User talk:Huysman/Iraq and Al Qaeda

OK... I said I wouldn't debate this but there are some things I can't resist pointing out. Your page on this issue cites a lot of things known to be false and some other things that are just out of left field. You claim Saddam was behind the Oklahoma City bombing (!), the TWA 800 explosion (!!!), Kenya and Tanzania, and both WTC attacks. Your footnotes cite various bizarre speculation as well as items known to be false. For example on the Atta/Prague meeting, on which the intel analysts have pretty much rested their case, you claim that "photographic evidence" exists - sure it does! On your blog! And there is no indication of where it came from!! And the guy in the photo looks nothing like Atta!!

It came from here and it has a detailed comparison between the individual in question and Atta. They were photographed together by anonymous undercover Czech sources. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Detailed comparison"? Give me a break. The compressed image of Mohamed Atta on that web page is extremely poor. It has lost so much essential information it no longer even looks like Atta. Compare [1] and contrast [2] Was this done deliberately? I suspect so. Ste B 19:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Has any reliable source ever commented on this photo? You cite evidence from "an Iraqi defector" that Saddam blew up the USS Cole, yet you ignore the fact that every journalist who has met this man -- a smuggler, murderer, and rapist -- considers him a prevaricator.

My mistake; it has been removed. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cite "evidence" that Atta was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, but ignore the fact that the one "memo" this claim is based on is a known forgery.

No, you ignore my commentary containing rebuttals to arguments that it is a "known forgery" and showing that the veracity is an open question that needs further investigation. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll stop now, but I will insist that such conspiracy theories not be placed on wikipedia articles without reliable evidence, and links to your blog (or Mauro's blog) don't count. --csloat 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mauro cites mainstream reports from the entire political spectrum, as RonCram demonstrated, sources you ought to deem "reliable." My blog is linked to for analyses that are beyond the scope of this short article. -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 01:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's get this straight. The photo is real and it is Atta because "The X Report" says so? And nobody has seen fit to publish anything real about this, and no intelligence agency has seen fit to include this information in their analysis of this question?

The analysis contains information that is easily independently verified just using one's eyes. Do you have any specific reasons for suspecting the photo is a fake? -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it has never been corroborated or published or even mentioned in any reliable source, and every investigation of the matter doesn't even mention that such a photo may exist. And the source that it comes from is a joke - they painted a moustache on Zarqawi's mugshot to "prove" it looks like a guy it still doesn't look like.--csloat 02:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm supposed to take a high school student's analysis of the forged document over the conclusion of several documents experts contacted by Newsweek? Ummm, thanks, but no thanks.--csloat 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some more disinformation you might want to remove from your page refers to Mr. Ahmed Shakir. You should probably read the timeline, which includes evidence that refutes a lot of the other disinformation in your list here. Assuming you are doing this in good faith - and I think your removal of the stuff from the known INC murderer and liar does demonstrate that - you will find that a lot of the alleged links to these terrorist incidents turned out to be incorrect. Saddam is a miserable thug, to be sure, but he simply was not capable of doing all these things and was not willing to work with the Islamists who did them.--csloat 02:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look at the timeline as you recommend. I don't engage in disinformation, but I am human and might accidentally give misinformation and I will be more careful. Do you have any objections to the specific arguments I offered to show that Newsweek/MSNBC's "debunking" might be flawed? -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 02:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Shakir is not a case of mistaken identity after all. [3] -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 02:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my objection is we have credible experts on the one hand and the assertions of a high school student on the other. You don't know who looked at what documents, and your claim that their analysis is flawed is a mere assertion without evidence.--csloat 02:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't know who did look at the documents, but I know who didn't and that is highly relevant to this issue. It was not a "mere assertion," as I offered a few reasons to back up my claim regarding:

the Niger uranium story [4] [5] (the 3rd Fort Wayne News Sentinel link is now defunct)
the explicit nature of the memo (myriad other Operation Iraqi Freedom documents contain extremely damning information so this is not unusual)
the expert's treatment of the document
possible opportunities for training -- Huysman^talk^| ^contribs 03:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, you don't know who didn't look at the documents except yourself. You don't know what was said about them other than what Newsweek has published, nor do you have any other info about "the expert's treatment of the document." Your biased articles about the Niger documents are wrong, but I am not going to get into that with you also; suffice to say that every mainstream source disagrees with the arguments of Hitchens, et al. Your assertion about "myriad other Operation Iraqi Freedom documents contain extremely damning information" is both incorrect (see Operation Iraqi Freedom documents) and irrelevant to that point. Your comment about "possible opportunities" was the silliest. You say that since the noted date (summer 01) was impossible, you'll look at january instead, and you assert that he could have gone there in january for training. You're reasoning backwards from your conclusion! I find it interesting that you claim to be annoyed by 9/11 conspiracy theories on your blog, yet you are embracing the biggest one! Look, I don't want to continue debating you about this; I feel like I'm picking on you and I don't mean to. Keep reading and keep investigating the things you think are important. But attempts to put these sort of things on Wikipedia will get shot down.--csloat 03:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]