ruined territory was not released for even a single day from Israel's military grip, or from the price of the occupation that the inhabitants pay every day. Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future. The Jewish settlements were destroyed in an ungenerous move by an unenlightened occupier, which in fact continues to control the territory and kill and harass it's inhabitants, by means of it's formidable military might."
This is to to mention the 7,700 shells Israel fired into Gaza over the 12 months that followed it's withdrawal.
So much for liberation.
Posted by Shingo at 07/26/2009 @ 11:49pm
Tell Syria to stop illegally sabotaging Lebanese attempts at democracy if you care so much about Lebanon.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009
Until the sectarian gerrymander is removed in Lebanon, there will never be democracy. Syria has no influence over that policy.
Posted by Shingo at 07/26/2009 @ 11:50pm
By the way, do you wonder why free elections have been canceled by Gaza's terrorist dictatorship?
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009
Yes, because the last time they help democratic elections, Israel and the US punished the people of Gaza for voting the wrong way.
Posted by Shingo at 07/26/2009 @ 11:52pm
They voted to lose the right to vote. Certainly, that is voting the wrong way. If they voted again, it is highly unlikely they would choose Hamas, so they would not be punished.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009 @ 11:59pm
Israel is demonized beyond the extent to which all other states are denounced Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/26/2009
Israel is denounced because it has set a world record for the number of UN Resolutions it has flouted. It holds world opinion in contempt while demanding that it be given most favored nation status.
Israel has laways attacked covilians, which explains the massacre fo so many children in Gaza. As Ze'ev Shiff , Israeli journalist and military correspondent for Ha'aretz, told us:
"The Israeli army has always struck civilian populations, purposely and consciously. The army has never distinguished civilian from military targets, but has purposely attacked civilian targets."
Prior to violating the 2008 ceasefire on November the 4th, there had been 4 months of zero rocket attacks from Hamas. Israel's MFA report concluded that Hamas had been very careful to observe the ceasefire and limit attacks from militants not under their control.
It wasn't just the The Times that said Israel was as bad as apartheid South Africa, it was Nelson Mandella and Desmond Tutu. In fact the architect of apartheid itself, racist Prime Minister, Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd had this to say about Israel's apartheid:
"The Jews took Israel from the Arabs after the Arabs had lived there for a thousand years. Israel like South Africa, is an apartheid state" (Rand Daily Mail, 23 November 1961)
In neither the 2006 Lebanon war not the Gaza assault, were Israel "forced" accept a cease-fire. The US continued to veto calls for ceasefire until Israel gave Washington the nod that it had killed enough people in Gaza to satisfy it's bloodlust.
And FYI, Israel rejected calls by Hams for a ceasefire in December.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 12:07am
The reality is that AQ hate the Iranians as much as they hate Americans. after 911, not only did 1 million Iranians come out and march in solidarity with the US over the attacks, but the Iranian government helped the US go after AQ in Afghanistan.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 12:13am
The Gaza offensive was pointless because Israel didn't go far enough. If it had toppled Hamas, sent in a surge of humanitarian aid, and declared that it planned to again hold free elections and withdraw ASAP in leaflets dropped everywhere, I think most Gazans would have been pleased.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 12:22am
Don't mention world records with regard to UN violations. Saddam's Iraq actually has the record as the only state in history to have violated all of the UN's criteria for qualifying a state for regime change. It violated each of them numerous times.
Of course Iran and AQ are enemies. The Iranian regime actually condemned the 9/11 attacks (the only Middle Eastern country whose government openly celebrated them was Iraq's).
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 12:33am
Some corrections for the benefit of libertyfortheoppressed.
1) Re Gaza withdrawal. There were no greenhouses or infrastructure left behind. The settlers destroyed them as they left. As documented, "Israel left behind scotched earth, devastated services, and people with nearly a present or a future."
2) Hamas not only have supported a 2 state settlement since 2006, but have also stated they would not oppose the Arab Peace initiative, in which 22 Arab States have offered to not only recognize Israel, but normalize relations with Israel as per the 1967 borders.
3) Israel also tortures Gazans to death every day.
4) Hasmas was the mainstay of civil society in Gaza, providing the only social services available.
5)As can be seen in these images as well as numerous videos, Israel brainwashes their children through it's Islamphohobic media and education into being the next generation of state terrorists. http://tinyurl.com/l7g3g6
6) Israel has has kidnapped and murdered ten times as many Palestinians as Hams have.
7) Israel was founded on terrorsim by terrorist groups. The leaders of those terrorist groups went on to be elected Prime Ministers of Israel.
8) Israel fired more shells into Gaza in 12 months than Hamas have in 8 years.
9)Tzipi Livni told the world that en extended ceasefire was not in Israel's strategic interests, proving that Israel values land more than security or peace. 10)Israel has imposed an illegal blockade on Gaza for the last 2 years. A blockade is an act of war. 11) Israel massacred 1,300 people, including 400 children during it's most recent Gaza siege.
12) One of the terms of the ceasefire agreement was that Israel would lift the blockade. Israel reneged on this promise from day 1. Hamas continued to stick to it.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 12:33am
The Gaza offensive was pointless because Israel didn't go far enough.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009
The Gaza offensive was pointless because it had no aims other than to kill Palestinians.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 12:34am
Don't mention world records with regard to UN violations. Saddam's Iraq actually has the record as the only state in history to have violated all of the UN's criteria for qualifying a state for regime change. It violated each of them numerous times.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 12:33am
Wrong. Israel are in violation of close to 100 UN resolutions.
There is no UN criteria for qualifying a state for regime change.
In any case, if violating dozens of UN resolutions qualifies for the Iraqi treatment, Israel is long overdue for invasion.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 12:37am
Of course Iran and AQ are enemies. The Iranian regime actually condemned the 9/11 attacks (the only Middle Eastern country whose government openly celebrated them was Iraq's).
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 12:33am
Wrong again.
Saddam made no such remark.
the only Middle Eastern country who had a political leader way anything supportive of the attacks was Israel. Netenyahu is the only politician in the world who described the attacks as a good thing.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 12:39am
If it had toppled Hamas, sent in a surge of humanitarian aid, and declared that it planned to again hold free elections and withdraw ASAP in leaflets dropped everywhere, I think most Gazans would have been pleased.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 12:22am
Which goes to show you have no idea bout Gaza. Hamas' popularity surged as a result of the attack.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 12:40am
To respond to your points:
1) My source on this is Charles Krauthammer. You cited yours as the only credible and comprehensive source, meaning everywhere else you looked, you found something contradicting your source. That some infrastructure was destroyed is possible. 2) Then why does it keep attacking Israel? 3)False moral equivalency does not justify atrocity. 4) Calling Hamas civil is an insult to the word. Gaza today has practically nothing deserving of the word society, and I bet you would agree. The difference between us is that I think things would be better if Gaza was free. 5) Watch some videos of the Abraham Fund on youtube. Then, watch Hamas childrens TV. Israel has a free press. 6) Sources? Israel only kills in retalliation. 7) Israel is a pluralistic, advanced, secular, multi-ethnic democracy founded not on terror but on equal rights for all. Muslims live better lives there then in most Muslim countries, which is why they don't boycott horrible apartheid Jewish businesses. 8) That is because Israel is advanced as opposed to backwards. 9) Of course, because co-existence with Hamas is undesirable. 10) Hamas and Israel ARE at war and ought to acknowledge it. 11) It would have been worth it if Hamas was toppled. 12) Why should Israel trade freely with a state that gives its resources to terrorists? It still gives humanitarian aid.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 01:27am
No serious analyst could argue that it is anything but highly improbable that Hamas would win re-election. This is why Hamas refuses to hold any more elections.
The UN does have such criteria: 1. Genocide. 2. Sponsorship of terrorism. 3. Violation of NNPT. 4. Aggression.
Christopher Hitchens wrote about Saddam's jihadist media praising 9/11 in his 2004 essay "Un-Farenheight 9/11".
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 01:42am
1)Charles Krauthammer is a well known Zionist and liar. His source was an Israeli source, which has been debunked by a peer reviewed scholarly analysis of the Gaza withdrawl. Lords of the Land is the only credible source, because t is is the only one that has been perr recviewed. 2)Hamas does not keep attacking Israel. Thjat's the point. From July until November 4th, Hamas were not attacking Israel, even as Israel were violating the ceasefire agreement. For the past 2 years, Israel has blockaded Gaza, which is an act of war. Hamas have responded to the act of war by Israel. 3)Moral equivalency is like patriotism, the refuge of a liar. If what Hamas are doing by torturing and killing people is an atrocity, then Israel is commuting atrocities on a far grander scale. 4) I don't care if you're insulted to the reference of Hamas civil or otherwise. If you can;t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Gaza today is a open air prison because that's what Israel wants it to be. How any society could expect to function under the brutal and inhumane conditions Israel inflicts on it is mind boggling. I agree that Gaz should be free, but Israel's leadership thinks otherwise. 5)Israel does not have a free press. Amira Hass, from Haaretz, was just arrested for going into Gaza. . 6)There are 10,000 Palestinians in Israel's prison, 1000 of which Israel admits have never been charged. Israel says it only kills in retaliation, because according to Israel's propaganda, only Israel is allowed to defend itself. 7)Israel is ethnocentric, apartheid, militaristic, backward advanced, increasingly fundamentalist, criminal enterprise founded on terror, by terrorists for terrorists. Israel stands as a monument to terrorism. It is the only state that celebrated the 60th anniversary
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 02:54am
No serious analyst could argue that it is anything but highly improbable that Hamas would win re-election. This is why Hamas refuses to hold any more elections.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 01:42am
Hitchens is wrong, as he usually is when it comes to the Middle East.
The UN does not have any criteria for regime change.
Christopher Hitchens was lying when he claimed Saddam's media praised. Saddam was an enemy of jihadists you fool.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 02:56am
As always the chief stumbling blocks to peace between Israel and Palestine are demonstrated..
here.
With the "Israel is 'Nazi Germany'" Left and the "Israel: Right Or Wrong" Right.
And anybody NOT taking one of those two positions is either a 'terrorist lover" or "Zionist stooge for AIPAC".
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 08:36am
And anybody NOT taking one of those two positions is either a 'terrorist lover" or "Zionist stooge for AIPAC".
Posted by Mask at 07/27/2009 @ 08:36am
Sorry Mask, but I have never been of the opinion that a pedophile and his victim are both equally at fault.
Posted by Shingo at 07/27/2009 @ 7:37pm
So Israel is the pedophile in your metaphor?
The UN does have such criteria. Why you are so resolute on this minor point I cannot ascertain, since you clearly are not curious on the matter and have done no research to back up your claim though you insist on repeating it. No one, not even the Nation, has challenged Hitchens on that point, so I won't just take your word for it that he was wrong.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009 @ 10:12pm
The UN does have such criteria. Why you are so resolute on this minor point I cannot ascertain, since you clearly are not curious on the matter and have done no research to back up your claim though you insist on repeating it. No one, not even the Nation, has challenged Hitchens on that point, so I won't just take your word for it that he was wrong.
Posted by libertyfortheoppressed at 07/27/2009
Hitchens has made countless, baseless claims that have not been challenged. Does this mean they are credible? Of course not.
To this day, Hitchens maintains there was a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, even thought a September 2007 SSCI report concluded otherwise. So if Hitchens continues to maintain this argument and no one contradicts him, does it make him right?
Secondly, Hitchens' assertion that Saddam's media were jihadist is ridiculous in the extreme, because Saddam was never aligned with Jihadists. Again, see the 2007 SSCI report.
Posted by Shingo at 07/30/2009 @ 11:28pm