Iraq was not involved in 9/11

[Ray]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

To be truthfully honest, I never even thought Iraq had anything to do with it.

Also can it still be called "Proof"?

Discuss.

[krackel]

I think its been a pretty well known fact for awhile now, It wasnt just a couple days that they figured out iraq wasnt connected to 911. I am just surprised that cheney would say something like that again, last monday.

[JerkyMyTurky]

I'm not surprised Cheney would continue to say it. He has an election coming up, he can't admit that he lied to the American public, so he will continue to lie, because people will still believe him. Not a surprise. I'll be surprised when people stop believing the lies.

[Sketcher]

It was about oil and those greedy Repulican Bush-administration pigs.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We've been over there now for over a year and Saddam has been in custody for 6 months now. And we have yet to take a single drop of oil. Us going over there for oil is just a flat-out lie.

[Viceroy]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We've been over there now for over a year and Saddam has been in custody for 6 months now. And we have yet to take a single drop of oil. Us going over there for oil is just a flat-out lie.

I'm sure there were many reasons. However, Halliburton's stock has skyrocketted since the invasion.

[Viceroy]

On topic:

The Iraq-9/11 link was a joke right from the start. The idea of secular Saddam entertaining a religious extremist like bin Laden is laughable.

The links were suggested and perpetuated by the Bush administration to push their agenda in Iraq and garner support for an invasion. The fact that many American troops think they went to Iraq to avenge 9/11 shows just how far the lies went.

The irony is that Iraq was never a haven for terrorists before the invasion.

[poopchow]

On topic:

The Iraq-9/11 link was a joke right from the start. The idea of secular Saddam entertaining a religious extremist like bin Laden is laughable.

The links were suggested and perpetuated by the Bush administration to push their agenda in Iraq and garner support for an invasion. The fact that many American troops think they went to Iraq to avenge 9/11 shows just how far the lies went.

The irony is that Iraq was never a haven for terrorists before the invasion.

I woud love to see proof of that.

[droogsteve]

I woud love to see proof of that.


Did you miss the link?

The commission investigating the 11 September 2001 attacks on the US has found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry them out.
The statement was published before the bipartisan commission began the final two-day public session.

It contradicts Monday's remarks by the US vice-president about Saddam Hussein "long-established ties" with al-Qaeda.

Iraq's alleged links with al-Qaeda were part of the justification the Bush administration gave for invading Iraq.

[Disconnect This]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

We've been over there now for over a year and Saddam has been in custody for 6 months now. And we have yet to take a single drop of oil. Us going over there for oil is just a flat-out lie.

please prove it.

i doubt the controlled media would tell us about it

edit: i doubt the iraq had any connections to terrorism, considering a part of it is some catholic i believe.

[Ray]

Viceroy makes a good point. American soldiers that went over to Iraq to avenge 9/11 would feel betrayed by their govenment after hearing this. Not good for moral.

[Xxl3o0mxX]

We all know that it wasnt involved...but Saddam needed to go one way or another.

[pidgeball6]

I'm sure there were many reasons. However, Halliburton's stock has skyrocketted since the invasion.

Heh, same 'ol same 'ol huh Viceroy? Actually Halliburton's stock has been middle of the road at best. Always with the distortions. :rolleyes:

[pidgeball6]

Actually Droog, I think Poop was calling Vice on the usual half-truth used to prop up the outright untruth that follows.
First theres:

The Iraq-9/11 link was a joke right from the start. The idea of secular Saddam entertaining a religious extremist like bin Laden is laughable.
Only if Ansar al-islam, formerly of northern Iraq, is funny. Most experts agree Abu Zarqawi, linked to Al Qaeda, set up shop in the same area and fought against the anti-Saddam Kurds.

Then theres the blanket load of crap:
The irony is that Iraq was never a haven for terrorists before the invasion.
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrp!!! Saddam HIMSELF went to a palestinian meeting for suicide bombers and cut checks for the families. He had a going rate of $25,000, U.S., paid to families of suicide bombers as an incentive. Not to mention a number of different terrorist groups he supported in their fight against his neighbors.
http://www.cfrterrorism.org/sponsors/iraq.html
While I wouldn't go so far as saying Iraq directly supported the 9/11 attack, Saddam's history of terrorist support is indisputable.

[Sketcher]

please prove it.

i doubt the controlled media would tell us about it

You prove that we took oil. If anything, the media WOULD tell us. They would be glad to. The majority of the national media is liberal and would jump at the chance to critcize Bush about taking oil.

[Sketcher]

American soldiers that went over to Iraq to avenge 9/11 would feel betrayed by their govenment after hearing this. Not good for moral.

No, American soldiers went over to Iraq because Bush said there were WMD's. It had nothing to do with 9/11.


I know there is no connection between Saddam and 9/11. And the possibility of Saddam being somehow connected to Al-Qaida is very slim. But we should not dismiss the possibility that Saddam had ties to terrorism. Al-Qaida is not the only terrorist group in the world and so far, there has been no proof that shows that Sadddam had no ties to terrorism whatsoever.

[shade]

I'm not surprised Cheney would continue to say it. He has an election coming up, he can't admit that he lied to the American public, so he will continue to lie, because people will still believe him. Not a surprise. I'll be surprised when people stop believing the lies. Ill be surprised when people like you stop inventing shit. Iraq being involved in 9/11 is not why we went - in fact it wasnt involved in 9/11 anyway. I guess you guys are too easy to confuse.

Here is what has been said (these are bush quotes), http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2003/08/the_imminent_th_1.html

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option."

"The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured...."

"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and our friends and our allies. "

Basically, the administrations official stance has always been: we can not allow Iraq to become an imminent threat. They tend to point out his past actions, his obvious motivation, and his perceived capabilities. They combine the three and illustrate Iraq as the next big priority to deal with after afghanistan for our safety. They dont say "Saddam was behind 9/11." They just dont. To say otherwise, is false.

I like the commentary this guy does too. It seems pretty fair.

[droogsteve]

They dont say "Saddam was behind 9/11." They just dont. To say otherwise, is false.

Of course they don't say the actual words, they're politicians and choose their words carefully. But they sure as hell imply it alot:


The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

That terrible morning, 19 evil men, the shock troops of a hateful ideology, gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the beginning of the end of America.

By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and force our retreat from the world.

They have failed.

Are you honestly going to tell me that this particular speech wasn't specifically designed to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of Americans?

[poopchow]

Of course they don't say the actual words, they're politicians and choose their words carefully. But they sure as hell imply it alot:




Are you honestly going to tell me that this particular speech wasn't specifically designed to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of Americans?


Not again! I dont want you and shade having a qouting contest going on for 2 pages.

Anywyas, it didnt imply much to me. It would only imply something if you already have that idea in your head. The 1st and 3rd paragraph made it clear it was part of war against terror.

[shade]

Are you honestly going to tell me that this particular speech wasn't specifically designed to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of Americans? I have already addressed this exact quote.

Here is my response.

The battle of D-Day is one victory in World War 2 that began on December 7, 1941.

That terrible morning, the Japanese fleet with an imperialist ideology, gave America a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined that December 7, 1941, would be the beginning of the end of America.

By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, the Japanese and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and stop our preferential treatment of western Europe.

They have failed.

[pRestOnDeezNutz]

Do you people absolutly belive that Saddam had no ties, have had NEVER had anything to do with, ever helped terrorist groups? I mean even a sensible democrat or a warbound conservative. The proof was with the terrorist Zarquawi who had a, i think, 25 page document in hand when he was found FROM the Iraqi government.(it was classified but is declassified, though the media usually refuses to put it up, sicne it helps bush).

[shade]

I firmly believe saddam was involved in terrorism. Its an absolute fact that he funded anti-semite terrorism, and supposedly there have been some links with Al Queda. Every week it seems the Al Queda links are either thought legit, and then thought to not be true... back and forth based on evidence found.

I do not believe at all that Saddam specifically backed 9/11. I am sure he smiled, but thats about it.

[pRestOnDeezNutz]

yes, i belive that also.

what westerners like us dont understand is that in the middle east alliances are not written down with pencil and paper. the differnce between liberals and conservativs is that Liberals think like lawyers, as they need solid "smoking gun" proof. Conservatives call them as they see them.

[Fossil]

Every week it seems the Al Queda links are either thought legit, and then thought to not be true... back and forth based on evidence found.

Yeah, I don't think there has been any new evidence linking Iraq and Al-Qaeda since the war started, and all of that was quickly debunked. Only Dick Cheney and co. seem to still believe that the two had a solid tie...


Do you people absolutly belive that Saddam had no ties, have had NEVER had anything to do with, ever helped terrorist groups? I mean even a sensible democrat or a warbound conservative. The proof was with the terrorist Zarquawi who had a, i think, 25 page document in hand when he was found FROM the Iraqi government.(it was classified but is declassified, though the media usually refuses to put it up, sicne it helps bush).

It's said that Saddam paid the families of Palestine suicide bombers 20k each. That's about the full extent of Saddams links to terrorism. But then I can think of American presidents who've done far worse and yet have been praised as heroes and statesmen.

[Karajan]

What people don't seem to get is that all the report says is that Saddam didn't have ties to 9/11. People have a hard time distiguishing between that and having ties to Al-Qaeda, being behind 9/11, and having ties to other terrorists. There's a big difference between the three.

[pRestOnDeezNutz]

But then I can think of American presidents who've done far worse and yet have been praised as heroes and statesmen

so you are telling me that you know american presidents who have done worse than sending men to kill them selves and take out many other's, then pay off their faimlies as a compensation?! Please tell me, i want to be educated.

[Viceroy]

Alright, Iraq's ties to al Queda:

"a senior Iraqi intelligence officer had met Bin Laden in 1994 to hear his requests for space to establish training camps and assistance in procuring weapons - but Iraq had not responded. "

“There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

That lot is from the official findings of the 9/11 Commission. Iraq has had contacts with al-Queda, but there exists no evidence that they co-operated. Iraq's links to al Queda (not just 9/11) are tenuous at best.

[droogsteve]

I have already addressed this exact quote.

Here is my response.

The battle of D-Day is one victory in World War 2 that began on December 7, 1941.

That terrible morning, the Japanese fleet with an imperialist ideology, gave America a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined that December 7, 1941, would be the beginning of the end of America.

By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, the Japanese and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve and stop our preferential treatment of western Europe.

They have failed.

That's a ridiculous defense, Shade. I really would have expected better from you. We declared war on Japan December 8 1941. Germany declared war on the US on December 11 and immediately began hostilities toward us. Iraq on the other hand did not. They desperately wanted to AVOID war with us.

As for their ties to terror, did we go to war to protect Israel from Palestinian groups like Hamas? Because that's who Saddam supported, along with EVERY OTHER arab nation in the middle east. Those groups do not target US targets as a matter of policy.

I was going to continue with your WW2 analogy and say that invading Iraq would be like declaring war on Switzerland during WW2 because they aided Germany by hiding stolen Jewish assets, but that isn't completely accurate. There was never any doubt that the Swiss WERE aiding the Germans financially. However, there is not a shred of proof that Saddam ever aided Al Qaeda.

[Viceroy]

Members of the Bush administration have met Saddam more times than al-Queda. :)

[FireEater]

When you people type here and debate a topic as this one, do you realize that you are making accusations, finger pointing and generally discussing a topic based on news links?

The news links get thier info from where? The President, Vice-President, Senators, politicians, Generals and such?

This is all info classifed as public info. Info that they all want you to know.

What about the real info? The secret and top secret info that only the those with clearances will ever know?

Wouldn't you think that the true reason or reasons we went into Iraq might just be highly classified? I'm talking about the evidence that everyone seems to want on why we went into Iraq. Not the media evidence that everyone is guessing upon.

It just seems to me that everyone has thier own opinions on what, where, when and why we went into Iraq and all those opinions are usually stated as fact based upon some news link.

Do you not think that there is top secret info somewhere that the public eye will never see? Some hard evidence with real facts pertaining to the reasons we went in?

I know from my own experience and clearance I had in the Navy that I saw all kinds of secret and top secret memos pertaining to Desert Shield/Storm that the media as well as the public will never see. Things that they shouldn't see.

All you will ever see about this war is what they want you to know. All you will actually ever have to go on is what you see in the media and how each and everyone of you disseminate that info as fact or fiction. It has been that way for every war we have had and will continue that way.

Maybe, just maybe there is some intel in a brown folder marked "classified" that will never be made public on the reason or reasons we went in. And no committee in the world will ever get to open that folder.

FE

[pidgeball6]

That lot is from the official findings of the 9/11 Commission. Iraq has had contacts with al-Queda, but there exists no evidence that they co-operated. Iraq's links to al Queda (not just 9/11) are tenuous at best.
Viceroy, I'm impressed! No assumptions or story telling. "Tenuos at best" is like a signed confession.
Droog?? What's all the hooey about Iraq being no more guilty than ANYONE else in the middle east? Yeah, I agree with you that many countries in the region, even the ones who are supposed to be our allies, support anti-isreal groups in one way or another. What should also be noted is that every other arab nation wasn't under "intense" scrutiny and sanctions from the U.N.. Efforts that would generally work to slow a nation from encouraging violence in the region. Not so in the Irai's case, as a matter of fact, while the Saudis banned "state" sponsored funding(the funding still occurs through charities allowed by the saudis), Saddam intentionally sat in on the palestinian meetings writing checks. He wanted to build a reputation as one who would stand up to the west, and provoked the U.S. and our allies countless times in an attempt to appear defiant. The reputation almost materialized until he was found, ass up, in a spider-hole.

[guitarguy3]

I'm not sure if this has been mentoined yet, haven't read the entire thread, but Saddam and bin Laden hate each other.

[Fossil]

so you are telling me that you know american presidents who have done worse than sending men to kill them selves and take out many other's, then pay off their faimlies as a compensation?! Please tell me, i want to be educated.

Saddam isn't the instigator of the Israeli/Palestine conflict.

As far as examples of American sponsered terrorism goes, you need not look any further than the Iran/Contra fiasco.

[Viceroy]

Not to mention CIA sponsored regime change.

[pidgeball6]

Saddam isn't the instigator of the Israeli/Palestine conflict.
By motivating increased attacks by suicide bombers with rewards for their families Hussein played a major role in the conflict. He is known to have supported Abu Nidal as well
As far as examples of American sponsered terrorism goes, you need not look any further than the Iran/Contra fiasco.
True, but I'm not sure the blame for the Iran/Contra situation can be attributed to America as a whole. As we all know, it came about through the efforts of the Masons, the Cia, greedy wall street lawyers, and the Paladians.

Oh yeah, I think I read somewhere that they were kept out of the public eye by some high tech super group bent on world domination, too!!

[shade]

It's said that Saddam paid the families of Palestine suicide bombers 20k each. That's about the full extent of Saddams links to terrorism. He also gave millions to hezbollah and hamas. I would not be surprised if he is one of the reasons that arafat has billions of $.

That's a ridiculous defense, Shade. I really would have expected better from you. K whatever.

All you will actually ever have to go on is what you see in the media and how each and everyone of you disseminate that info as fact or fiction. Yup. Ive been saying that for months now. I dont care how many commissions are made, they will only learn what they are supposed to learn - so everyone feels safe.

[Thvggee]

As long as the Iraqi leadership is supplanted with one more favorable to US interests, then the mission is a success.

[Fossil]

By motivating increased attacks by suicide bombers with rewards for their families Hussein played a major role in the conflict. He is known to have supported Abu Nidal as well

I really doubt that the sucide bombers are killing themselves and others for money...

Besides which, how can you hold it against Saddam , and call him evil, for offering incentives to suicide bombers for attacking Israelis when your own government pays the families of its slain soldiers ($12,000 tax free) to fight and die against its own enemies?

[pidgeball6]

I really doubt that the sucide bombers are killing themselves and others for money...

Besides which, how can you hold it against Saddam , and call him evil, for offering incentives to suicide bombers for attacking Israelis when your own government pays the families of its slain soldiers ($12,000 tax free) to fight and die against its own enemies?

Ok, I'm gonna need you to clarify some of the "its" before I can tell you why this is a dumbass comparison .

[shade]

Fossil... maybe because the soldiers are employed by the US? Maybe because we arent saying "Hey go kill yourself so we can give your family $12,000."

And yes, its a known, solid, and proven fact that he paid $20,000 to the families of suicide bombers. And yes, quite a few probably killed themselves for money out of "love" for their families.

[poopchow]

I really doubt that the sucide bombers are killing themselves and others for money...




No one ever said they did.

[Fossil]

No one ever said they did.

Correction:

pidgeball6 said,

By motivating increased attacks by suicide bombers with rewards for their families Hussein played a major role in the conflict.

That statement would seem to imply that suicide bombers are motivated by money. I don't believe that the Palestine suicide bombers actions --strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up a buses full of people -- has much, if anything, to do with cash incentives. I don't believe that the Palestine suicide bombers were motivated in the least by Saddams money. Pidgeball thinks otherwise.


Fossil... maybe because the soldiers are employed by the US?

Ah, so having a contract of employment makes all the difference... okieedokie.


Ok, I'm gonna need you to clarify some of the "its" before I can tell you why this is a dumbass comparison .

Saddam gave the families of Palestinians who died attacking his enemies $20,000.


Uncle Sam gives the families of American who die attacking his enemies $12,000.

A death gratuity is a death gratuity.

Is that clear enough for you?

[Sketcher]

Are you honestly going to tell me that this particular speech wasn't specifically designed to link Iraq and 9/11 in the minds of Americans?

Yes. Here's why:

The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001 and still goes on.

The war in Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Can you show proof that Saddam has no connection to any terrorist group what-so-ever? Just because Saddam had no connections to Al-Qaida does not mean that he had no connections to terrorists at all. This part of the speech in no way suggests that Saddam and 9/11 were connected.

I noticed something about you Droog. When you wanted to prove that Saddam and Al-Qaida were not connected, you used a quote from Bush saying that there was no connection. Now your using this quote to suggest (falsly) that Bush is trying to make a connection. And he's not. That should be clear enough for someone as intellegent as you.

[droogsteve]

I noticed something about you Droog. When you wanted to prove that Saddam and Al-Qaida were not connected, you used a quote from Bush saying that there was no connection. Now your using this quote to suggest (falsly) that Bush is trying to make a connection.

That's my entire point, Sketcher.

When asked a direct yes or no question by the press he had no choice but to admit the truth about there being no connection. If he didn't, he would be caught in an easily provable lie. However, in a speech like the one in question he's free to imply whatever he wants. He can always say that it was misunderstood. But he clearly meant for anyone listening to the speech to make the Saddam/9/11 connection.

[pidgeball6]

That statement would seem to imply that suicide bombers are motivated by money. I don't believe that the Palestine suicide bombers actions --strapping bombs to their chests and blowing up a buses full of people -- has much, if anything, to do with cash incentives. I don't believe that the Palestine suicide bombers were motivated in the least by Saddams money. Pidgeball thinks otherwise.
Why would the incentive vary depending on how much damage the bomber does? Why do other countries offer rewards for the same bombers? If there was no incentive at all financially, then why raise the reward in the first place?


Saddam gave the families of Palestinians who died attacking his enemies $20,000.
Uncle Sam gives the families of American who die attacking his enemies $12,000.
A death gratuity is a death gratuity.
Is that clear enough for you?
Actually no, there's a little difference between a soldier being KILLED in a war( even if you disagree with it), and a kid committing SUICIDE by blowing themself up on a bus full of civilians.
Clear enough?
If I did, I didn't mean to give the impression that Saddam only supported a certain terrorist group, and that his support was solely financial. He is known to have supported several groups (Islaamic and secular) in a variety of ways.

[shade]

Not to mention CIA sponsored regime change. And I am sure that every government overthrown by the CIA was a loving and caring government popularly elected by the people that did nothing but seek the well being and furtherment of mankind. :rolleyes:

Droog: I am not saying that we went to Iraq to protect Israel. Just like how we didnt go to Iraq to "liberate the Iraqis." Both are just good side effects. However, is Israel not our ally? Yes or no?

[pRestOnDeezNutz]

how can you hold it against Saddam , and call him evil, please tell me you didnt just defend Saddam. All this diplomatic party loyalty is a pain in the ass. You have to look at the truth, not the media. The media i like is FOX news. CNN and ABC blow. Try to NOT be so loyal because your making yourself look foolish. Why do liberals not get bashed anyways? They shit their pants and bitch whenever there is a convservative prsident. But the conervatives didnt cry nearly as much when Clinton was in office. Yes, they didnt like it, but they didnt go to the pro-death(choice) rallies saying that Barbra Bush should have aborted George. I woul'd be ashamed to be in a group with these extreme Liberals. I dont like stubborn conservative. Especially Dick Cheney. I hope he gets replaced. Liberals who have a brain cell are the ones that noone listen, like Joe Liberman. Why isnt he up for the presidency? Because liberals have no sense of moral. They only want the Gaza Strip to be Muslim's. They want to kill innocent babies and let the disgusting practice of homosexualaty. Its so stupid. Try to open your eyes and realize that neaither Bush, and most definatly Massachusets Senator Kerry are suitable for the presidency.

[droogsteve]

Droog: I am not saying that we went to Iraq to protect Israel. Just like how we didnt go to Iraq to "liberate the Iraqis." Both are just good side effects. However, is Israel not our ally? Yes or no?

Of course they are. What does it have to do with the discussion at hand? Spain is our ally too. I don't see us going after Basque separatists.


By the way, I like the improvement you've made on your avatar. ;)

[Fossil]

Why would the incentive vary depending on how much damage the bomber does? Why do other countries offer rewards for the same bombers? If there was no incentive at all financially, then why raise the reward in the first place?

I think you're seeing some causality here and I'm not. Maybe there's a bar graph out there somewhere correlating the level of suicide bombings and the amount of money paid the families of the suicide bombers.

The Palestine are doing their thing for themselves and not for Iraq, or Saudi Arabia or any other country but Palestine. The fact that Saddam, or any other wacko, hears about a bombing and writes out a check based on strength of the orgasm it gave him is irrelevant.


Actually no, there's a little difference between a soldier being KILLED in a war( even if you disagree with it), and a kid committing SUICIDE by blowing themself up on a bus full of civilians.

Yes, there is a *little* difference. But tell me what you believe distinguishes the two.


If I did, I didn't mean to give the impression that Saddam only supported a certain terrorist group, and that his support was solely financial. He is known to have supported several groups (Islaamic and secular) in a variety of ways.


List the names of the other groups and the ways in which he supported them.

[Fossil]

please tell me you didnt just defend Saddam.

I'm not trying to defend Saddam, or to bash the U.S. I'm trying to point out the inconsistancies in this war and the various justifications I've heard given to it (.i.e. Saddam was the sugar daddy of the PLO and Al Qaeda).


All this diplomatic party loyalty is a pain in the ass. You have to look at the truth, not the media.

I'm an independant...


Try to NOT be so loyal because your making yourself look foolish. Why do liberals not get bashed anyways? They shit their pants and bitch whenever there is a convservative prsident. But the conervatives didnt cry nearly as much when Clinton was in office.

Oh man, they haven't stopped crying since he left office. *cough* Ken Star report *cough*millionsofdollarswastedtoinvestigateablowjo b*cough*

Liberals who have a brain cell are the ones that noone listen, like Joe Liberman. Why isnt he up for the presidency? Because liberals have no sense of moral.


Because he looks too much like the evil emperor from Star Wars. No one will vote for the evil emperor after what he did to those poor Rastafarian fish guys.


They want to kill innocent babies and let the disgusting practice of homosexualaty.

:eek:

Try to open your eyes and realize that neaither Bush, and most definatly Massachusets Senator Kerry are suitable for the presidency.

Yeah. Either way, come next year we're going to have a president that jacks off onto human skulls...

[pRestOnDeezNutz]

Well, right now i am assuming( i know i shouldnt) that you are a hard liberal because you have a avatar flaming bush. Like many other people on the forums.

[pidgeball6]

.
The Palestine are doing their thing for themselves and not for Iraq, or Saudi Arabia or any other country but Palestine. The fact that Saddam, or any other wacko, hears about a bombing and writes out a check based on strength of the orgasm it gave him is irrelevant.
The suicide bombings weren't something Saddam decided to finance after watching the news or seeing a fundraising telethon. He took an active role in promoting them .

Yes, there is a *little* difference. But tell me what you believe distinguishes the two.Heh, I'm comfortable with my opinion on the differences, no need to beat a dead horse when you've already conceded the point.

List the names of the other groups and the ways in which he supported them.
http://www.cfr.org/background/background_iraq_ties.php
Here's a link that I think best fits your request.

[Fossil]

He took an active role in promoting them .

Pure conjecture.



Heh, I'm comfortable with my opinion on the differences, no need to beat a dead horse when you've already conceded the point.

No, I didn't. That's little as in not very much difference. Tell me what the difference is.


Here's a link that I think best fits your request.

The council on foreign relations is private U.S. think tank thats dreams up new and exciting ways to increase American power and influence. I'd take anything that I read on that site with a grain of salt.


"Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel, and before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase. "

As it is, it's pretty pretty vague on Saddam's ties to terrorism.

The only specifics it lists are that a few famous terrorists were thought to be hiding out in Iraq over the past decade.

The hijackers who crashed the two planes into the WTC were living and training in America schools for years before 2001. But that doesn't mean that George Bush or Clinton were "harboring" them.

[shade]

I don't see us going after Basque separatists. 3 things.

1: They havent asked for help.
2: Its not nearly as severe, they are not in one location you can just go attack, and the spanish government is doing fine with them.
3: That is an internal problem.

By the way, I like the improvement you've made on your avatar. Sam da butcher made it and pmed me thinking I might like to update. I guess he was bored.

I'm an independant... Me too. :rolleyes:

[droogsteve]

3 things.

1: They havent asked for help.


Are you now claiming that Israel asked us to take out Saddam because he supports Palestinian terror? Because it's always seemed to me that they are quite capable of defending themselves without our assistance.

[pidgeball6]

Pure conjecture.
"Iraq has also provided financial support for Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Arab Liberation Front, and it channeled money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. In April 2002, Iraq increased the amount of such payments from $10,000 to $25,000. Experts say that by promoting Israeli-Palestinian violence, Saddam may have hoped to make it harder for the United States to win Arab support for a campaign against Iraq. " http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/04/09/1017206316905.html?oneclick=true
"Saddam has portrayed himself as a champion of the Palestinian cause, a tactic that has helped him win break the isolation Iraq faced following its 1990 invasion of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War."

No, I didn't. That's little as in not very much difference. Tell me what the difference is.
A soldier, who has taken measures to defend himself, trained for combat, and is aware of a battlefield environment with an enemy actively trying to kill him is different than a child, who is recruited with the sole intent of committing suicide near the largest group of innocent civilians, completely unaware of his presence or intentions, that he can find.

The council on foreign relations is private U.S. think tank thats dreams up new and exciting ways to increase American power and influence. I'd take anything that I read on that site with a grain of salt.

"Saddam was a secular dictator, and his regime generally tended to support secular terrorist groups rather than Islamists such as al-Qaeda, experts say. But Iraq also supported some Islamist Palestinian groups opposed to Israel, and before the 2003 war, the CIA cited Iraq’s increased support for such organizations as reason to believe that Baghdad’s links to terror could continue to increase. "
As it is, it's pretty pretty vague on Saddam's ties to terrorism.
The only specifics it lists are that a few famous terrorists were thought to be hiding out in Iraq over the past decade.

Are you trying to prove my point or debunk the CFR? If it's the latter, read your quote again, if not, then read the bios and sources listed on the site.
I wouldn't say listing 10 terrorist groups that Saddam directly supported is being vague.

The hijackers who crashed the two planes into the WTC were living and training in America schools for years before 2001. But that doesn't mean that George Bush or Clinton were "harboring" them.

The terrorists that trained in America didn't go to state sponsored schools designed specifically for hijacking, assassination, and suicide bombings, nor did they recieve financial backing from Bush or Clinton. Further, their goal was to remain undetected by the government until they attacked, unlike the groups in Iraq that trained in government facilities with Saddams full knowledge and support.

[shade]

Are you now claiming that Israel asked us to take out Saddam because he supports Palestinian terror? Again with the non sequiturs (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=non%20sequitur) droog.

No, Israel did not ask for help. Therefor, this is not a primary reason that we went, just a beneficial side effect.

[Ray]

Again with the non sequiturs (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=non%20sequitur) droog.

No, Israel did not ask for help. Therefor, this is not a primary reason that we went, just a beneficial side effect.
You know....there is more to Droogs posts that you don't answer.

[Nocturnal]

This isn't news to anyone except die hard bush supporters.

And Bush still claims there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. hmmmm, bi partisan 9/11 commision disagrees with you Mr. Bush. :rolleyes:

[BigMattTheHobo]

OMG OMG!!! Iraq attacked us!!! We must invade!!! Saddam is bad... KILL HIM!!!!!! Fuck the Iraqis, lets make the middle east a huge sheet of glass!!!!! Hmmmm..... starbucks[/Average American]

After all this, people are still going to link the two and ol' bush is going to get reelected.

In this country it really seems ignorance is bliss.

[shade]

You know....there is more to Droogs posts that you don't answer. If you are refering to in general, yes. I have not been responding to many of droogs posts because recently he has been doing tons of non sequiturs that seem aimed at merely trying to frustrate me by completely bypassing what he knows I am saying.

And Bush still claims there was a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq. hmmmm, bi partisan 9/11 commision disagrees with you Mr. Bush. Hi! Its non sequitur day!

No, Bush and the panel agree that Iraq was not involved in 9/11. I would think that you can separate 9/11, just one operation of Al Queda, and realise that it is not the organisation itself. In other words, our allies are not involved directly in all of our military operations. Iraq not being involved in 9/11 does not mean Iraq was not involved in terrorism.

In this country it really seems ignorance is bliss. You said it. It is so nice to know that there were no wmd in Iraq and that it had no ties to terrorism or plans of using its own agents for terrorism! :)

[droogsteve]

If you are refering to in general, yes. I have not been responding to many of droogs posts because recently he has been doing tons of non sequiturs that seem aimed at merely trying to frustrate me by completely bypassing what he knows I am saying.
That is not my intention at all, Shade. I am not trying to be facetious in the least. But to me, claiming that we invaded Iraq to help Israel doesn't seem anymore far fetched than your claims about Bush hiding WMDs to help the stock market or protect the Russians. I was just trying to get a clear picture of exactly what you were saying.

[shade]

Ok. Intentional or not though, you seem to be making lots of unrelated analogies loosely based on what I say that do not follow each other.

[Fossil]

A soldier, who has taken measures to defend himself, trained for combat, and is aware of a battlefield environment with an enemy actively trying to kill him is different than a child, who is recruited with the sole intent of committing suicide near the largest group of innocent civilians, completely unaware of his presence or intentions, that he can find.


In fact the Palestinians suicide bombers come in all shapes and sizes, from children on up to professors with Ph.D.s, and all things in between.


You may be interested to know that, over the years,
over four times as many innocent Palestinians civilians have died than have innocent Israeli civilians due to the careless and indiscriminate tactics used by both sides.

http://www.ifamericansknew.org/stats/deaths.html

But this was not my question, so I'll repeat it.

Uncle Sam offers $12,000 to soldiers that die fighting his enemies.

Saddam offered $25,000 to Palestinians suicide bombers that died fighting his enemies.

What is the difference? How is it okay for one side to offer money, but not the other?


Are you trying to prove my point or debunk the CFR? If it's the latter, read your quote again, if not, then read the bios and sources listed on the site.
I wouldn't say listing 10 terrorist groups that Saddam directly supported is being vague.

Okay, I will concede that Saddam supported terrorism, if and only if you concede the following:

None of the terrorist groups which Saddam supported killed American citizens during the times at which Saddam was supporting them.

The terrorists groups which Saddam supported were confined to those groups which targeted his regional enemies -- Israel, Iran, and Turkey -- and not the United States.

The extent, duration, and details of the support which Saddam gave to these terrorists group is not known or not available.

That Iraq's support of terrorism pales in comparison to most other countries in that region of the world including, but not limited to, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.


The terrorists that trained in America didn't go to state sponsored schools designed specifically for hijacking, assassination, and suicide bombings, nor did they recieve financial backing from Bush or Clinton. Further, their goal was to remain undetected by the government until they attacked, unlike the groups in Iraq that trained in government facilities with Saddams full knowledge and support.

I was not aware that Saddam was operating any such schools. I am aware that a handful of cherry picked Iraqi defectors and Iranian spies, such as dear Ahmed Chalabi have, claimed that he hosted bases such as Salmon Pak where he trained scores of foreign terrorists. However, we haven't found much support for these claims in the aftermath of the Iraq war.

[pidgeball6]

soldiers
palestinians
your words. Can you distinguish the difference between the two?


Yeah, Saddam only supported the good terrorists. I will concede that Iraq AT LEAST supported terrorist groups that attacked his regional enemies, including Turkey. But then again, Chirac said Turkey wasn't threatened by terrorists, so neither NATO , nor the U.N. should support them as part of a mutual defense policy. :confused:

You can't seem to put any of this together. SH had unaccounted for chemical weapons by his own admission, but no one knows how much or their whereabouts, so we shouldn't be alarmed. SH supported at least ten terrorist organizations of secular and Islaamic fundamentalist backgrounds, that we know about, but we don't have enough evidence that he supported anyone "directly" to attack the U.S. or it's embassies, military installations, ships, etc., so we shouldn't be alarmed. SH actively pursued chem/bio/nuclear weapons for at least 3 decades and has lied to U.N. inspectors, barred access, or kicked them out of his country all together, but he said, for the 100th time, he was willing to cooperate, so we shouldn't be alarmed.
Maybe, in the face of this and other evidence you can maintain the position of "innocent until proven guilty", but I disagree.

[Bubba-E]

lol, untill i heard about iraq not being involved i dont think i even knew that anyone thought they were involved............ i always thought it was pure al-queada (sry i dunno how 2 spell that gee-hay name)