Saddam's Terror Links

[zrinkill]

March 24, 2008


Five years on, few Iraq myths are as persistent as the notion that the Bush Administration invented a connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Yet a new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Naturally, it's getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study's revelations float by. But that doesn't make the facts any less notable or true.

The redacted version of "Saddam and Terrorism" is the most definitive public assessment to date from the Harmony program, the trove of "exploitable" documents, audio and video records, and computer files captured in Iraq. On the basis of about 600,000 items, the report lays out Saddam's willingness to use terrorism against American and other international targets, as well as his larger state sponsorship of terror, which included harboring, training and equipping jihadis throughout the Middle East.


"The rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power," the authors conclude. Throughout the 1990s, the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) cooperated with Hamas; the Palestine Liberation Front, which maintained a Baghdad office; Force 17, Yasser Arafat's private army; and others. The IIS gave commando training for members of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the organization that assassinated Anwar Sadat and whose "emir" was Ayman al-Zawahiri, who became Osama bin Laden's second-in-command when the group merged with al Qaeda in 1998.
At the very least the report should dispel the notion that outwardly "secular" Saddam would never consort with religious types like al Qaeda.



A pan-Arab nationalist, Saddam viewed radical Islamists as potential allies, and they likewise. According to a 1993 memo, Saddam decided to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia," where al Qaeda was then working with warlords against U.S. humanitarian forces. Saddam also trained Sudanese fighters in Iraq.


The Pentagon report cites this as "a tactical example" of their cooperation. When Saddam "was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing." Saddam took an interest in "far-flung terrorist groups . . . to locate any organization whose services he might use in the future." The Harmony documents "reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda -- as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long-term version."


For 20 years, such "support" included using Fedayeen Saddam training camps to school terrorists, especially Palestinians but also non-Iraqis "directly associated" with al Qaeda, continuing up to the fall of Baghdad. Saddam also provided financial support and weapons, amounting to "a state-directed program of significant scale." In July 2001, the regime began patronizing a terror cartel in Bahrain calling itself the Army of Muhammad, which, according to an Iraqi memo, "is under the wings of bin Laden."


It's true that the Pentagon report found no "smoking gun," i.e., a direct connection on a joint Iraq-al Qaeda operation. Supposedly this vindicates the view that Iraq's liberation was launched on false premises. But the Administration was always cautious, with Colin Powell alleging merely a "sinister nexus" in his 2003 U.N. speech. If anything, sinister is an understatement. The main Iraq intelligence failure was over WMD, but the report indicates that the CIA also underestimated Saddam's ties to global terror cartels.


The Administration has always maintained that Iraq is just one front in the war on terror; and the report offers "evidence of logistical preparation for terrorist operations in other nations, including those in the West." In 2002, an IIS memo explained to Saddam that Iraqi embassies were stockpiling weapons, while many of the terrorists trained in Fedayeen camps were dispatched to London with counterfeit documents, where they circulated throughout Europe.


Around the same time, the IIS began to manufacture better improvised explosive devices "designed to be used in civilian areas," and the regime bureaucratized suicide operations, with local Baath Party leaders competing to provide recruits for Saddam as part of a "Martyrdom Project."


All of these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S. The Harmony files buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one -- which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum. It isn't the first time the White House has ceded the Iraq debate to its opponents.




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120631495290958169.html?mod=opinion_main_review_ and_outlooks



.
.
.
.

[zrinkill]

Chilling Confirmation

Yes, Saddam Hussein was an Islamofascist threat.

By Deroy Murdock

As Operation Iraqi Freedom is now five years old, a new study confirms that ousting Saddam Hussein was justified and vital to U.S. national security. Though war critics hate to admit it, the Baathist dictator was up to his mustache in aid for Islamofascist terrorism.

As a report (http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf) from the Institute for Defense Analyses explains, “captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism.” IDA’s review of some 600,000 documents discovered in Iraq since Coalition forces liberated Baghdad indicates that “from 1991through 2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state power.”

IDA presents chilling details:

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif A May 1999 memorandum to Fedayeen Saddam leader Uday Hussein — the despot’s elder son — outlined a bombing and assassination campaign called BLESSED JULY. Among “50 Fedayeen martyrs,” selected from an elite terrorist-training camp, “The top ten will work in the European field — London.” The memo continues: “After passing the final test the Fedayeen will be sent as undercover passengers, each one according to his work site.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif A July 2002 weapons inventory of 12 Iraqi embassies, written just eight months before the American-led invasion of Iraq, found them far better armed than diplomatic security requires: “Vienna — Explosive charges, rifles with silencers, hand grenades, and Kalashnikov rifles. Pakistan — Explosive materials of TNT. . . . Thailand — Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases. . . . Turkey — Missile launcher, missile, and pistols with silencers.” This document adds: “Between the year 2000 and 2002 . . . explosive materials were transported to the embassies outside Iraq for special work, upon the approval of the Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service .”

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif Building car bombs became a bureaucratized task, as a summarized September 4, 1999, document illustrates.

“An approval memorandum from IIS Directorate 4 to Section 27 to load a vehicle with 50 to 75 kilograms [110 to 165 pounds] of explosive material and provide to the At Ta’mim Intelligence Branch [M52] for a ‘special duty.’” Further, an “Inspection Certificate Form” should verify the car bomb’s compliance with chemical, electrical, and mechanical standards. It also recommends using a Duracell battery given “the importance of the duty.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif A September 2001 Iraqi military-intelligence letter says “the Division Commands should launch a campaign among their members, supporters, and backers of the Party encouraging them to volunteer in suicide operations, and have them write volunteer statements, preferably in their blood.” It lists 43 such “suicide volunteers.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/images/bullet_blue.gif The Fedayeen Saddam forwarded Uday Hussein a letter from Nazah, a widow requesting assistance with her husband’s pension. She recalls that “he carried out a suicide mission on 19 July 2000, and exploded himself at the [apparently Kurdistani] Ibn Sina Hotel during the presence of US and UK citizens. . . . ” She also mentions that he “Detonated a car [bomb] during the convoy of [former French first lady] Danielle Mitterrand in Halsabajah City, which killed forty enemies.”

A March 18, 1993 IIS memo to Saddam Hussein reads, “We list herein the organizations that our agency cooperates with. . . . ” Among nine terrorist groups, it cites Egyptian Islamic Jihad (“It carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination of Sadat”), Abu Nidal’s Fatah — which killed (http://www.husseinandterror.com/) at least 407 innocents, including 10 Americans — (“We have been in contact with the organization since 1973 and have provided financial and logistical support, such as vehicles” ), and the Palestine Liberation Front, whose terrorists murdered wheelchair-bound American retiree Leon Klinghoffer aboard the hijacked [I]Achille Lauro ocean liner in October 1985. “Currently has an office in Baghdad,” the memo states. “They were assigned and carried out commando operations for us against American interests in the [1991] war.”

A July 28, 1998 letter specified three such missions: -“Burning the American Airlines office in the Philippines.”
-“Placing an explosive device near an American base in Izmir [Turkey].”
-“Placing an explosive device on the pipe lines that carry oil to an American base in southern Spain.”


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjYyMTFkMjA2M2M4ZDUwNDM1MTYxMTlhN2EyOWFhNGU=&w=MA==

.
.
.
.

[hank2k]

Every country in the middle east knows someone who knows someone who blows people up. That doesnt mean we invade their country. We'd have to invade every country on earth. John Walker Lindh was a Taliban from California,so should we invade wine country because of their terrorist links?

If any of these things were real reasons to sacrifice our soldiers lives , why did Bush/Cheney rely on fake stories (Mohammed Atta meeting in Czechoslovikia with Iraqi agents, Iraq trying to buy uranuim from Niger, etc) to lead us into war?

[zrinkill]

Every country in the middle east knows someone who knows someone who blows people up. That doesnt mean we invade their country. We'd have to invade every country on earth. John Walker Lindh was a Taliban from California,so should we invade wine country because of their terrorist links?

If any of these things were real reasons to sacrifice our soldiers lives , why did Bush/Cheney rely on fake stories (Mohammed Atta meeting in Czechoslovikia with Iraqi agents, Iraq trying to buy uranuim from Niger, etc) to lead us into war?

So basically all you got is ..... nuu uhhhh.

[Cajuncowboy]

Every country in the middle east knows someone who knows someone who blows people up. That doesnt mean we invade their country. We'd have to invade every country on earth. John Walker Lindh was a Taliban from California,so should we invade wine country because of their terrorist links?

If any of these things were real reasons to sacrifice our soldiers lives , why did Bush/Cheney rely on fake stories (Mohammed Atta meeting in Czechoslovikia with Iraqi agents, Iraq trying to buy uranuim from Niger, etc) to lead us into war?

You've got to be kidding me, right????

[Bizwah]

I think invading Iraq was the right choice.

We had been attacked....and we warned other countries that we would defend ourselves. Now, right or wrong, we were ready to fight.

Anyway, you have a crazy dictator that had shown the willingness to start a war...to kill his own people...to use chemical weapons.

Now intelligence was faulty, about massive stockpiles of said weapons but Sadaam simply could've avoided the invasion if he would've complied with weapons inspectors. But he kept refusing....

We erred on the side of caution.....I'd do it every single time. Especially after 9/11 when our country came under attack. We were on the alert.

Our mistake was underestimating the numbers we would need....and not having a clear exit strategy.....But invading? Right choice, IMO.

[hank2k]

I think invading Iraq was the right choice.

We had been attacked....and we warned other countries that we would defend ourselves. Now, right or wrong, we were ready to fight.

Anyway, you have a crazy dictator that had shown the willingness to start a war...to kill his own people...to use chemical weapons.

Now intelligence was faulty, about massive stockpiles of said weapons but Sadaam simply could've avoided the invasion if he would've complied with weapons inspectors. But he kept refusing....

We erred on the side of caution.....I'd do it every single time. Especially after 9/11 when our country came under attack. We were on the alert.

Our mistake was underestimating the numbers we would need....and not having a clear exit strategy.....But invading? Right choice, IMO.



Intelligence was not faulty, thats the key. There was no support for the war without the deliberately misleading info about wmd's, Atta in the Czech Republic, the phony Niger uranuim scam, and Colin Powells lies before the UN, etc. Things like a being crazy dictator , invading Kuwait, gassing his own people only caused people to support sanctions not invasion.And according to Hans Blix, Saddam WAS cooperating with inspectors before we invaded.

[Bizwah]

Intelligence was not faulty, thats the key. There was no support for the war without the deliberately misleading info about wmd's, Atta in the Czech Republic, the phony Niger uranuim scam, and Colin Powells lies before the UN, etc. Things like a being crazy dictator , invading Kuwait, gassing his own people only caused people to support sanctions not invasion.And according to Hans Blix, Saddam WAS cooperating with inspectors before we invaded.

He was?

Nope....

We gave him several chances....drop dead dates. Each time he would flaunt them, then when it began to look ugly he would "comply"....for a time.....

Then it would start over again.....

We tired of the game....especially after 9/11.

[Cajuncowboy]

Intelligence was not faulty, thats the key. There was no support for the war without the deliberately misleading info about wmd's, Atta in the Czech Republic, the phony Niger uranuim scam, and Colin Powells lies before the UN, etc. Things like a being crazy dictator , invading Kuwait, gassing his own people only caused people to support sanctions not invasion.And according to Hans Blix, Saddam WAS cooperating with inspectors before we invaded.

No, according to Hans Blix he was NOT cooperating. Blix said because of that he could not verify that Saddam was disarming.

Get your facts straight.

[hank2k]

He was?

Nope....

We gave him several chances....drop dead dates. Each time he would flaunt them, then when it began to look ugly he would "comply"....for a time.....

Then it would start over again.....

We tired of the game....especially after 9/11.


Which Iraq had nothing to do with.

But we knew that. And went to war anyway. 4000 dead, 20000 maimed, countless families ruined, a quarter trillion dollars down the drain (and counting), and still nothing to show for it.

Yeah ,Id do it again too.

[Cajuncowboy]

Which Iraq had nothing to do with.

But we knew that. And went to war anyway. 4000 dead, 20000 maimed, countless families ruined, a quarter trillion dollars down the drain (and counting), and still nothing to show for it.

Yeah ,Id do it again too.

Sure we do. We haven't been attacked since then.

[Bizwah]

Which Iraq had nothing to do with.

But we knew that. And went to war anyway. 4000 dead, 20000 maimed, countless families ruined, a quarter trillion dollars down the drain (and counting), and still nothing to show for it.

Yeah ,Id do it again too.

You fail to see the point.

This is what Democrats continue to spew. "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!"

Duh!

The point is this. We were attacked. We told the world that we would defend ourselves. We told them that all terrorists....those linked with Al-Queada (oh, however it's spelled now)...and those that weren't (North Korea, Sadaam) that we would be prepared to fight back.

Most of us thought that Sadaam would harbor those terrorists....or at the very least provide them with weapons....chemical or conventional...if given the opportunity.

Sadaam was a threat....he wanted us to think he was a bigger threat than he was...that was why he continued to play games with the inspectors.

We weren't going to take chances. Right choice...IMO.

How many of us, if we feel our home/family were threatened, wouldn't act?

[hank2k]

No, according to Hans Blix he was NOT cooperating. Blix said because of that he could not verify that Saddam was disarming.

Get your facts straight.

Right off wikipedia on the Iraq war :" In March 2003 ,Hans Blix reported that "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found in Iraq, saying that progress had been made in inspections which would continue. " But the US declared that "diplomacy had failed and would continue with the coalition...blah , blah, blah, bs, bs, bs."

Get YOUR facts straight!

[hank2k]

You fail to see the point.

This is what Democrats continue to spew. "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!"

Duh!

The point is this. We were attacked. We told the world that we would defend ourselves. We told them that all terrorists....those linked with Al-Queada (oh, however it's spelled now)...and those that weren't (North Korea, Sadaam) that we would be prepared to fight back.

Most of us thought that Sadaam would harbor those terrorists....or at the very least provide them with weapons....chemical or conventional...if given the opportunity.

Sadaam was a threat....he wanted us to think he was a bigger threat than he was...that was why he continued to play games with the inspectors.

We weren't going to take chances. Right choice...IMO.

How many of us, if we feel our home/family were threatened, wouldn't act?

We did act. We invaded Afghanistan , the guys who were harboring Bin Laden. Remember Afghanistan? Where the Taliban is getting stronger again because our military is so involved in playing referee (sorry spreading democracy) in Iraq.The reason everyone thought Saddam would harbor/help Al qaeda(?) is cause our government was telling us this when they knew there wasnt good evidence to support it.

[burmafrd]

Hank, you are very new here and you must realize that Wikipedia is NEVER used since it is not respected by most researchers. Mainly because ANYONE can get inthere and enter whatever they want and it is NOT CHECKED by anyone.
You also might want to do some more research yourself before you FURTHER embarrass yourself.
Russia
Israel
France
England
ALL those countries thought that Iraq had lots of WMD.
So did Germany, who originally sold Saddam most of the technical material needed to make them.
Saddam used Chemical agents against his own people and Iran.
We found lots after Desert Storm.
Over 500 artillery rds loaded with mustard have been found in Iraq since we went in (enough to kill approx 50,000 people).
Yes Saddam did have WMD. And more to the point, as it has come out since we got him, is that he was going to play a waiting game untill the UN sanctions were gone and he could rebuild. He still had his oil money and lots of scientists and technical specialists.
The Hijacker of the Achille Lauro was allowed by Saddam to retire and live in Iraq with security provided by Iraq. A facility was found that was used to train Aircraft hijackers near Baghdad.
I could go on but what is the point. You sound like someone that will ignore facts if they do not agree with what you want to believe.

[SuspectCorner]

Five years later - and STILL frantically searching for that purported "smoking gun".

The "redacted" SADDAM AND TERRORISM report... :rolleyes:

And the link between Saddam and Al-Quaeda lays exactly where in this "exhaustive review"?

All it does is further reinforce (barely) what was already known - Saddam Hussein was a very bad man. It utterly FAILS at uncovering any link between Saddam and the operations of al-Quaeda and bin Laden... which was the reason behind the study in the first place (redacted or otherwise). Which might explain why the Pentagon and the current administration belayed their initial plans to ballyhoo and widely release it.

Intead it appears in op-ed pieces (though more frequently thru obscure right-wing blogs) like the one you used to initiate this thread... another smoking popgun.

http://moderate.wordpress.com/2008/03/10/exhaustive-study-no-saddam-al-qaida-link/

[zrinkill]

The Wall Street Journal is an obscure right wing blog?

:lmao2:

[hank2k]

[QUOTE=burmafrd;2010398]Hank, you are very new here and you must realize that Wikipedia is NEVER used since it is not respected by most researchers. Mainly because ANYONE can get inthere and enter whatever they want and it is NOT CHECKED by anyone.
You also might want to do some more research yourself before you FURTHER embarrass yourself.

Actually the wikipedia source was linked to CNN where the story about Hans Blix came from. But why bother checking something that proves you wrong.

Oh and every country on earth has some types of weapons that can be classified as wmds.The phrase "Iraq had no wmd's" does not mean there was nothing in the country that could have harmed anyone. It means the levels of wmds did not amount to anything the administration said it would. We didnt go into Iraq because of some leftover mustard gas from Desert Storm. And we didnt go because of Leon Klinghoffer being thrown overboard. It was "Mushroom cloud, Al Qaeda bla blah blah."

One could make a case against invading any country in the middle east based on terrorist links, possessing some weapons, having a nutty ruler, etc. When we decide to hold a draft to invade Iran, Ill be interested to see who shows up.

[zrinkill]

It was "Mushroom cloud, Al Qaeda bla blah blah."

Link?

[Cajuncowboy]

Right off wikipedia on the Iraq war :" In March 2003 ,Hans Blix reported that "No evidence of proscribed activities have so far been found in Iraq, saying that progress had been made in inspections which would continue. " But the US declared that "diplomacy had failed and would continue with the coalition...blah , blah, blah, bs, bs, bs."

Get YOUR facts straight!

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june03/blix_2-13.html

SPENCER MICHELS: Hans Blix is said to have taken the weapons inspector's job reluctantly three years ago. In fact, the man who's now 74 had already begun his retirement when the U.N. asked him to head its Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, or UNMOVIC.

Blix was a compromise candidate before the U.N. Security Council. The U.S. and Britain had pushed for Rolf Ekeus, who was considered tougher, but France, Russia and China opposed him.

RICHARD HOLBROOKE: We have further discussed a number of other candidates and found consensus on only one: Hans Blix of Sweden, another very distinguished international civil servant, whose career most notably included leadership of the IAEA in Vienna.

SPENCER MICHELS: Blix began his career as a lawyer, and served in Sweden's foreign service for two decades, including the post of foreign minister in 1978.

Hans BlixFrom 1981 to 1997, Blix headed the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA monitors compliance with the nuclear non- proliferation treaty. Blix took the job at UNMOVIC, created specifically to disarm Iraq's chemical and biological weapons, in January 2000.

While at the IAEA, Blix oversaw inspections of nuclear power plants in North Korea and South Africa, as well as Iraq. But during his watch in the 80s, the agency did not detect Baghdad's nuclear weapons program until the Gulf War ended in 1991.

Mohamed ElBaradei succeeded Blix as IAEA director general. The new round of Iraqi inspections began in November. A month later, Blix resisted U.S. requests that he move aggressively to take Iraqi scientists out of the country for interviews.

HANS BLIX: And I have said that we are not going to abduct anybody, and we are not serving as a defection agency.

SPENCER MICHELS: Blix has also distanced himself from American rhetoric against Iraq.

REPORTER: Pres. Bush continuously accuses Baghdad of playing hide and seek. Does UNMOVIC share the same sentiments?

HANS BLIX: Well, I don't want to express myself in those words. But, as you realize, there are things that have gone well, like the access, prompt access, like setting up of the infrastructure, where the Iraqis have been helpful. But there are other areas where we are not satisfied.

SPENCER MICHELS: In the days before his January report to the U.N., Blix denied that his inspections would end any time soon.

HANS BLIX: Well, we are not the ones who have established the 27th of January as the end of history. We were asked in that resolution to update the Council.

Hans BlixUpdate is not a final report, it's an updating about what has happened and what have you learned in these two months, and that's what we're going to do. And we can see a lot of work ahead of us, beyond that date, if we are allowed to do so.

SPENCER MICHELS: A few days later, at the Security Council, Blix noted several problems with Baghdad's compliance.

HANS BLIX: Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.

SPENCER MICHELS: Last weekend, when he returned to Baghdad, Blix said Iraq was starting to heed the mounting international criticism.

HANS BLIX: They gave us some papers which analyzed and gave some further information and we had some discussions with the scientists and that's why when I talk about a beginning I have not seen this before and I think that was hopeful. We are not at all at the end of the road.

SPENCER MICHELS: This week a reporter asked Blix whether his report tomorrow represents D-day for his mission. Blix said, "No, there are many days. Friday is an important day."

[Cajuncowboy]

In September 2002, Bush tells the press that Iraq can launch a biological or chemical attack within 45 minutes—an assertion that the CIA finds completely phony. Director George Tenet refers to it as the "they-can-attack-in-45-minutes sh*t."

Bob Woodward, Plan of Attack, p. 190.

Once again, relying on the same intel the Dems had during the clinton years as well as the same intel that the dems who voted to go into Iraq. YOu people are completely clueless when it comes to this. You keep posting stuff like it's somehow proving a point and in reality, you are proving you have absolutely no understanding of this.

It's a laugh riot watching you guys though.

[hank2k]

HANS BLIX: They gave us some papers which analyzed and gave some further information and we had some discussions with the scientists and that's why when I talk about a beginning I have not seen this before and I think that was hopeful. We are not at all at the end of the road.






I think you forgot to highlight this part. The part that proves you wrong from the article you cited to try to prove you right. Please dont cite Hans Blix as to support your position. He is one of the Bush admins strongest critics.

[Jon88]

Once again, relying on the same intel the Dems had during the clinton years as well as the same intel that the dems who voted to go into Iraq. YOu people are completely clueless when it comes to this. You keep posting stuff like it's somehow proving a point and in reality, you are proving you have absolutely no understanding of this.

It's a laugh riot watching you guys though.

http://www.simplydumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/bigfoot-on-motorcycle.jpg

He's here to help.

[SuspectCorner]

The Wall Street Journal is an obscure right wing blog?

:lmao2:

My original post: "Instead it appears in op-ed pieces (though more frequently thru obscure right-wing blogs) like the one you used to initiate this thread... another smoking popgun."



Reading really is fundamental... now, comprehension - that's another story.

[silverbear]

So basically all you got is ..... nuu uhhhh.

No, what he's saying is that compared to Iran, Syria, Lybia and other countries, Iraq was a small fish in the global terror pond... and if you're REALLY fighting a "war on terror", you don't start out with the little fishes, you go after the big ones...

Iraq is not now, nor has it ever been, about the war on terror...

[silverbear]

I think invading Iraq was the right choice.

We had been attacked....

Not by Iraq, we hadn't...

[silverbear]

Sure we do. We haven't been attacked since then.

I wish I could tell you how much I hate that GARBAGE argument...

No, we haven't been attacked here in America since then... but we have had more people killed and maimed in Iraq than were killed when we WERE attacked...

As I like to say, why should they come all the way over here, when we've been so thoughtful and accomodating as to send 100-150 thousand of us over there, where they can play on their "home field", where it's so much EASIER to kill us wholesale...

Or are you saying that about 1000 dead US soldiers a year, thousands wounded, is a price you're willing to pay to keep the terrorists over there?? Do you care so little about our troops that you'd sacrifice them that way??

[silverbear]

You fail to see the point.

This is what Democrats continue to spew. "Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!"

Duh!

The point is this. We were attacked.

The point is this-- we were NOT attacked by IRAQ... as a result, attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

If you punch me in the mouth, I'm not gonna go punch Cajun in the mouth in retaliation...

Especially not since he could probably kick my butt... :D

We told the world that we would defend ourselves.

And when did Iraq attack us?? Even Dubya was clear, and honest for a change, when he said we were engaging in a PREEMPTIVE strike...

Sadaam was a threat....

No, he wasn't... he posed us no danger AT ALL...

How many of us, if we feel our home/family were threatened, wouldn't act?

And if you acted with violence, and it turned out that your family was not threatened at all, you'd be headed to JAIL, wouldn't you??

[silverbear]

The Wall Street Journal is an obscure right wing blog?

:lmao2:


Obscure, no; right wing, absolutely (at least, on their editorial pages)...

[Cajuncowboy]

HANS BLIX: They gave us some papers which analyzed and gave some further information and we had some discussions with the scientists and that's why when I talk about a beginning I have not seen this before and I think that was hopeful. We are not at all at the end of the road.






I think you forgot to highlight this part. The part that proves you wrong from the article you cited to try to prove you right. Please dont cite Hans Blix as to support your position. He is one of the Bush admins strongest critics.

Being HOPEFUL Is not the same as actually cooperating. You need an english lesson if you don't know the difference. Saddam was given several deadlines and he missed them all. He would give a little and take more. Blix's own statement proves as much.

Of course he was one of Bush's critics. He was employed by the UN who by the way WAS TAKING BRIBES FROM SADDAM! Geez, surprise!

[Cajuncowboy]

I wish I could tell you how much I hate that GARBAGE argument...

I'm sure you do. Because it proves that what Bush has done has kept our homeland safe.


No, we haven't been attacked here in America since then... but we have had more people killed and maimed in Iraq than were killed when we WERE attacked...
So by this warped way of thinking, after the attack on Pearl Harbor, we should have only been in WWII up to the point where we lost the exact number of people in the Japanese attack. Hmm, that makes all the sense in the world. :rolleyes:


As I like to say, why should they come all the way over here, when we've been so thoughtful and accomodating as to send 100-150 thousand of us over there, where they can play on their "home field", where it's so much EASIER to kill us wholesale...

Ahh, so we should have them come here so that our women and children should die so we can have home field advantage. Please don't ever run for any office. Please.


Or are you saying that about 1000 dead US soldiers a year, thousands wounded, is a price you're willing to pay to keep the terrorists over there?? Do you care so little about our troops that you'd sacrifice them that way??

Nice way of trying to turn this thing but it's not going to work. Our military is the best in the world and they are doing the very thing they are trained to do. We have had fewer military killed in this campaign than in 40 minutes at Iwo Jima. Also, the number you stated is wrong. Weve been there 5 years and 4000 soldiers were killed, but nice way to inflate the numbers to make it look orse than it is.

And yes, it is worth the effort to keep them over there to keep our homeland free from attack. That's what the military does in case you didn't know.

[zrinkill]

My original post: "Instead it appears in op-ed pieces (though more frequently thru obscure right-wing blogs) like the one you used to initiate this thread... another smoking popgun."



Reading really is fundamental... now, comprehension - that's another story.

You changed your post, and thats a sad attempt since it states that you changed it at the bottom of your thread ...... learn to use the forum tools, its fundamental.

[zrinkill]

Nice way of trying to turn this thing but it's not going to work. Our military is the best in the world and they are doing the very thing they are trained to do. We have had fewer military killed in this campaign than in 40 minutes at Iwo Jima. Also, the number you stated is wrong. we've been there 5 years and 4000 soldiers were killed, but nice way to inflate the numbers to make it look worse than it is.

And yes, it is worth the effort to keep them over there to keep our homeland free from attack. That's what the military does in case you didn't know.


:bow:

[Cajuncowboy]

[QUOTE]The point is this-- we were NOT attacked by IRAQ... as a result, attacking Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11...

If you punch me in the mouth, I'm not gonna go punch Cajun in the mouth in retaliation...
Especially not since he could probably kick my butt... :D

Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism. We know that. Terror acts that took American lives. That right there was enough to take him out regardless of anything else. We also know he posed a threat to the region. He had a history of invading other countries and he killed his own people. And at some point people are going to have to admit that this was not a different war. IT was a continuation of the FIRST war where we removed him from Kuwait. You people need to understand that.

And oh yeah, :fight:



:p:


And when did Iraq attack us?? Even Dubya was clear, and honest for a change, when he said we were engaging in a PREEMPTIVE strike...

By proxy when he paid the Homicide bombers to blow up innocent men, women and children in Israel which killed Americans. And since we have been attacked by terrorists of which he is a State sponsor, and since we know that he is a danger and he also gave safe harbor to a terrorist who killed Americans, it was well justified.


No, he wasn't... he posed us no danger AT ALL...

I think we proved he was.

And if you acted with violence, and it turned out that your family was not threatened at all, you'd be headed to JAIL, wouldn't you??

Again, I think we have proven that he was a threat even though we didn't find the WMD.

[Vintage]

So.... funny story. In my American Military History class, the Professor/Jesuit asked the question "What would happen if the US was attacked by a Muslim terrorist?"

A kid who sits next to me who is in the Marines, rose his hand, and said "well, given the current administration, the attack could have been from the Soviets or North Korea which means we'd have attacked Iran."

I expect comments like that.

But from a staunch Conservative who is also in the Marines? It surprised me somewhat.

[Jon88]

So.... funny story. In my American Military History class, the Professor/Jesuit asked the question "What would happen if the US was attacked by a Muslim terrorist?"

A kid who sits next to me who is in the Marines, rose his hand, and said "well, given the current administration, the attack could have been from the Soviets or North Korea which means we'd have attacked Iran."

I expect comments like that.

But from a staunch Conservative who is also in the Marines? It surprised me somewhat.


Thanks

[Cajuncowboy]

So.... funny story. In my American Military History class, the Professor/Jesuit asked the question "What would happen if the US was attacked by a Muslim terrorist?"

A kid who sits next to me who is in the Marines, rose his hand, and said "well, given the current administration, the attack could have been from the Soviets or North Korea which means we'd have attacked Iran."

I expect comments like that.

But from a staunch Conservative who is also in the Marines? It surprised me somewhat.

Sounds like the kid needs some more class room time.

[SuspectCorner]

You changed your post, and thats a sad attempt since it states that you changed it at the bottom of your thread ...... learn to use the forum tools, its fundamental.

Edited to add the link at the bottom - and prior to any posts subsequent TO THAT POST.

But keep trying... Like you, many cephalopods frequently use "ink" to cloud the waters.

[silverbear]

Nice way of trying to turn this thing but it's not going to work.

I see, you don't like it when somebody uses typical right wing debate tactics against you...

ROTFLMAO... yes, that's EXACTLY what I was doing, giving you a dose of your own medicine...

Our military is the best in the world and they are doing the very thing they are trained to do. We have had fewer military killed in this campaign than in 40 minutes at Iwo Jima.

Which would be GREAT, but for one thing-- every death in Iraq has been in pursuit of the neocon agenda, not what is in this country's best interests... NONE of the soldiers killed in this war should have died, we should never have invaded...

And yes, it is worth the effort to keep them over there to keep our homeland free from attack. That's what the military does in case you didn't know.

No, our soldiers are not sacrificial lambs, to be slaughtered on the altar of the neocon agenda...

And if you think we're really safe from attack at the hands of terrorists, you're insane...

[silverbear]

[QUOTE=silverbear;2012279]

Again, I think we have proven that he was a threat even though we didn't find the WMD.

He posed us no threat at all, and you know it... he had NO ability to hurt us, NO capacity to strike us at home...

And once again, if THAT'S your rationale for defending the war, why didn't we start with the REAL big fish of Islamic terrorism?? Instead of invading Iraq, we should first have invaded Iran, Syria and Libya, all of whom had FAR more to do with exporting global terrorism than Iraq ever did... Saddam was too busy trying to keep his own country under his thumb...

I make that observation over and over again, and not one of you neandercons has ever even TRIED to answer it... I'll ask again, but I don't expect you to respond this time, either:

If the invasion of Iraq is really about fighting the war on terror, why didn't we first invade far more active state supporters of terrorism, like Iran, Syria and Libya??

That ain't no way to fight a war, leave the big guys alone and go after the little guys... that's bass-ackwards, and any military strategist would tell you the same thing; you're dissipating your own forces, while your strongest enemies get even stronger...

[Cajuncowboy]

I see, you don't like it when somebody uses typical right wing debate tactics against you...

ROTFLMAO... yes, that's EXACTLY what I was doing, giving you a dose of your own medicine...



Which would be GREAT, but for one thing-- every death in Iraq has been in pursuit of the neocon agenda, not what is in this country's best interests... NONE of the soldiers killed in this war should have died, we should never have invaded...



No, our soldiers are not sacrificial lambs, to be slaughtered on the altar of the neocon agenda...

And if you think we're really safe from attack at the hands of terrorists, you're insane...

Wow! Just wow.

[zrinkill]

Wow! Just wow.

Unreal isn't it.

[Cajuncowboy]

[QUOTE=Cajuncowboy;2012392].

I make that observation over and over again, and not one of you neandercons has ever even TRIED to answer it... I'll ask again, but I don't expect you to respond this time, either:

If the invasion of Iraq is really about fighting the war on terror, why didn't we first invade far more active state supporters of terrorism, like Iran, Syria and Libya??



I have answered it but you ignored it. So here it is once again, hope this helps... I hope you don't miss it this time.


Syria, Iran and Lybia were not in violation of UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the first Gulf War. Iraq was. He had demonstrated in the past a willingness to harbor and support terrorists. He further obfuscated the inspectors ability to conduct their inspections. There was never an official surrender to the first Gulf War only a cease fire based on his fulfillment of those resolutions which he was in violation of. That, combined with the intel we had from all over the World and his links to terror, it was in the best interest of the United States to take him out.


I hope that helps you in not missing the response you so dearly want.

[zrinkill]

Nice.

But it will be ignored.

They cannot speak Neandercon ....... except when they are yelling for help. :D

[Cajuncowboy]

Nice.

But it will be ignored.

They cannot speak Neandercon ....... except when they are yelling for help. :D

:lmao:

[vta]

http://www.simplydumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/bigfoot-on-motorcycle.jpg

He's here to help.



:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


Wow. Man that is funny.

Sorry... haha.

[Jon88]

:lmao2: :lmao2: :lmao2:
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


Wow. Man that is funny.

Sorry... haha.


:laugh2:

Glad you liked it.

[vta]

:laugh2:

Glad you liked it.

Man, there is a picture out there for every eventuality...
Sasquatch on a scooter, how in the hell did you find something like that? :lmao2:

[Jon88]

Man, there is a picture out there for every eventuality...
Sasquatch on a scooter, how in the hell did you find something like that? :lmao2:

Google was a great invention.

[zrinkill]

http://www.simplydumb.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/bigfoot-on-motorcycle.jpg

He's here to help.

How many miles per gallon does that thing get Sassy?

[Sasquatch]

How many miles per gallon does that thing get Sassy?

That's actually not me. It's Michael Myers in disguise.

[zrinkill]

It's Michael Myers in disguise.

The serial killer, the comedian, or the ex defensive end?

[Cajuncowboy]

The serial killer, the comedian, or the ex defensive end?

How do you know Sassy ain't one of THEM? :eek:

[Sasquatch]

The serial killer, the comedian, or the ex defensive end?

Close the door, turn off the lights, and turn up the volume.

This one (http://www.fortunecity.com/lavendar/wargames/338/halow.mid).

[silverbear]

Unreal isn't it.


I'm stunned by the eloquent rebuttal you righties are offering these days...

ROTFLMAO...

"Wow, just wow"... yeah, that's a compelling argument...

[silverbear]

Nice.

But it will be ignored.

They cannot speak Neandercon ....... except when they are yelling for help. :D

Actually, I've already shredded that incredibly weak argument, on a number of occasions... to sum up before I deal with this crapola point by point, none of the arguments he made are valid, and most of them are irrelevant to this specific argument (which was that the claim that we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's role in global terrorism)...

So now, point by point... do try to keep up:

Syria, Iran and Lybia were not in violation of UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the first Gulf War. Iraq was.

This is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, but that's OK, I'll deal with it anyway... basically, my rebuttal is that invading Iraq to enforce UN sanctions is not a legitimate excuse for invasion... not when the UN itself chose not to enforce those sanctions at that point, not when those of you trying to use that argument are almost unanimous in your belief that the UN is a corrupt body...

So, no UN support for the invasion means that we can't use enforcing their sanctions as an excuse for invading, and you guys using UN sanctions as an excuse when you consider the UN to be corrupt is completely hypocritical...

He had demonstrated in the past a willingness to harbor and support terrorists.

THIS is the specific claim to which I responded, the one that's relevant to my argument... and my rebuttal is the same as it has always been-- if this was REALLY about taking out state supporters of terrorism, we should have started with the biggest players in that area, which means Syria, Iran and Lybia... compared to them, Saddam was NOTHING...

So invading Iraq, making it the central front in the war on terror, was militarily IDIOTIC... clearly, that's not the REAL reason why we invaded...

He further obfuscated the inspectors ability to conduct their inspections.

Again, a UN issue, not one that we had ANY right to take unilateral action on... we are not the UN, we are one member...

Or can you show me where in the UN charter it says that the US has the right to take unilateral action to enforce UN sanctions, even in the absence of UN support for such unilateral action??

Until and unless you can do that, this argument is completely invalid...

There was never an official surrender to the first Gulf War only a cease fire based on his fulfillment of those resolutions which he was in violation of.

That's right, there was "only a cease fire"...

Saddam did not break the cease fire, WE did... so once again, this argument does not validate the invasion of Iraq... and once again, it's quite irrelevant to the specific argument I made, which was all about the claim that we invaded Iraq as part of the war on terror... Cajun's throwing up all these irrelevant arguments precisely because he hopes to obscure the REAL issue here, because he knows he's on shaky ground...

Again, that's another typical right wing debating tactic... too bad I won't let you guys get over on me with it...

Nope, for all the colors and the big bold fonts, there's not one single ounce of SUBSTANCE in Cajun's argument... if you guys tried to argue that in a formal debate, you'd get your butts kicked, easy...

[silverbear]

:lmao:

What I find interesting is that you guys don't see "neandercon" as the insult it's clearly intended to be...

[silverbear]

That's actually not me. It's Michael Myers in disguise.

I thought you WERE Michael Myers in disguise, ol' buddy... :D

[Sasquatch]

I'm stunned by the eloquent rebuttal you righties are offering these days...

But in the culture wars any hint of intelligence or critical thought is denounced as elitism.

Or taste for that matter.

http://www.ciadvertising.org/student_account/fall_00/adv382j/christiana/theory/photos/bud.gif

[silverbear]

But in the culture wars any hint of intelligence or critical thought is denounced as elitism.

That's why the righties in here see me as their boogeybear (and why Cajun is so ready to forget that he called me his friend), they can't hang with me in an argument on the facts, and it annoys them...

I'd say it was because they lack the intelligence to debate me, but it's really a good deal simpler than that-- they don't have the FACTS to debate me...

[SuspectCorner]

[QUOTE=silverbear;2013715]

I have answered it but you ignored it. So here it is once again, hope this helps... I hope you don't miss it this time.


Syria, Iran and Lybia were not in violation of UN resolutions that brought a cease fire to the first Gulf War. Iraq was. He had demonstrated in the past a willingness to harbor and support terrorists. He further obfuscated the inspectors ability to conduct their inspections. There was never an official surrender to the first Gulf War only a cease fire based on his fulfillment of those resolutions which he was in violation of. That, combined with the intel we had from all over the World and his links to terror, it was in the best interest of the United States to take him out.


I hope that helps you in not missing the response you so dearly want.

Apparently, the significance of "violating UN sanctions" and resolutions - is directly proportional to which side of the US corporate-political agenda the offenders are on.

http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm

[Cajuncowboy]

Actually, I've already shredded that incredibly weak argument, on a number of occasions... to sum up before I deal with this crapola point by point, none of the arguments he made are valid, and most of them are irrelevant to this specific argument (which was that the claim that we invaded Iraq because of Saddam's role in global terrorism)...

You've shredded nothing but your own argument so here we go...

So now, point by point... do try to keep up:

Oh please, you do the same. :rolleyes:

This is completely irrelevant to the question at hand, but that's OK, I'll deal with it anyway... basically, my rebuttal is that invading Iraq to enforce UN sanctions is not a legitimate excuse for invasion... not when the UN itself chose not to enforce those sanctions at that point, not when those of you trying to use that argument are almost unanimous in your belief that the UN is a corrupt body...

OK. So, because UN sanction were put in place a decade before and a new corrupt head of the UN is in place, we had no right as a founding member to enforce these sanctions???? If that's the case, how do you square anything the UN says at all? Like maybe "Oh, the inspections are working." When Blix himself said they were not? We were the leader in the original removal of saddam and we had every right to enforce the rules of the cease fire.

So, no UN support for the invasion means that we can't use enforcing their sanctions as an excuse for invading, and you guys using UN sanctions as an excuse when you consider the UN to be corrupt is completely hypocritical...

Actually we can. The UN was taking bribes. Their position is null & void. Anyone who would argue that we should have listened to the UN even after ALL WE NOW KNOW about this is simply destroying their own credibility.


THIS is the specific claim to which I responded, the one that's relevant to my argument... and my rebuttal is the same as it has always been-- if this was REALLY about taking out state supporters of terrorism, we should have started with the biggest players in that area, which means Syria, Iran and Lybia... compared to them, Saddam was NOTHING...

I see, so you are OK with us going after state sponsors of terror as long as they fit into YOUR personal view of imminent threat. OK, let's go get Iran and Syria and Lybia. Oh wait, forget Lybia. Because after we went into Iraq, Bush scared the Nukes out of them and they turned them over on their own. And Bush never fired a shot into Lybia. That should make you happy.

So invading Iraq, making it the central front in the war on terror, was militarily IDIOTIC... clearly, that's not the REAL reason why we invaded...

So, what was CLEARLY the reason? Oil? It's 3.25 a gallon at the pump? Political expediency? Bush's popularity is very low because people keep lying about this war. How about, I know, it really was about the war on terror! What a thought. Since we have not been attacked since then, I would say it's working out pretty well since we are killing the terrorists there and not here.


Again, a UN issue, not one that we had ANY right to take unilateral action on... we are not the UN, we are one member...

A founding member and one of the few with a sack.

Or can you show me where in the UN charter it says that the US has the right to take unilateral action to enforce UN sanctions, even in the absence of UN support for such unilateral action??

They lost all of that authority when it was America that was attacked on 9/11 and refused to take action to disarm the state sponsors of terror and when they took bribes from said sponsors.

Until and unless you can do that, this argument is completely invalid...

Just did!


That's right, there was "only a cease fire"...

Do you understand a cease fire?

Saddam did not break the cease fire, WE did... so once again, this argument does not validate the invasion of Iraq... and once again, it's quite irrelevant to the specific argument I made, which was all about the claim that we invaded Iraq as part of the war on terror... Cajun's throwing up all these irrelevant arguments precisely because he hopes to obscure the REAL issue here, because he knows he's on shaky ground...

Nah, Cajun's on real solid ground. The cease fire was based on the resolutions. He violated it. The cease fire was rescinded while giving him option after option after option. He refused to take those options and he had his neck snapped at the end of a rope because of it. Bush did exactly what he was sworn to do and that is defend this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He was a known terrorist. We were attacked. We had reason to believe he had WMD. He violated the UN resolutions that brought about the cease fire. He lost.

Again, that's another typical right wing debating tactic... too bad I won't let you guys get over on me with it...

Why don't you just say nanny-nanny-boo-boo?

Nope, for all the colors and the big bold fonts, there's not one single ounce of SUBSTANCE in Cajun's argument... if you guys tried to argue that in a formal debate, you'd get your butts kicked, easy...

The colors and the BIG BOLD FONTS were to make sure you would come back with this drivel so we could further expose this lousy line of thinking. You say that there is no substance in my argument but it is all true. Not a word of it is a lie. And since we'll call this a formal debate....

You just got... :spanking:

[Cajuncowboy]

[QUOTE=Cajuncowboy;2014141]

Apparently, the significance of "violating UN sanctions" and resolutions - is directly proportional to which side of the US corporate-political agenda the offenders are on.

http://www.musalman.com/news/musalman-UN%20resolutions%20against%20Israel.htm


Haha! Israel was not a threat to America. They do not sponsor terrorists. They do not kill their own people with Chemical and biological weapons. They did not invade with the intention to occupy a sovereign country. Oh, and they are our ally.

Nice try but you whiffed.

[Vintage]

^ Arguing with yourself? I've always suspected mental problems....


;)

[Cajuncowboy]

^ Arguing with yourself? I've always suspected mental problems....


;)

:o:

I still can't figure out the quote thingy. :D

[SuspectCorner]

[QUOTE=SuspectCorner;2015264]


Haha! Israel was not a threat to America. They do not sponsor terrorists. They do not kill their own people with Chemical and biological weapons. They did not invade with the intention to occupy a sovereign country. Oh, and they are our ally.

Nice try but you whiffed.

Absolutely sailed right over your head - didn't it?

The post to which he responded: "Apparently, the significance of "violating UN sanctions" and resolutions - is directly proportional to which side of the US corporate-political agenda the offenders are on."

http://www.musalman.com/news/musalma...t%20Israel.htm

[zrinkill]

Name the Sanctions or treaty agreements that Israel has broken.

Thats what gives those who are threatened the right to act .... not just the U.N. "frowning" on Israel defending itself.

[JBond]

The colors and the BIG BOLD FONTS were to make sure you would come back with this drivel so we could further expose this lousy line of thinking. You say that there is no substance in my argument but it is all true. Not a word of it is a lie. And since we'll call this a formal debate....

You just got... :spanking:


I thought the cease fire was signed with the United States, not the U.N.
Violations of U.N. sanctions and violating a cease fire agreement with the U.S. are two different things.

[zrinkill]

Name the Sanctions or treaty agreements that Israel has broken.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/hscrick.jpg

[SuspectCorner]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v210/zrinkill/hscrick.jpg


No Level VII sanctions (which are reserved for thirdworld developing nations and "enemies" of the US) must mean Israel's hands are clean - and NOT that the US buffers them from exposure as they have since the first "oil crunch" of the mid-70's when they suddenly became the largest single-country beneficiary of US aid.

Meanwhile the US occupation of Iraq is all about Saddam, Al-Quaeda, and WMDs - and not about the world's second largest oil reserves.

So - "Rally around the Exxon logo... er... Old Glory, boys!"

http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/article_17.shtml

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/47489/