|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 30, 2008 19:13:42 GMT -5
So is Israel, North Korea, the United States, and on and on and on. So, should we invade all those countries, including ours, too? The U.S. Government sponsors terrorism? You and your conspiracy theories. Do you just dream up these things in your sleep? Oh and don't forget about the US run School of Americas. www.soaw.org/Check out the site. Or if you just want wiki read this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 30, 2008 20:51:03 GMT -5
Al-Qaeda is not based in Saudi Arabia. Bin laden has been kicked out of that country. The reason there is alot of extremism there is hatred for the Saudi Royal family and the huge number of wahhabist mosques there. Dont say that Al-Qaeda is based there, cause its factually inaccurate. Did someone here say Al Qaeda is based in Saudi Arabia? |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 30, 2008 20:53:36 GMT -5
But Iraq didn't harbor the 9/11 terrorists, Afghanistan did. Hey Fistor they both did Iraq did not harbor the 9/11 terrorists, that I'm aware of. Feel free to prove that they did. |
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Jul 30, 2008 20:59:06 GMT -5
By the way, check out a editorial peice done in NRO by Deroy Murdock titled "Saddams Terror Ties" Its a little dated but gets to the point. I would link it but i'm not sure how. Deroy Murdock is a hardcore conservative. Read the GD 9/11 Commission. These people were appointed and bullied by the Bush Admin and they still found no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Ok then check out the New York Times, wed july30, 2008 "The Reach of War: The Intelligence; Iraqis seeking foes of Saudis, contacted bin Laden, file says Oh and by the way just because Deroy Murdock is a hard core conservitave dosen't mean he hasn't done his home work |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Jul 30, 2008 22:41:38 GMT -5
Deroy Murdock is a hardcore conservative. Read the GD 9/11 Commission. These people were appointed and bullied by the Bush Admin and they still found no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Ok then check out the New York Times, wed july30, 2008 "The Reach of War: The Intelligence; Iraqis seeking foes of Saudis, contacted bin Laden, file says Oh and by the way just because Deroy Murdock is a hard core conservitave dosen't mean he hasn't done his home work Could you please link to this article? I've looked all over the NYT website and it doesn't appear to exist. I did find an article about how the Iraqi army is NOW reaching out for insurgent assistance, with the HELP of the US Army. |
|
|
|
Post by Mad Dog on Jul 31, 2008 3:48:34 GMT -5
I honestly dont know how sorry. however i was careful too type it exactly
|
|
|
|
Post by Dino on Jul 31, 2008 6:22:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Jul 31, 2008 7:06:55 GMT -5
Ok, I read the article, and this little snippet stood out:
"Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family"
Also, this part stands out to me as well:
"American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization."
Finally:
"The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration."
So, there you have it. This article does not, in fact, support your premise that Iraq worked with Al-Queda in order to orchestrate 9/11. They contact Bin Laden in the mid-1990s, agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that's it. That's the extent. Do you even read the articles you cite?
P.S. Oh my god there's even more. Dude, do you realize how damning this article is to your case?
"But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons."
|
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Jul 31, 2008 7:44:31 GMT -5
Al-Qaeda is not based in Saudi Arabia. Bin laden has been kicked out of that country. The reason there is alot of extremism there is hatred for the Saudi Royal family and the huge number of wahhabist mosques there. Dont say that Al-Qaeda is based there, cause its factually inaccurate. Did someone here say Al Qaeda is based in Saudi Arabia? Yes somebody did. I should have quoted it but I was just too lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by Fistor on Jul 31, 2008 7:46:39 GMT -5
Did someone here say Al Qaeda is based in Saudi Arabia? Yes somebody did. I should have quoted it but I was just too lazy. Since you posted it right after I did, I thought you were under the impression I said it. Just wanted to be clear that I never did. |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Jul 31, 2008 7:50:38 GMT -5
Ok, I read the article, and this little snippet stood out: "Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family" Also, this part stands out to me as well: "American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization." Finally: "The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration." So, there you have it. This article does not, in fact, support your premise that Iraq worked with Al-Queda in order to orchestrate 9/11. They contact Bin Laden in the mid-1990s, agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that's it. That's the extent. Do you even read the articles you cite? P.S. Oh my god there's even more. Dude, do you realize how damning this article is to your case? "But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons." Interesting but I think you are once again missing the big picture (either that, or you've got your fingers jammed so far in your ears that you cant remove them). This does prove that Saddam was looking for cooperation between him and a terrorist group. At the same time, I consider myself staunchly Republican, especially when it comes to foreign policy issues and national security issues, but even I dont believe for one second that Saddam had ANYTHING at all to do with 9/11. Anyone arguing that he did is clearly misinformed and needs to get over it. Also, anyone arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with ANY terrorist group needs to get their ass out there and do some research, because they are clearly misinformed as well. |
|
|
|
Post by scooterfanatic on Jul 31, 2008 8:35:25 GMT -5
Ok, I read the article, and this little snippet stood out: "Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family" Also, this part stands out to me as well: "American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization." Finally: "The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration." So, there you have it. This article does not, in fact, support your premise that Iraq worked with Al-Queda in order to orchestrate 9/11. They contact Bin Laden in the mid-1990s, agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that's it. That's the extent. Do you even read the articles you cite? P.S. Oh my god there's even more. Dude, do you realize how damning this article is to your case? "But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons." Interesting but I think you are once again missing the big picture (either that, or you've got your fingers jammed so far in your ears that you cant remove them). This does prove that Saddam was looking for cooperation between him and a terrorist group. At the same time, I consider myself staunchly Republican, especially when it comes to foreign policy issues and national security issues, but even I dont believe for one second that Saddam had ANYTHING at all to do with 9/11. Anyone arguing that he did is clearly misinformed and needs to get over it. Also, anyone arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with ANY terrorist group needs to get their ass out there and do some research, because they are clearly misinformed as well. But the fact remains, the Bush administration tried to prove a specific link between Saddam and Al-Queda as justification for the 2003 invasion. There was no such link at that time and no evidence of it. The only link between them is an obscure meeting with bin Laden in Sudan during the mid-1990's in which no action against the United States was discussed. No one is saying that Saddam's rule was all candy and sunshine, but there are a lot of evil dictators out there and there are a lot of terrorists. We are not the policemen of the world. Our army should be for defense and defense only, and every shred of credible evidence out there suggests that Iraq was not in any way, shape or form a defensive mission. Osama Bin Laden is our monster. It was our CIA who trained him in the mid 1980's in order to defend Afghanistan against the Soviets. It was our CIA who gave him the know-how and the skill set to orchestrate our own tragedy. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. No one could have predicted Bin Laden turning on us. It just goes to show that an interventionalist foreign policy results in disaster, despite our best intentions. The world is not a comic book of cowboys and indians, where everyone is either firmly a "bad guy" or a "good guy." Our president seems to think otherwise, and this cowboy diplomacy of his is going to do more harm to our national security in the end than it will help. |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 9:05:07 GMT -5
Ok, I read the article, and this little snippet stood out: "Contacts between Iraqi intelligence agents and Osama bin Laden when he was in Sudan in the mid-1990's were part of a broad effort by Baghdad to work with organizations opposing the Saudi ruling family" Also, this part stands out to me as well: "American officials described the document as an internal report by the Iraqi intelligence service detailing efforts to seek cooperation with several Saudi opposition groups, including Mr. bin Laden's organization, before Al Qaeda had become a full-fledged terrorist organization." Finally: "The document states that Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that a request from Mr. bin Laden to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi Arabia went unanswered. There is no further indication of collaboration." So, there you have it. This article does not, in fact, support your premise that Iraq worked with Al-Queda in order to orchestrate 9/11. They contact Bin Laden in the mid-1990s, agreed to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda, and that's it. That's the extent. Do you even read the articles you cite? P.S. Oh my god there's even more. Dude, do you realize how damning this article is to your case? "But the document contains no statement of response by the Iraqi leadership under Mr. Hussein to the request for joint operations, and there is no indication of discussions about attacks on the United States or the use of unconventional weapons." Interesting but I think you are once again missing the big picture (either that, or you've got your fingers jammed so far in your ears that you cant remove them). This does prove that Saddam was looking for cooperation between him and a terrorist group. At the same time, I consider myself staunchly Republican, especially when it comes to foreign policy issues and national security issues, but even I dont believe for one second that Saddam had ANYTHING at all to do with 9/11. Anyone arguing that he did is clearly misinformed and needs to get over it. Also, anyone arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with ANY terrorist group needs to get their ass out there and do some research, because they are clearly misinformed as well. If you read the entirety of this thread you will read where I connected Iraq with terrorism in general, but with no direct connection to 9/11. Many countries including Cuba support terrorism and if we are to invade one I think it should be a country that could have the greatest impact on the U.S., Cuba could practically swim over with explosives and blow the hell out of Florida. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism He has a bomb! |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 9:09:31 GMT -5
So is Israel, North Korea, the United States, and on and on and on. So, should we invade all those countries, including ours, too? and Cuba |
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Jul 31, 2008 10:19:14 GMT -5
Who really cares if they can be connected or not? They are different and should all be killed. nuke 'em all!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 10:30:43 GMT -5
Who really cares if they can be connected or not? They are different and should all be killed. nuke 'em all!!! You could call it the “Questionable at Best ” foreign policy |
|
|
|
Post by flyersfantn on Jul 31, 2008 11:04:21 GMT -5
Interesting but I think you are once again missing the big picture (either that, or you've got your fingers jammed so far in your ears that you cant remove them). This does prove that Saddam was looking for cooperation between him and a terrorist group. At the same time, I consider myself staunchly Republican, especially when it comes to foreign policy issues and national security issues, but even I dont believe for one second that Saddam had ANYTHING at all to do with 9/11. Anyone arguing that he did is clearly misinformed and needs to get over it. Also, anyone arguing that Saddam had nothing to do with ANY terrorist group needs to get their ass out there and do some research, because they are clearly misinformed as well. If you read the entirety of this thread you will read where I connected Iraq with terrorism in general, but with no direct connection to 9/11. Many countries including Cuba support terrorism and if we are to invade one I think it should be a country that could have the greatest impact on the U.S., Cuba could practically swim over with explosives and blow the hell out of Florida. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_TerrorismHe has a bomb! Interesting, but I think that the greatest close threat isnt neccessarily (sp?) Cuba. I think that honor would go to Venezuela. Chavez has close ties to Russia and has also personally met with the leader of Iran, IIRC. Also, he hates America with a passion. |
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Jul 31, 2008 11:11:47 GMT -5
Who really cares if they can be connected or not? They are different and should all be killed. nuke 'em all!!! You could call it the “Questionable at Best ” foreign policy I was a soldier. Other countries hate the USA. They only want our money and protection from other bullies. The "Haves" made up the Iraq/Afghani BS to play with their new toys(tanks/guns etc) An ARMY untested in battle is worthless. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 31, 2008 11:27:32 GMT -5
If you read the entirety of this thread you will read where I connected Iraq with terrorism in general, but with no direct connection to 9/11. Many countries including Cuba support terrorism and if we are to invade one I think it should be a country that could have the greatest impact on the U.S., Cuba could practically swim over with explosives and blow the hell out of Florida. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_TerrorismHe has a bomb! Interesting, but I think that the greatest close threat isnt neccessarily (sp?) Cuba. I think that honor would go to Venezuela. Chavez has close ties to Russia and has also personally met with the leader of Iran, IIRC. Also, he hates America with a passion. Hugo Chavez does not hate America with a passion. He hates the Bush Administration and several other administrations for how they have raped South America. I don't agree with everything he is about, but seeing that the US has raped South America, I believe he has a right to be pissed. ......Same goes for the Middle Eastern countries that hate the US. |
|
|
|
Post by ratrad on Jul 31, 2008 11:29:25 GMT -5
You could call it the “Questionable at Best ” foreign policy I was a soldier. Other countries hate the USA. They only want our money and protection from other bullies. The "Haves" made up the Iraq/Afghani BS to play with their new toys(tanks/guns etc) An ARMY untested in battle is worthless. You are correct sir. Go into Iraq to setup bases to go into the big battle with Iran....Soon to come Saudi Arabia.....The oil will be ours bwahahahahahahahahahaha.........ha |
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 11:44:32 GMT -5
Interesting, but I think that the greatest close threat isnt neccessarily (sp?) Cuba. I think that honor would go to Venezuela. Chavez has close ties to Russia and has also personally met with the leader of Iran, IIRC. Also, he hates America with a passion. I also don’t think Cuba is our greatest threat, but do find them as much of a threat as Iraq. All I need is someone to justify why Iraq was more of a threat to the U.S. than any other country that supports terrorism. |
|
|
|
Post by dasbow on Jul 31, 2008 13:02:28 GMT -5
Interesting, but I think that the greatest close threat isnt neccessarily (sp?) Cuba. I think that honor would go to Venezuela. Chavez has close ties to Russia and has also personally met with the leader of Iran, IIRC. Also, he hates America with a passion. Hugo Chavez does not hate America with a passion. He hates the Bush Administration and several other administrations for how they have raped South America. I don't agree with everything he is about, but seeing that the US has raped South America, I believe he has a right to be pissed. ......Same goes for the Middle Eastern countries that hate the US. What the hell has the Bush administration done to South America? Their attention has generally been elsewhere. Chavez is a tinpot socialist dictator, who has nationalized much of Venezuela's industry and media. He's exactly the type of person who hates capitalism and democracy, and by extension, the world's biggest proponent of both, the U.S. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 31, 2008 13:40:32 GMT -5
Furthuring on Dasbow's point... They hate everything about America. It's the same as the terrorists. They hate democracy, capitalism, and freedom. The reason why they would get along with Obama is because he is a glorified socialist. And if you disagree read on his policies. Wealth re-distribution, universal healthcare, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 13:43:57 GMT -5
Furthuring on Dasbow's point... They hate everything about America. It's the same as the terrorists. They hate democracy, capitalism, and freedom. The reason why they would get along with Obama is because he is a glorified socialist. And if you disagree read on his policies. Wealth re-distribution, universal healthcare, etc. Most the world hates the U.S. as much as Iraq did, why don’t we invade all of them? And someone needs to answer my above question. |
|
|
|
Post by plungerhand on Jul 31, 2008 13:46:27 GMT -5
Furthuring on Dasbow's point... They hate everything about America. It's the same as the terrorists. They hate democracy, capitalism, and freedom. The reason why they would get along with Obama is because he is a glorified socialist. And if you disagree read on his policies. Wealth re-distribution, universal healthcare, etc. Most the world hates the U.S. as much as Iraq did, why don’t we invade all of them? And someone needs to answer my above question. They can't "justify" anything. It's all a lie. It's always about MONEY. You can't do anything without it, and once you get it, you have to play along or lose it. |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 31, 2008 13:51:30 GMT -5
Yeah. Its about Money for both parties. Liberals want to start more inefficent government aid programs and guess what, that takes MONEY! And whose is it? Mine and yours.
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 13:52:42 GMT -5
Yeah. Its about Money for both parties. Liberals want to start more inefficent government aid programs and guess what, that takes MONEY! And whose is it? Mine and yours. Stop combining threads stupid! |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 31, 2008 13:54:53 GMT -5
Stop bringing up other things and asking questions then?
|
|
|
|
Post by wienerpoopie on Jul 31, 2008 13:55:46 GMT -5
Stop bringing up other things and asking questions then? Quote were I did |
|
|
|
Post by kaboobie92 on Jul 31, 2008 14:04:36 GMT -5
....Back on topic, I agree that all of those countries are threats. Some may be more of a threat than Iraq, but we acted a little bit irrationally. They did harbor and produce terrorists, they did opress and kill people, and they were a threat to the US. People say we should intervene in Darfur, but they forget that conditions were very similar in Iraq. Mass killings by gas, and multiple genocides.
|
|
