Author Topic: Dead Americans (Read 1659 times)

Staga · « **Reply #30 on:** June 16, 2004, 05:12:30 AM »

Yeah I was wondering what has 9/11 to do with Iraq ?

IIRC they were mostly Saudi-Arabian terrorists who were trained in Afghanistan and who hi-jacked american planes and crashed them against American buildings?

Ripsnort · « **Reply #31 on:** June 16, 2004, 10:41:22 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Yeah I was wondering what has 9/11 to do with Iraq ?

IIRC they were mostly Saudi-Arabian terrorists who were trained in Afghanistan and who hi-jacked american planes and crashed them against American buildings?

Terrorism is not limited to one country, but it is limited to this planet:

Our war on terror begins with al Qaida, but it does not end there. . . . we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime. . . President George W. Bush, Joint Session of Congress, September 20, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saddam Hussein is paying $25,000 to the relatives of Palestinian suicide bombers -- a $15,000 raise much welcomed by the bombers' families. In Tulkarm, one of the poorest towns on the West Bank, a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council handed out the checks from Saddam. The payments have been made for at least two years, but the amount has suddenly jumped up by $15,000 -- a bonus for the families of 'martyrs', to reward those taking part in the escalating war against Israel. . . . Fox News, March 26, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This general served Saddam Hussein for decades. Along with another Iraqi defector, Sabah Khodada (see below), the general tells of terrorists training in a Boeing 707 resting next to railroad tracks on the edge of Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. The existence of the plane has been confirmed by U.N. inspectors. The general describes the men who trained there, the camp's security, and his "gut feeling" that the camp was in some way tied to the Sept. 11 attacks. Iraqi Lt. General, PBS and New York Times Interview, November 6, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992, he worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview Khodada describes what went on at Salman Pak, including details on training hijackers. He emigrated to the U.S. in May 2001. Sabah Kodada, Iraqi Army Captain, PBS and New York Times Interview, October 14, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An investigation by Frontline confirmed that Iraqi intelligence had trained at least forty Islamic terrorists between 1995 and 2000 in how to hijacking airliners using a Boeing-747 that was originally Kuwaiti property. Frontline, PBS, November 14, 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens. . . . Congressional Resolution Authorizing Force Against Iraq, October 15, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shortly before the Sept. 11 attacks, a group of al-Qaida fighters left Afghanistan and set up shop in Iraq as a backup base, according to a report in today‘s Los Angeles Times. Osama bin Laden‘s jihadists established such a base in town of Al Biyara and nearby mountain villages where Kurdish militants had begun imposing the strict Islamic rule much like Afghanistan‘s ousted Taliban regime, according to the Times report. While this base is further evidence of Saddam Hussein‘s recent support of al-Qaida, documented by many intelligence sources over the last 10 years, Iraq is attempting to maintain plausible deniability with regard to the bases – suggesting they are outside the control of the government in Baghdad. Intelmessages.com and Los Angeles Times, December 9, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British also released a dossier on Iraq which claimed that at least two key Al-Qaeda lieutenants underwent training inIraq. The dossier also confirmed that Iraq was paying Al-Qaeda to use its Ansar forces based in northern Iraq to attack the Kurdish forces. Reuters, September 14, 2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

bigsky · « **Reply #32 on:** June 16, 2004, 10:43:41 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Staga
Yeah I was wondering what has 9/11 to do with Iraq ?

IIRC they were mostly Saudi-Arabian terrorists who were trained in Afghanistan and who hi-jacked american planes and crashed them against American buildings?

correct staga, but your not looking at the big picture. now it seems dumber than a box of rocks to go around invading countrys that have no way to hurt the U.S.A. but when you think about it, iraq would make a good base for eventual invasion of saudi arabia and other oil/terrorist producing arab countrys. if you have been watching the news it has already started in saudi. if bush gets elected again in 2-3 years some U.S. soldier will be spray painting PWNED all over mecca. no, this bush is stupid like a fox.
[ sarcasm mode off]

Staga · « **Reply #33 on:** June 16, 2004, 02:44:11 PM »

I thought US attacked against Iraq because of their WMDs ?

Now we hear it wasn't the WMD but their connections to terrorists?

I wonder what's the next excuse is...

lazs2 · « **Reply #34 on:** June 16, 2004, 02:53:26 PM »

are you saying that the sadman never had weapons of mass destruction and that he was never working on nuclear weapons or that...

he had em in the past but he was a new changed man now and that even tho he kicked out the inspectors he would never start up another program?

lazs

Pooh21 · « **Reply #35 on:** June 16, 2004, 03:11:56 PM »

remember Frenchy* thought the 9/11 attacks were awesome.

"Then later on the Pentagon got hit, I recall thinking that those terrorists are "awsome". Make so much destruction with so little money using the targetted country's equipment. The idea was brillant! A Special Ops dream. "

Staga · « **Reply #36 on:** June 16, 2004, 06:21:14 PM »

IIRC US/Coalition forces invaded Iraq because Saddam had ****loads of chemical weapons ready to be used in 45mins or so and I'm quite sure we all remember that "pre-emptive strike" was popular phrase.

Coalition invaded and occupied that country, chemical weapons weren't used against invading forces and those same alleged WMD-weapons are still missing (if there were any)...

Quote

...and that even tho he kicked out the inspectors he would never start up another program?

Winter 2002 Hussein accepted UN inspectors but guess that was too late; the big wheel was already turning and invasion was executed at spring 2003.
Hussein was quite willing to co-operate with UN but guess that wasn't enough for GWB; after all he had a "mission".

btw who's saying the new regime won't manufacture WMDs?

VOR · « **Reply #37 on:** June 16, 2004, 06:23:38 PM »

Quote

btw who's saying the new regime won't manufacture WMDs?

Who said anything about a new regime?

SFRT - Frenchy · « **Reply #38 on:** June 16, 2004, 11:23:13 PM »

And I still do Pooh21, a 10 for ingeniuty, never in history so few created so much damage with so little. The moral impact, followed by a "poor economy" shockwave.

I'll repeat myself, I despize the act, but the planification was excellent. Don't missread me, you are brighter than that.

YUCCA · « **Reply #39 on:** June 17, 2004, 12:12:19 AM »

So far i haven't seen any evidence to suggest that iraq could have endangerd the U.S. (so far.) There wouldnt be suicide bombers killing soldiers if we didnt send our forces to invade iraq to overthrow a regime that they say had WMD (not holding my breath.) But muckmaw no reason to get so touchy, just having a nice conversation ok?

YUCCA · « **Reply #40 on:** June 17, 2004, 12:21:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Pooh21
remember Frenchy* thought the 9/11 attacks were awesome.

"Then later on the Pentagon got hit, I recall thinking that those terrorists are "awsome". Make so much destruction with so little money using the targetted country's equipment. The idea was brillant! A Special Ops dream. "

Think i typed this thing in once before about the subject but

awe·some ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ôsm)
adj.
Inspiring awe: an awesome thunderstorm.
Expressing awe: stood in awesome silence before the ancient ruins.

As you see just because he said it was awesome didnt mean that he thought it was great.

muckmaw · « **Reply #41 on:** June 17, 2004, 08:16:06 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by YUCCA
So far i haven't seen any evidence to suggest that iraq could have endangerd the U.S. (so far.) There wouldnt be suicide bombers killing soldiers if we didnt send our forces to invade iraq to overthrow a regime that they say had WMD (not holding my breath.) But muckmaw no reason to get so touchy, just having a nice conversation ok?

Not touchy in the least. I simply refuse to waste the time explaining my position to someone people who already have their minds made up.

BTW, WMD's were 1 of 4 reasons Bush outlined for the attack on Iraq. Why is this the only reason the Liberals focus on? Is it because it's the most glaring or because it's easy for them to understand?

He got bombs? NO he no got da bombs? Oooops!

lazs2 · « **Reply #42 on:** June 17, 2004, 08:28:20 AM »

I know it isn't as dramatic but we could have 300 "graves" of servicemen killed while staying on the base drinking in three years.

lazs

YUCCA · « **Reply #43 on:** June 18, 2004, 09:23:05 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by muckmaw
Not touchy in the least. I simply refuse to waste the time explaining my position to someone people who already have their minds made up.

BTW, WMD's were 1 of 4 reasons Bush outlined for the attack on Iraq. Why is this the only reason the Liberals focus on? Is it because it's the most glaring or because it's easy for them to understand?

He got bombs? NO he no got da bombs? Oooops!

My mind is not made up, i am farily open to hearing it appears that you are the one that has his mind made about me. And as far as what the dead soldier memorial on the beach, what does it have to do with 9-11? Enlighten me, or....... stop making statements that you refuse to explain because you dont know. Or if im such a waste of time to talk to then why are you still doing so lmao