w4rma
member
Do you have a better source for your assertion that the secular Saddam (who Bin Laden tried to assassinate) supported Al Queda?
Edited to delete angry retort about the RNC and Al Queda.
Bush Haters, Islamofascists Unite
- Thread starter throwweight
- Start date
- Status
Edited to delete angry retort about the RNC and Al Queda.
capt_happypants
Member In Memoriam
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2003
- Messages
- 304
And if we hit Saudi Arabia first, that would've set off the Arab street in a big way. The heart of Islam would be under control of the Crusaders, provoking the global jihad that Bin Laden hoped for.
I understand that Saudi is the worst promoter of Wahabism, but they control a large hunk of the world's oil. The trick is to cut them off from their cash flow, without causing titanic economic disruption. The Bush strategery, at least from my perspective, is to first secure a source of Middle East oil, then apply the screws to the Saudis. With Iraq providing crude to the West, we can finally tell the Saudis to go pound sand. The regime is starting to destabilize, and I would not shed many tears if the many different factions that vie for power in Saudi start a civil war.
Pakistan is a nightmare. They have nukes, and the danger is that the Islamists would take control of the country. India would probably go nuclear if a sworn follower of Wahabism took the reins, and I suspect that a lot of our birds would have new targeting information as well. I would be very happy if we started destroying the madrassas via JDAM, but the practical matter is: it's simply too dangerous to try and effect change in Pakistan.
Iraq is now the number-one destination for every jihad-hungry, 72-virgin seeking holy warrior. Our presence is simply unacceptable to their leadership. We have a base of operations in the dead center of the Islamist world, and we have options in every direction.
Ultimately, the choice is ours. Do we fight the Islamists in Fallujah, or do we fight them in New York?
I understand that Saudi is the worst promoter of Wahabism, but they control a large hunk of the world's oil. The trick is to cut them off from their cash flow, without causing titanic economic disruption. The Bush strategery, at least from my perspective, is to first secure a source of Middle East oil, then apply the screws to the Saudis. With Iraq providing crude to the West, we can finally tell the Saudis to go pound sand. The regime is starting to destabilize, and I would not shed many tears if the many different factions that vie for power in Saudi start a civil war.
Pakistan is a nightmare. They have nukes, and the danger is that the Islamists would take control of the country. India would probably go nuclear if a sworn follower of Wahabism took the reins, and I suspect that a lot of our birds would have new targeting information as well. I would be very happy if we started destroying the madrassas via JDAM, but the practical matter is: it's simply too dangerous to try and effect change in Pakistan.
Iraq is now the number-one destination for every jihad-hungry, 72-virgin seeking holy warrior. Our presence is simply unacceptable to their leadership. We have a base of operations in the dead center of the Islamist world, and we have options in every direction.
Ultimately, the choice is ours. Do we fight the Islamists in Fallujah, or do we fight them in New York?
HBK
member
I'm not as good at this cut and paste BS as you are, you must have more time on your hands. Here's one.
Iraq linked to Al Queda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77618,00.html
Iraq linked to Al Queda
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77618,00.html
HBK
member
And another. This is just a post, but if you read the information, you'll see you are dead wrong again.
Iraq and Al Queda ties.
http://www.edgewateronline.com/forum/index.pl?read=25366
Iraq and Al Queda ties.
http://www.edgewateronline.com/forum/index.pl?read=25366
Joe Demko
Member
I'm a libertarian, but this is such a wild claim that I couldn't just let it go by. These are some pretty serious charges you are making. Do you have anything factual to back it up, other than that you don't like Al Qaeda and the DNC?
Marshall, we know that Al Qaeda is now operating in Iraq. We know that Arabs and Muslims are now flocking to Iraq to fight us "Jews and crusaders."
I was talking about the period before the US invasion in March 1993. I have seen no evidence that Saddam's government allowed Al Qaeda to operate training camps inside Iraq. No evidence that Saddam provided material, intelligence, logistical, diplomatic, or political support to AL Qaeda. (They are in contact with each other.) No evidence that Saddam's government planned, participated in, or had foreknowledge of the attacks on the US on 9-11, or attacks on US embassies in Africa in 1998, or the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, or the attack on the Khobar Tower in 1995.
I've been asking the hawks for evidence for over a year. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rummy nor Scooter nor Wolfie nor Feith nor Cambone have provided any evidence. They are shrewd men. They never came right out and said "Saddam was behind 9-11. Saddam provides support to AL Qaeda." You know why? Because such statements are so easily debunked. Instead, they hinted around at it, and hoped that morons out there in TV land would assume that Saddam and bin Laden are buddies who got together and planned 9-11.
I suppose it's possible, but I just haven't seen any solid evidence for it.
And you know what? Bush and his people's estimate of the intelligence of the average American was right on the mark.
As late as May 2003, a third of the American public believed U.S. forces had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a poll. Twenty-two percent said Iraq had actually used chemical or biological weapons.
But such weapons have not been found in Iraq and were not used.
Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis; none was an Iraqi.
I was talking about the period before the US invasion in March 1993. I have seen no evidence that Saddam's government allowed Al Qaeda to operate training camps inside Iraq. No evidence that Saddam provided material, intelligence, logistical, diplomatic, or political support to AL Qaeda. (They are in contact with each other.) No evidence that Saddam's government planned, participated in, or had foreknowledge of the attacks on the US on 9-11, or attacks on US embassies in Africa in 1998, or the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, or the attack on the Khobar Tower in 1995.
I've been asking the hawks for evidence for over a year. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Rummy nor Scooter nor Wolfie nor Feith nor Cambone have provided any evidence. They are shrewd men. They never came right out and said "Saddam was behind 9-11. Saddam provides support to AL Qaeda." You know why? Because such statements are so easily debunked. Instead, they hinted around at it, and hoped that morons out there in TV land would assume that Saddam and bin Laden are buddies who got together and planned 9-11.
I suppose it's possible, but I just haven't seen any solid evidence for it.
And you know what? Bush and his people's estimate of the intelligence of the average American was right on the mark.
As late as May 2003, a third of the American public believed U.S. forces had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a poll. Twenty-two percent said Iraq had actually used chemical or biological weapons.
But such weapons have not been found in Iraq and were not used.
Before the war, half of those polled in a survey said Iraqis were among the 19 hijackers on Sept. 11, 2001. But most of the Sept. 11 terrorists were Saudis; none was an Iraqi.
w4rma
member
HBK, that is a fantastic article that proves my points. Thank you for hunting that down. (Btw, the article's headline is "Blair: Iraq Has Some Al Qaeda Links", not "Iraq linked to Al Queda")
Some excerpts:
…a leaked document, written by an intelligence unit at the Ministry of Defense three weeks ago, concluded there is "no current link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The document said a past effort by the two to work together had fallen apart over ideological differences.
Blair said he read the document Wednesday morning, denying the BBC report that he had been given the document earlier.
"It actually isn't primarily about Al Qaeda and Iraq at all," he said, answering questions in the House of Commons.
"What it merely says, which is absolutely true, is that historically it has always been the case that, of course, Al Qaeda and Iraq would have different positions."
The BBC said the Defense Intelligence Staff report accepted there had been contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the past. But any "fledgling relationship foundered, due to mistrust and incompatible ideology" between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath party, the BBC quoted the assessment as saying.
"Though training of some Al Qaeda members in Iraq may have continued, we believe that bin Laden views the Baath as an apostate regime. His aim of restoration of an Islamic caliphate, whose capital was Baghdad, is in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq," the BBC quoted the document as saying.
…
Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrat party, asked Blair whether he was losing the battle for public opinion "by talking up links between Al Qaeda and Iraq which do not appear to be sufficiently supported by our own domestic intelligence services."
…
Saddam denied he had any links to Al Qaeda in an interview broadcast Tuesday in Britain.
…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77618,00.html
Some excerpts:
…a leaked document, written by an intelligence unit at the Ministry of Defense three weeks ago, concluded there is "no current link" between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The document said a past effort by the two to work together had fallen apart over ideological differences.
Blair said he read the document Wednesday morning, denying the BBC report that he had been given the document earlier.
"It actually isn't primarily about Al Qaeda and Iraq at all," he said, answering questions in the House of Commons.
"What it merely says, which is absolutely true, is that historically it has always been the case that, of course, Al Qaeda and Iraq would have different positions."
The BBC said the Defense Intelligence Staff report accepted there had been contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the past. But any "fledgling relationship foundered, due to mistrust and incompatible ideology" between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein's ruling Baath party, the BBC quoted the assessment as saying.
"Though training of some Al Qaeda members in Iraq may have continued, we believe that bin Laden views the Baath as an apostate regime. His aim of restoration of an Islamic caliphate, whose capital was Baghdad, is in ideological conflict with present-day Iraq," the BBC quoted the document as saying.
…
Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrat party, asked Blair whether he was losing the battle for public opinion "by talking up links between Al Qaeda and Iraq which do not appear to be sufficiently supported by our own domestic intelligence services."
…
Saddam denied he had any links to Al Qaeda in an interview broadcast Tuesday in Britain.
…
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77618,00.html
You can split hairs all you want about whether people who live in the geographical area known as Iraq have any ties to 9/11, but that is not the point. The entire area shares more similarities culturally and in their hatred for the west than they share differences with each other. So the argument that "Iraq had no ties to 9/11 blah blah......." is a red herring.
The terrorist enemy may be fragmented without a central command and control, but you can bet they travel freely around the middleast from one country to another. As for Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan........well it ain't over til it's over.
The terrorist enemy may be fragmented without a central command and control, but you can bet they travel freely around the middleast from one country to another. As for Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan........well it ain't over til it's over.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Over the weekend Scuba Ted and other members of the DNC all stated that this prisoner abuse situation would lead to retaliatory hits. During the executuion of Mr. Berg, the scum stated that they were doing this in retaliation for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners.
Prior to this, SCUBA Ted told everybody that this would be Bush's vietnam and that Bush "lied, lied, lied." Al Sadr came out the next day and stated that this would be Bush's Vietnam.
Coincidence? You decide.
The DNC has set up multiple scenarios where they gain when the US loses. All of the "I told you so" preachers on this forum, and the politicians throughout the country, have set it up so that our humiliation benefits their cause. Every set back in Iraq is claimed as a major victory for the DNC.
Al Qaeda makes the same pronouncements and lists the same goals.
Can you see where I am coming from?
ravinraven
Member
"Why they continue to vote for him and his buds, I will leave for your speculation."
Moron faction. How's that for speculation.
And all of this blabbering about is al QaidA, here, the Republican Guard there, Hamas somewhere else. Distinguishing between terrorists, groups, supporting nations and regimes is a bit like distinguishing between the bubbles in your beer. What difference does it make? If you identify one. Kill it. Identify another. Kill it. Repeat for a century or two.
Or tip your throat up and smile for the nice whoever Terrorist.
rr
Moron faction. How's that for speculation.
And all of this blabbering about is al QaidA, here, the Republican Guard there, Hamas somewhere else. Distinguishing between terrorists, groups, supporting nations and regimes is a bit like distinguishing between the bubbles in your beer. What difference does it make? If you identify one. Kill it. Identify another. Kill it. Repeat for a century or two.
Or tip your throat up and smile for the nice whoever Terrorist.
rr
HBK
member
My point is you can find any article you like, it doesn't mean it is the truth. I don't have all damn night to search around for articles. You cutting and pasting all this BS doesn't mean a damn thing. I'm not even sure you beleive your own BS. It is a fact that Al Quaeda was aided by Huseein's regime. All your liberal talking points and cut and paste BS won't change that. WNDs were moved to Syria before we invaded because the liberals were so busy crying we need UN support that we let them get away. I'm not even sure who's side your on, but it sure isn't mine or that of the US.
Antlurz
Member
7.62FMJ...
I got to thinking about that and got out my etch-a-sketch..
Ron
I got to thinking about that and got out my etch-a-sketch..
Ron
Antlurz
Member
Kinda sKerry aint it?
Ron
Ron
throwweight
member
'Can you see where I'm coming from?'
Very clearly. Who says that treason is hard to prove...and there's plenty of it going around. It gets a nod and a wink
because no one has the political will to press the issue.
We have to listen to Brokaw, Rather and Jennings who twist the reporting of events so that it fits their socialist agenda and brainwashes those who are too lazy to think for themselves.
We have to listen to the likes of Charles Rangel talk about impeaching Sec. Rumsfeld when the very act of grandstanding in this fashion provides aid, comfort and encouragement to our mortal enemies.
We have to listen to 'the Hon.' Edward Kennedy screech about lies, lies, lies when his whole political career and that of his family is built on a foundation of the most egregious falsehoods.
We have to listen to KKK member Robert Byrd shake and stutter as he rails against the President for leading us down 'the primrose path' and complain about the cost of the war while stealing enough millions from the federal coffers to rename every edifice and outhouse in West Virginia after him.
We have to listen to the likes of Hillary Clinton question the integrity of our military when her hatred of our armed services is so intense that she should recuse herself from any deliberation on the basis of emotional instability.
Finally, we have to listen to John Kerry
as he drones on, day after day, seemingly unable to grasp that the Presidency should be filled by a person of conviction, backbone and integrity and not by someone who changes his values, positions and personal history as if he were changing channels on TV.
Yes there is treason afoot and left unchecked, it will cause more damage to this county than the tragic events of 9/11 ever did.
The communists used to call folks of this ilk 'dupes' and 'useful idiots'. I'm very sure that the Islamofascists refer to these folks as proudly.
Very clearly. Who says that treason is hard to prove...and there's plenty of it going around. It gets a nod and a wink
because no one has the political will to press the issue.
We have to listen to Brokaw, Rather and Jennings who twist the reporting of events so that it fits their socialist agenda and brainwashes those who are too lazy to think for themselves.
We have to listen to the likes of Charles Rangel talk about impeaching Sec. Rumsfeld when the very act of grandstanding in this fashion provides aid, comfort and encouragement to our mortal enemies.
We have to listen to 'the Hon.' Edward Kennedy screech about lies, lies, lies when his whole political career and that of his family is built on a foundation of the most egregious falsehoods.
We have to listen to KKK member Robert Byrd shake and stutter as he rails against the President for leading us down 'the primrose path' and complain about the cost of the war while stealing enough millions from the federal coffers to rename every edifice and outhouse in West Virginia after him.
We have to listen to the likes of Hillary Clinton question the integrity of our military when her hatred of our armed services is so intense that she should recuse herself from any deliberation on the basis of emotional instability.
Finally, we have to listen to John Kerry
as he drones on, day after day, seemingly unable to grasp that the Presidency should be filled by a person of conviction, backbone and integrity and not by someone who changes his values, positions and personal history as if he were changing channels on TV.
Yes there is treason afoot and left unchecked, it will cause more damage to this county than the tragic events of 9/11 ever did.
The communists used to call folks of this ilk 'dupes' and 'useful idiots'. I'm very sure that the Islamofascists refer to these folks as proudly.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
The resemblance is uncanny. 
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
throwweight,
'
I am going to concur with previous posters. I think you will be a tremendous asset.
'
I am going to concur with previous posters. I think you will be a tremendous asset.
longeyes
member
The DNC and Al-Qaeda have this in common: a death wish.
Where they differ is that the latter looks forward to 72 virgins, the former to 72 interns.
Where they differ is that the latter looks forward to 72 virgins, the former to 72 interns.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
HBK
member
Man, I needed that laugh.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
Longeyes,THAT is funny
Throwweight,I repeat great commentary!(I like this guy)
Throwweight,I repeat great commentary!(I like this guy)
longeyes
member
Throwweight,
Welcome. As the man said, This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
Welcome. As the man said, This could be the start of a beautiful friendship.
Unlucky
member
You mean Izvestia, Pravda and the BBC?
First, foreign leaders, and now foreign news broadcasts.
HBK
member
Joe Demko
Member
I see how you reached your conclusion. However little I care for the Democrats, though, I don't believe there is any actual contact or alliance between Al Qaeda and the DNC any more than I believe W4RMA's accusations of complicity between the Republicans and Al Qaeda.
The Democrats and Republicans are both reprehensible groups of statist control freaks, neither of which wants anything but power, but I'd require more solid proof than either you or W4RMA has produced befor I'd believe such charges.
- Status