Actually, about nine months ago I advocated cutting off the head of the snake (the thing that feeds it) by forcing the saudi government to crack down on the wealthy members of their people who are (and have been for a decade) funding Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Of course... actually going after the RIGHT country would have been such a silly thing to do......
Bu....bu...but...there's no connection between Iraq and al quaida!
- Thread starter Drjones
- Start date
- Status
Thumper
Member
?????????
Main Entry: Af·ghan·i·stan
Pronunciation: af-'ga-n&-"stan, -'gä-n&-"stän
Usage: geographical name
country W Asia E of Iran capital Kabul area 250,775 square miles (649,507 square kilometers), population 18,052,000
(you might want to refine the 'population' number down a little.)
I think they are on the short list, maybe not for military action, but definitely for attitude adjustment, if not regime change.
Can anyone even imagine what it would have been like in WW II (or even **shudder** Vietnam) had there been an internet then?
Oh, the fiery debates that would have been!
Oh, the fiery debates that would have been!
It would have been incredible to see greyhound. I can imagine whole forums with tens of thousands of users dedicated entirely to Vietnam. Hopefully some soldiers would have had a forum in which they were able to say 'they spat on me' and that the morons who did that would see the damage they caused to men through their thoughtlessness.
If we were not indiscriminately beating up Arabs, occupying their lands, and stealing their treasure, al Qaida would have alot more trouble selling its propaganda. But we do need enemies, right?
~G. Fink
~G. Fink
"indiscriminately beating up arabs"... ?
I think destroying the Taliban was pretty discriminate.
Additionally, the removal of Saddam was pretty discriminate.
We are fighting a war on TERROR, not on AQ.
So, whether that is against Hamaas, or AQ, or rulers like Saddam who SUPPORT terrorism, it is the same.
Should Saudi be dealt with? Yes.
"occupying their lands"
Are you an idiot? Do you not know about the MILLIONS of Iraqi's who are GLAD we are there? Who WANT us there? A few thousand bitch and moan and they get the attention. The liberal news media does a good job of lying so that you don't have an idea.
I GREW UP in Saudi Arabia. I served on a task force against terrorism. I speak the Arab language fluently. A lot of the time when you see Arab's "speaking badly" of America, the news media taints the translation HORRIBLY.
Just the other night on CNN I watched an Iraqi say "that he wanted them to leave"... but it was QUITE obvious to those who understand arabic that he was saying the foreign terrorists attacking the US forces protecting him... but what did CNN say? "He wants the US forces to go home".
"stealing their treasure"
You mean OIL? We haven't touched or taken any oil from the Iraqi's... nor have we stolen billions as Saddam did from the Oil for Food program. We have DONATED BILLIONS of dollars to Iraq. Not taken a damn dime.
I really wish that there were "truth checks" like spell checks... a lot of you would have nothing but red errors any time you opened your mouth.
Semper Fidelis
I think destroying the Taliban was pretty discriminate.
Additionally, the removal of Saddam was pretty discriminate.
We are fighting a war on TERROR, not on AQ.
So, whether that is against Hamaas, or AQ, or rulers like Saddam who SUPPORT terrorism, it is the same.
Should Saudi be dealt with? Yes.
"occupying their lands"
Are you an idiot? Do you not know about the MILLIONS of Iraqi's who are GLAD we are there? Who WANT us there? A few thousand bitch and moan and they get the attention. The liberal news media does a good job of lying so that you don't have an idea.
I GREW UP in Saudi Arabia. I served on a task force against terrorism. I speak the Arab language fluently. A lot of the time when you see Arab's "speaking badly" of America, the news media taints the translation HORRIBLY.
Just the other night on CNN I watched an Iraqi say "that he wanted them to leave"... but it was QUITE obvious to those who understand arabic that he was saying the foreign terrorists attacking the US forces protecting him... but what did CNN say? "He wants the US forces to go home".
"stealing their treasure"
You mean OIL? We haven't touched or taken any oil from the Iraqi's... nor have we stolen billions as Saddam did from the Oil for Food program. We have DONATED BILLIONS of dollars to Iraq. Not taken a damn dime.
I really wish that there were "truth checks" like spell checks... a lot of you would have nothing but red errors any time you opened your mouth.
Semper Fidelis
Well stated, USMC_2674!
How many Arab lands were we occupying prior to 9/11? Evidently, some people were buying al Qaida propaganda before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq.
How many Arab lands were we occupying prior to 9/11? Evidently, some people were buying al Qaida propaganda before we went to Afghanistan and Iraq.
Holy cow - I can't believe I am going to add another post to this thread, but the fact is, there was no link. We were quite simply deceived by the administration. USMC_2674, I have a lot of respect for your experience, but the US simply does not invade every country with a bad dictator - otherwise we would invade North Korea tomorrow. We attacked because of a perportedly viable threat to the American people. We now know it did not exist. The fact that many (or most) Iraqi citizens want us there is simply not relevant. The issues of money, oil, etc., are all not part of this argument.
The American people were asked to support this war under false pretenses. Anyone following the Nigerian yellowcake debacle should have smelled a rat.
The American people were asked to support this war under false pretenses. Anyone following the Nigerian yellowcake debacle should have smelled a rat.
Drjones, by your logic there is a connection between Bush and Al Queda:
…
CAIRO (Reuters) -
…
WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.
The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...17/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721
…
CAIRO (Reuters) -
…
WE WANT BUSH TO WIN
The statement said it supported President Bush in his reelection campaign, and would prefer him to win in November rather than the Democratic candidate John Kerry, as it was not possible to find a leader "more foolish than you (Bush), who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
In comments addressed to Bush, the group said:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
"Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running out for allies of the United States.
"Whose turn is it next? Will it be Japan or America, or Italy, Britain or Oslo or Australia?" the statement said, adding Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were also targets.
The group is named after Muhammed Atef, also known as Abu Hafs, a close bin Laden aide killed in the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...17/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721
admit it, w4rma.....
You just posted that article because you believe it!
************************************************************
""Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
************************************************************
You just posted that article because you believe it!
************************************************************
""Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization."
************************************************************
Pretty lame example of the old "reverse psychology" that some of the cartoon characters I used to watch on Saturday mornings would use on each other from time to time.
Suuuure; Americans are supposed to conclude that Kerry's the one that jihadis fear...ergo, we'll all vote for him.
OK; the forebears of the clown who wrote this little missive invented Algebra, fer cryin' out loud...the boy just ain't been studyin'.
Why is it
that piles of very suggestive data (e.g. Salman Pak) mean nothing, but any Bush miscalculation is a deliberate lie, concocted for electoral gain or self-enrichment?
I would respect the Bush lied crowd more if I heard, just once, something like "well, yes, there is evidence to make people of good will think there was a link, but I just don't find it credible." That would be honest debate, but I'll not hold my breath.
Exception: St. Johns pretty much said just that.
that piles of very suggestive data (e.g. Salman Pak) mean nothing, but any Bush miscalculation is a deliberate lie, concocted for electoral gain or self-enrichment?
I would respect the Bush lied crowd more if I heard, just once, something like "well, yes, there is evidence to make people of good will think there was a link, but I just don't find it credible." That would be honest debate, but I'll not hold my breath.
Exception: St. Johns pretty much said just that.
Of course there is a connection between Iraq and Al Queda. It's called ISLAM. And by strange coincidence that link also connects damn near every terrorist in the world hmmmmmmm.
Did I say that Khornet? It is the way I feel about it though. There is enough there to make people think that it is possible, there is enough against to make people think it is improbable. Unfortunately, the old 'our political enemies lied' will always be used.
My personal feelings are that it seems unlikely, that doesn't mean I feel Blair lied necessarily but did what has always been done by govt's of all persuasions - used the evidence as they thought best. Whether we think it was 'best' after the fact is another matter.
It seems to me unlikely that in fifty years time the discourse about this subject will be similar to how it is now, more will be known, hindsight will be used and the attacks for political gain by either side will have, hopefully, subsided as Bush will be no longer president (we hope)
My personal feelings are that it seems unlikely, that doesn't mean I feel Blair lied necessarily but did what has always been done by govt's of all persuasions - used the evidence as they thought best. Whether we think it was 'best' after the fact is another matter.
It seems to me unlikely that in fifty years time the discourse about this subject will be similar to how it is now, more will be known, hindsight will be used and the attacks for political gain by either side will have, hopefully, subsided as Bush will be no longer president (we hope
)
Last edited:
Just like on 9/11. Right?
Your plan is working well for Spain. Right?
Living in a fantasy world...
That's a good one.
They are just trying to stop American oppression in the world."We are fighting a war on TERROR, not on AQ.
So, whether that is against Hamaas, or AQ, or rulers like Saddam who SUPPORT terrorism, it is the same." USMC_2674
Yes I do. The terrorists from all over the ME are crawling out of their holes and are gathering in Iraq. Those who are trained to wage war are there to do their job and eliminate them. I guess you would rather try to appease them like Spain hoping they will pass you by while you bury your head in the sand.
Roscoe,
Did we go to Iraq because:
A) there was a link to AQ
B) they had WMD's (even Saddam indirectly said he had them)
C) to save the country from a dictator...
D) all of the above
E) A, B, & C, but we still would have gone if A & C weren't there as they were just an "extra" incentive.
???
In my opinion it is E.
In fact that is the opinion of Pres Bush (at least from his explanation as to why). When they went to Congress for "permission" to go to war, they stated a couple different reasons, but they said up front the number one reason was for WMD's. The link to AQ was suggestive...
So, this brings the whole mess back to WMD's as the reason we are there. That is the reason that Bush said we were going, that is the reason that Congress said we are going, and that is the reason that we went to Iraq.
So, get off of this "there was no link to AQ" hype. There was information pointing towards the fact that AQ was in Iraq. There WERE several high up AQ agents IN IRAQ (we captured them there during the first part of the war, i.e. they did NOT come in to fight us afterwards). AQ was protected at least to a small degree by Saddam.
Now, I know we didn't find any WMD's, yet. But I would much rather have an honest argument about WMD's and where they are, then to have people make ???? up about "the whole reason we went to war in Iraq was for Oil or because of a falsehood told by Bush about AQ being directly linked", etc.
So, there you go
Do I think that there were problems with Intel provided to the Admin and thus lead them to believe things that weren't 100% true? yes.
That is how it works folks for those who don't know. You NEVER have 100% positive intelligence until FAR TOO LATE. You're working off hunches or tips. I remember raiding an apartment complex because a 5 year old girl saw a man with "sticks" strapped to his shirt walk into the building.
You have to act on intel that is old, outdated, flimsy, and wavering... if you don't, you end up with a lot of people dead. That is how counter-terrorism works.
Semper Fidelis
Did we go to Iraq because:
A) there was a link to AQ
B) they had WMD's (even Saddam indirectly said he had them)
C) to save the country from a dictator...
D) all of the above
E) A, B, & C, but we still would have gone if A & C weren't there as they were just an "extra" incentive.
???
In my opinion it is E.
In fact that is the opinion of Pres Bush (at least from his explanation as to why). When they went to Congress for "permission" to go to war, they stated a couple different reasons, but they said up front the number one reason was for WMD's. The link to AQ was suggestive...
So, this brings the whole mess back to WMD's as the reason we are there. That is the reason that Bush said we were going, that is the reason that Congress said we are going, and that is the reason that we went to Iraq.
So, get off of this "there was no link to AQ" hype. There was information pointing towards the fact that AQ was in Iraq. There WERE several high up AQ agents IN IRAQ (we captured them there during the first part of the war, i.e. they did NOT come in to fight us afterwards). AQ was protected at least to a small degree by Saddam.
Now, I know we didn't find any WMD's, yet. But I would much rather have an honest argument about WMD's and where they are, then to have people make ???? up about "the whole reason we went to war in Iraq was for Oil or because of a falsehood told by Bush about AQ being directly linked", etc.
So, there you go
Do I think that there were problems with Intel provided to the Admin and thus lead them to believe things that weren't 100% true? yes.
That is how it works folks for those who don't know. You NEVER have 100% positive intelligence until FAR TOO LATE. You're working off hunches or tips. I remember raiding an apartment complex because a 5 year old girl saw a man with "sticks" strapped to his shirt walk into the building.
You have to act on intel that is old, outdated, flimsy, and wavering... if you don't, you end up with a lot of people dead. That is how counter-terrorism works.
Semper Fidelis
Uh, no. My point was that their unreasonable hatred of us will cause them to issue anti-American statements no matter what we do. How in the world did interpret that as me making statements about "American oppression"? I will try only one more time then give up: first, Hussein had no links to those groups according to all the intel available... as well as simple common sense. Bush is LYING to you implying that Iraq or Hussein was in the terror business. He was in the business of making himself rich and powerful. Supporting terror groups which do nothing but bring down the wrath of the US onto his country would be idiotic: it makes him no money, and those groups all adamently oppose secular regimes such as Hussein's because their entire objective is to set up Islamic (theocratic) governments and the first step is to DESTROY all the secular governments. In fact, they see governments such as Iraq's and saudi Arabia's as corrupt because they both (at one time or another) fully supported the US and were our "allies".
As long s you buy Bush's lies that "all Arabs are alike", Iraq was supporting the terrorists, beating on Iraq is winning the WOT... there is honestly no hope. Hussein was a bad guy, and at one point he had bios and chems... but our own CIA reported that he would never dare use them against US targets or supply them to anyone who would because he knew it would cause us to destroy his government.
When you buy into the Bush BS load, you are mixing up two opposite entities:
1) Terrorists, who have no allegiance to any country and whose objectives are to harm the US and if necessary, die in the process.
2) A dictator coward whose entire agenda was to make himself rich and would never do anything to jeopardize his standing in his country (that is the CIA's conclusion on Hussein, not just mine).
Bottom line, Iraq posed no threat to us at all. AQ is the only serious threat and attacking Iraq did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to reduce that threat. In fact, as a number of analysts have pointed out, the time we wasted in Iraq has allowed AQ to grow in size and change structure into an organization that is no longer centralized on one single command structure, but operates as sub cells all acting independently toward a common goal. It is called the "hydra effect", because the snake we fought several years ago with one head now has many... and that means it will be infinitely more difficult to destroy because taking down Bin laden will have virtually no effect because he is now just a figurehead leader, not an operational commander.
Open your eyes people. All Arabs are not alike. Dictators do not have the same agenda as terrorist organizations. The only hope to win is to fight the real enemy. Stop swallowing lies by the gallon and look around at what is actually going on.
Thank you.
I don't care who else he supported...he openly supported terror attacks on Israel both politically and monetarily. We said that we were going take out states/countries that support terror.
Do you understand what I am saying?
Yeh, yeh don't even try to go down the "what about country xyz" path. We have additional justification for Iraq because of the prior war and the UN resolutions. To start with any others would have been political suicide.
Yep, it was.
Ohhh, the psychics among us.
Since you seem to know more than all the intelligence agencies then maybe you know were we can find OBL.
Terrorism in any form not just your little nicely boxed AQ version.
Last edited:
- Status