Please provide the same for Ahmadinejad. If you can't do it does that mean that Ahmadinejad doesn't support terrorism and you should apologize for besmirching him? If a tree falls in the forest and a detailed chronology of events with evidence of the fall isn't posted to a web news source, does the falling tree make a sound?
Some of you take this "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing a little too far. Just because you hate Bush, doesn't mean you need to defend every one of Bush's enemies. Especially a nutjob like Amahdinajad. Just makes you look silly.
Who's defending the goofus? Did I miss it?? D&D. Impeach Mr. Bankrupting America, Busy Passing on The War to The Next President.
The Ahole from Iran isn't so sure of a lot things:...9/11, the holocaust, wipe Israel off map,...In the world there, evidence is absent...this I am sure of for a reason....
Well, the only thing the Ahole from Iran is BS. He can't bomb Israel even if he wants to. Therefore there can't be any evidence that can implicate him for sponsoring terrorists, On the other hand, King Abdullah is an absolute monarch, so he has the power to whatever he wants. That doesn't mean he is connected to the terrorists but the probability of that is > 0 whereas for the Ahole from Iran, it is 0.
which iranian leaders "sponser" terrorism? Please give me a cross reference site, with names of consequence, and verifiable evidence... are you really trying to argue with me about whether or not saudi leaders were "sponsering" terrorism? even basso acknowledges this fact. why did the 9/11 vicitms families try to sue the saudi government and why did bush friend james baker act as their lawyer and help block the lawsuit? here is some reading material to get you started... http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3841 Saudi Arabia enlisted in the fight against terrorism only in response to intense pressure from the United States following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Even then, its cooperation has been minimal and grudging. For example, Riyadh has resisted Washington's requests to use its bases in Saudi Arabia for military operations against Osama bin Laden's terrorist facilities in Afghanistan. Even that belated, tepid participation is an improvement on Saudi Arabia's previous conduct. The U.S. government has warned that it will treat regimes that harbor or assist terrorist organizations the same way that it treats the organizations themselves. Yet if Washington is serious about that policy, it ought to regard Saudi Arabia as a prime sponsor of international terrorism. Indeed, that country should have been included for years on the U.S. State Department's annual list of governments guilty of sponsoring terrorism. The Saudi government has been the principal financial backer of Afghanistan' s odious Taliban movement since at least 1996. It has also channeled funds to Hamas and other groups that have committed terrorist acts in Israel and other portions of the Middle East. Worst of all, the Saudi monarchy has funded dubious schools and "charities" throughout the Islamic world. Those organizations have been hotbeds of anti-Western, and especially, anti-American, indoctrination. The schools, for example, not only indoctrinate students in a virulent and extreme form of Islam, but also teach them to hate secular Western values. They are also taught that the United States is the center of infidel power in the world and is the enemy of Islam. Graduates of those schools are frequently recruits for Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terror network as well as other extremist groups. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?msid=107432 India played a key role in providing US authorities the information that funding for the September 11 attacks came from Pakistan. A top FBI counter-terrorism official told the US Senate governmental affairs committee on Thursday that investigators have “traced the origin of the funding of 9/11 back to financial accounts in Pakistan.’’ John S Pistole, deputy assistant director of the FBI’s counter-terrorism division, however, did not specify how those accounts in Pakistan were funded, or the role of Pakistani elements. The Times of India first reported on October 10, 2001 that India told the US that some $100,000 had been wired to the leader of the hijackers, Mahmud Atta, by British-born terrorist Ahmad Saeed Umar Sheikh. Indian authorities also told the US that the trail led back from Sheikh to the then chief of ISI, Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmad who was subsequently forced to retire by Pakistan president Pervez Musharraf. The FBI had been provided with the details, including Sheikh’s mobile numbers. But Pistole’s testimony is silent on these issues. The FBI has estimated the September 11 attacks cost between $175,000 and $250,000. That money — which paid for flight training, travel and other expenses — flowed to the hijackers through associates in Germany and the United Arab Emirates. Those associates reported to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who managed much of the planning for the attacks from Pakistan, US officials have said. The Bush Administration is being cagey about declassifying 28 secret pages in a recent report on the 9/11 incident which officials say outline connections between Saudi charities, royal family members and terrorism. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash. Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition. But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report released Wednesday said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents. Two high-ranking Iraqi officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity, told the AP most of the Saudi money comes from private donations, called zaqat, collected for Islamic causes and charities.
ottoman asked you to provide info on... Which iranian leaders sponser terrorism...? Please give me a cross reference site, with names of consequence, and verifiable evidence...
I guess let me spell it all out. You demand: [rquoter] a cross reference site, with names of consequence, and verifiable evidence... [/rquoter] in even considering the Saudis, but you are convicting 'the ahole from Iran' with far less evidence. I don't say that you are wrong to judge like Amahdinajad on that basis, mind you. But you seem to be applying the, "where there is smoke there is fire" argument to 'the ahole from Iran' but saying that is is grossly inappropriate when talking about the Saudis, how dare you. I just want you to apply the same rules across the board. If you judge Amahdinajad on the basis of the smoke, you shouldn't ignore the immense noxious black cloud hovering over Riyadh.
I don't follow you...I said Saudi Leaders, by that I mean the rulers like King. Iran's leaders - the heads of state, are connected. And don't start with the personal stuff. I took everyone off my ignore list - and I mean everyone and I'm really tired of of it. I don't want any part of it.
To be honest, I don't know enough about Saudi politics to comment. But I do agree that more needs to be done in this area. Still, I don't think the King is that connected to it, he may be forced to play someone of a blind eye - and that doesn't make it correct, but he certainly doesn't endorse it like the Iranian president. That's my point. Iran's prez endorses it.
It's certainly not a sponsor of it is it? I don't have time right now to look it up, but the information connecting him is fairly well known. To sum it up. Iran continues to back Hezzbelloh - this is not rogue Iranians, this is coming from the top of the leadership. Calling for the destruction or removal of a state is a form of terrorism. What is bin laden - a spokesperson endorsing jihad against u.s. citizens. How is it different for a man who calls for a state to be elminated? Finally, several former hostages from the Iran hostage crisis have identified the Iranian prez as one of the students holding thems. That's enough for me to say the man is pretty linked to terrorism.
first you said "rulers" than when you were called on it you said "by rulers i meant the king". that is called changing the goalposts. and since you said "leaders" in the plural sense, i dont think it is too far out to assume you were talking about more than one person. the royal family consists of about 7,000 people. poor, persecuted new yorker
Not to repeat what others have said, but you keep changing the goal posts. I think if you check, you will find that the initial discussion was not about defining someone as 'a sponsor' and in fact in three 'question-response' interactions the terms of what we are talking about the Saudis as actually being has changed three times. I suppose it is easier to give the appearance of having 'won' when you do that, and maybe you don't even realize that you are doing it, but have you really won anything in any meaningful terms when you do that? Not through any desire of my own, the argument had been tuned in such a way so that only direct involvement by Ahmadinejad is relevant. General state activities are unimportant. Again, I didn't set the terms of the discussion. But if the bar on one side is to show that King Abdullah has directly and personally been involved in terrorism since becoming head of state, then you should have to subject Ahmadinejad to the same criteria. What the Quds force or other entities below the head of state do is not directly relevant. These are not the terms of proof in this discussion that I would have chosen. But if this is the measurement that we apply to King Abdullah then we damn well better apply them to Ahmadinejad as well.
umm, the royal family are the people who run the country. saudi arabia is a monarchy. hell, the country is named after the ruling family. please dont tell me this is news to you! so than why are you commenting? do you have any proof to back up your claims? as roxy likes to say... Which iranian leaders sponser terrorism...? Please give me a cross reference site, with names of consequence, and verifiable evidence...
Did you miss the 50 posts trying to explian that Iranian leaders do not sponsor terrorism. How we should afford the fruitcake the same rights/platform American citizens get, and how we should let him use ground zero to mock Americans. This thread once again is being turned into a Bush bashfest, I am sure to some here, he is more evil than Amahdinajad. The sad part is, if Amahdinajad ruled this country, ppl like jo mama would be first ones to be put in jail and never to be heard from again. Right after he made sure there will be no gay people in the country.
