Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Rafe35 on May 25, 2004, 07:17:15 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/alqaeda.ap/index.html
Killing 4 millions americans?
-
They are planning an attack this summer.
Good thing we invaded iraq.
-
Yup, shoulda left them alone. They were happy after 9/11, and would have just took up buying bigscreens and drinking umbrella drinks like all the sane non-terrorists.
Killing them in Afghanistan was another Boosh blunder. It just made the few that lived even bent on more terror for no sane reason.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Yup, shoulda left them alone. They were happy after 9/11, and would have just took up buying bigscreens and drinking umbrella drinks like all the sane non-terrorists.
Killing them in Afghanistan was another Boosh blunder. It just made the few that lived even bent on more terror for no sane reason.
Noone ever argued against Afghanistan. Iraq was the boosh blunder.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Noone ever argued against Afghanistan. Iraq was the boosh blunder.
Do you believe that by attacking Iraq, we have increased the ranks of Al Qaida?
Explain what part of the invasion of Iraq was a blunder.
-
Bush's math seems a bit fuzzy. Out of 18k Al Quada terrorists, 1000 are said to be in Iraq. This leaves 17,000 somewhere else. Yet we have committed almost 100% of our efforts on the 1000.
We need to end the Iraq thing and start training CIA operatives to ferret these bastages out of their holes. This war will not be won by force of arms alone.
-
I better get busy on the old reloading bench, gonna need a few more rounds.
I pray for the day most of them find this site on the intardnet, this alone should keep them busy.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do you believe that by attacking Iraq, we have increased the ranks of Al Qaida?
That is a fact.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
That is a fact.
Really? You have data on that?
Yet you agree that attacking al Qaida directly in Afghanistan was the correct thing to do?
Why do you think attacking Al Qaida in Afghanistan was good...wouldn't attaking them directly cause them to increase their ranks?
What connection do you draw between Iraq and Al Qaida? Why would attacking Iraq increase Al Qaida's memembers, but attacking them directly in Alfghanistan would not?
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
That is a fact.
Really ! Prove it.
-
and if gore was president there'd be double that number. If kerry becomes president that number's gonna triple
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
and if gore was president there'd be double that number. If kerry becomes president that number's gonna triple
If stabby was president he would have given them the key to washington.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Out of 18k Al Quada terrorists, 1000 are said to be in Iraq. This leaves 17,000 somewhere else.
Well, I've got a Glock 17 and 20 guage Winchester Auto. If they show up on the Left Coast, give us some warning.:D
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Really? You have data on that?
Yet you agree that attacking al Qaida directly in Afghanistan was the correct thing to do?
Why do you think attacking Al Qaida in Afghanistan was good...wouldn't attaking them directly cause them to increase their ranks?
What connection do you draw between Iraq and Al Qaida? Why would attacking Iraq increase Al Qaida's memembers, but attacking them directly in Alfghanistan would not?
I am going on the fact that the pentagon has stated that al qaeda has no links to iraq, and that it is pretty much common knowledge that our presence in iraq has increased the ranks of al qaeda.
-
Originally posted by Otto
Well, I've got a Glock 17 and 20 guage Winchester Auto. If they show up on the Left Coast, give us some warning.:D
How is your glock going to stop a bomb?
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Noone ever argued against Afghanistan. Iraq was the boosh blunder.
Muammar al-Qaddafi would disagree. He's playing very nice after the Saddam video.
Hell, I don't care about the election, but it consumes you. At your age, I cared about nothing but stuff I can't post, so good for you. Kerry should do as bad as any President. I'll just vote for him. GWB lets the ATF do stupid ****, so Kerry it is.
I'll hate more taxes though.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
[B and that it is pretty much common knowledge that our presence in iraq has increased the ranks of al qaeda. [/B]
And what CIA white paper did you read that from there mr wizard?
-
Originally posted by Creamo
I'll hate more taxes though.
UH thats have more taxes right?
-
Originally posted by txmx
And what CIA white paper did you read that from there mr wizard?
Did you read the article at the top of this thread ?
-
9/11 recruited more Al Hida members than Iraq ever will. Iraq is just sending rogue countries like Syria a message, let em camp, we camp on you.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
Did you read the article at the top of this thread ?
No i have been basing all my knowledge of the worlds events on your pearls of wisdom.
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
How is your glock going to stop a bomb?
That depends on the situation. Give me some ideas..
More important, if I didn't have the Glock, would that keep the bomb from exploding?
I'll give it up if it would......
-
Killing 4 millions americans?
Sounds like Kerry wil have to install a draft:)
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/alqaeda.ap/index.html
Killing 4 millions americans?
ISS survey goals and objective from their website:
As a policy institute, it has a dual responsibility: to innovate; and to influence.
Sounds alittle Goebbel'ish..:eek:
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
I am going on the fact that the pentagon has stated that al qaeda has no links to iraq, and that it is pretty much common knowledge that our presence in iraq has increased the ranks of al qaeda.
So if Al Qaida has no links to Iraq, why would attacking Iraq have an effect on them? Are you thinking clearly, or at all?
And "common" knowledge? Give me some facts.
-
If any of you think that in any way shape or form that we wont be seeing a mushroom cloud over an American city(s) in the next couple of years you need to get you're head out of the sand.
It wont matter who's president....It's gonna happen. Iraq didnt create any more al queda than usual....they would have been like that anyways. The key words here in bold letters are this
18,000 potential terrorists
there arnt 18,000 people ready to strap bombs to themselves but they have potential.
another interesting tidbit librals like stabby like to ignore
The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence estimates that al Qaeda trained at least 20,000 fighters in its training camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said.
WAIT you mean we didnt creat them with Iraq?
-
Its not that complex. Terrorists are not born they are created. When you go out of your way to create a situation that pretty much validadates the terrorist orginizations world view you will create more of them. When you dump all your resources into creating them in Iraq your not hunting them as effectivly else where they will propogate else where.
When you attack Iraq(that had no Alquida) and ignore Saudi Arabi(that is practically run by them) you will allow them to propogate.
Totalitarian Iraq was very anti muslim fundimentalist, thats why Huesien was so popular with Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush I.
Dont you know any of this Nuke? Its open knowledge and common sense.
So yes. The invasion of Iraq has and will create many "terrrorists". Thats what war does, it creates enemies. The rest or Iraq would have normally been more against Muslim Fundimentalists. But since the enemy of your enemy is your friend, they are getting lots more support there then they would have other wise.
Just another reason why the invasion of Iraq was so stupid. Its almost like it was done inspite of all reason and only silly lies will defend it.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its not that complex. Terrorists are not born they are created. When you go out of your way to create a situation that pretty much validadates the terrorist orginizations world view you will create more of them. When you dump all your resources into creating them in Iraq your not hunting them as effectivly else where.
Totalitarian Iraq was very anti muslim fundimentalist, thats why Huesien was so popular with Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush I.
Dont you know any of this Nuke? Its open knoledge and common sense.
Well Pongo, why don't you start by defining the "situation" that validates terrorism?
-
Why did you change my words? I never said the situation validates terrorism. I said the invasion of Iraq validates the Alquida world view of the US seeking to occupy the gulf states. Do you not see that it does?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
]When you go out of your way to create a situation that pretty much validadates the terrorist orginizations world view you will create more of them.
what are refering to here then? what situation are you talking about that you feel validates terrorism?
and by the way, what words did I change?
-
We could have stopped this if we would have just been 'Nice':
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2004/05/25/national1907EDT0711.DTL&type=printable
-
Let's see..... there was ABSOLUTELY no A-Q link to Iraq before the war. Lots of the guys that really KNOW right here on this BBS have told us so.
OTOH,
MSNBC: In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
But Wait! Powell said (07 February 2003)
Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq.
So that must be true, right? It was in an area beyond Hussein's control. Powell said so! Not Hussein's fault! He didn't know they were there!
He also followed that sentence with:
But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region.
Al-Zarqawi's Iraq-linked terrorist network. (large image)
After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.
So, will the guy registered on this BBS that knows the absolute truth in this matter please go ahead and tell me which way it really was?
Thanks!
-
I never said it validates terrorism. I said it validates their world view. Which for recruiting purposes is very valuble. Just look at how easy it probably was to recruit for the US army after 9/11. Same concept. The two statements are totaly different. You must be one of those right wing nutsos that think you can lie anytime you like and get away with it.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
I never said it validates terrorism. I said it validates their world view. Which for recruiting purposes is very valuble. Just look at how easy it probably was to recruit for the US army after 9/11. Same concept. The two statements are totaly different. You must be one of those right wing nutsos that think you can lie anytime you like and get away with it.
Point out one of my lies or go way Pongo. You are dealing with an intelect here, not a moron.
-
When you deliberatly changed words and attributed them to me you lied. Are you sure your not a moron?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
When you deliberatly changed words and attributed them to me you lied. Are you sure your not a moron?
what words did I change? I have no power to change anyone's words here.....tell me what words I changed. Point out my lie.
-
BTW, I like your avatar
-
did you not post this?
"Well Pongo, why don't you start by defining the "situation" that validates terrorism?"
Where did I say that terrorism was valid? You changed my words.
Pretty crappy thing to do to try to create a flame fest. Is that the latest thing with "intelects" now? Instead of debating the point at hand which you were grossley missunderstanding..you try to create a flame fest on someone by missquoting him then look pathetic by denying it?
-
Ya its like we are terrible twins..lol
Tillman is the cheese.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Do you believe that by attacking Iraq, we have increased the ranks of Al Qaida?
Explain what part of the invasion of Iraq was a blunder.
This part...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040526/ap_on_re_mi_ea/al_qaida&cid=540&ncid=716
Any questions?
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Ya its like we are terrible twins..lol
Tillman is the cheese.
Lol You two make it confusing to read your fights, it is like watching a fight with twins.
-
So Toad, how would you rank Iraq as a Al Queada safe haven compared to:
Saudi Arabia
Iran
Pakistan
Chechnya
Philippines
Egypt
Indonesia
Uzbekistan
Tajikistan
Somalia
Algeria
Yemen
Kosovo
Jordan
Bosnia
Sudan
(and about a dozen or so additional countries where the organization has some sort of organized presence)
We have Powell (whose credibility is not what it once was) apparently stating a degree of passive support in an area of Iraq removed from Hussein's direct control, but perhaps tolerated and monitored. That is, if Hussein had actual influence in the Kurdish region to any real extent. For all we know now, that was just more bad intel from Ahmad Chalabi.
I don't think you need to know the "absolute truth" to know that at least a half of the countries/territories on the list above have a more direct link, even an active link to Al Queda. For that matter, here’s what al-Zarqawi has to say about that special Al Queda relationship with Hussein:
We have been hiding for a long time, and now we are seriously working on preparing a media outlet to reveal the truth, enflame zeal, and become an outlet for jihad in which the sword and the pen can turn into one...
...while handing over control of Iraq to a bastard government with an army and police force that will bring back the time of (Saddam) Husayn and his cohorts.
...Under this banner, they have begun to assassinate the Sunnis under the pretense that they are saboteurs, vestiges of the Ba'ath, or terrorists who spread perversion in the country.
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_021704_Letter,00.html?ESRC=dod.nl
Even the administration played down the direct link factor shortly after the "Axis of Evil" speech when it became apparent that it wouldn't carry the weight of an invasion. Had Hussein decided not to invade Kuwait in 1991, he would probably be lauded as a champion in the fight against terrorism today.
Personally, I think it would have been more appropriate to start working down the list above. Maybe if we had taken a more direct and less theoretical approach to the war on terror we could have helped prevent the Bali, Madrid and Istanbul bombings or some of those those regular kidnappings/murders in the Philippines. We might even have Bin Ladin now (though he is no longer a priority according to the current administration /quotes avail on request)
Charon
-
Sorry but I have to call shenanigans on the claim that Iraq is causing an increase in Al Quaida's ranks. Read the first article.
The 18k number is based on the estimate that 20k were trained and 2k were killed.
That is NOT an increase.
The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence estimates that al Qaeda trained at least 20,000 fighters in its training camps in Afghanistan before the United States and its allies ousted the Taliban regime. In the ensuing war on terror, some 2,000 al Qaeda fighters have been killed or captured, the survey said.
-
It would also help to know what defines an Al Oaeda fighter. Would that be someone holding the necessary education and language skills, which would permit them to move freely round the world without drawing attention, or does it also include the common cannon fodder? I would think, a lot more of the second that the first. In reality, the common Al Oaeda fighter may not be any more intelligent that a “box of rocks” outside the mideast.
-
I'll take that as "I don't know either".
Thanks.
Can't believe you rolled out the "you can only work on one if you work on all at the same time."
Maybe you just work on the one you know about.
But, like I said...... who really knows.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
did you not post this?
"Well Pongo, why don't you start by defining the "situation" that validates terrorism?"
Where did I say that terrorism was valid? You changed my words.
Pretty crappy thing to do to try to create a flame fest. Is that the latest thing with "intelects" now? Instead of debating the point at hand which you were grossley missunderstanding..you try to create a flame fest on someone by missquoting him then look pathetic by denying it?
Either nuke or pongoo needs to change his avatar. 2 iddentical pat tillman avats s too mch for me. Mayb]e somebody should upt a "C" for "canadian" or a "C" for conveservative overt their vatar. that owuldmcake it mcuh simpler to recognized who is who when you gusy are in a devbaete.
-
sdhit you can't both put a C" over your avatar or teyd'both look alike. ****. I'd be justa skrewed as before.
-
Wow this is great!
All this fighting and I did not say a word.
I think the main question to ask Is another 9-11 iminate ?
And what can we do to stop it.
Questions I am sure the current administration has been working on.
My view has always been we have done the right thing by removing saddumb from power.
LOL but now what?
Did we make it worst or better?
Man for everybodys sake I hope we are making it better.
Not only for the Iraqi's but for everyone in that part of the world.
I do agree that I would rather the fight be over there somewhere than here.
How bout you!
-
Quote:
"Noone ever argued against Afghanistan."
That's a lie......
C.
-
yep... as creamo says.. the big boys are playing nice. I realize that war creates terrorists... having a good life creates terrorists... everything creates terrorists.
The trick is to have em not funded by a whole country. well trained and funded terrorists with suitcase nukes are a bad thing... thousands of raggedy broke boosh haters sitting around broken down dinnette sets in a mud huts are not so bad a thing.
lazs
-
Since AQ muslim types hate gays maybe we should get the 20,000+ hardcore gays in SanFrancisco to get militant and go to the mideast and kick some AQ ***.
Just a thought :aok
-
staby... if aq is planning an attack this summer then we need to take out the guys who are buying em plane tickets and paying the rent on their condos.
we need to make it clear that we will be taking out the people funding this kind of terrorism.
lazs
-
it only takes one ....
-
Originally posted by Eagler
it only takes one ....
All your plastic lawn flamingos will belong to us!
-
Lazs
The wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US paid the rent for one of the 911 terrorists, might be a good place to start. I think she is still in the states.
-
lol Yeager...
Nuke or Pongo, one of you horizontal-flip your avatar, please.
-
But when the chips are down, how many Con Queso fighters will dip in and do their share?
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/alqaeda.ap/index.html
Killing 4 millions americans?
Bring it on!!!!!
-
spck... sounds good to me. she should be executed if she knew she was supporting terrorists planning mass murder.
lazs
-
Well Toad, I can't believe you rolled out Iraq/Al Queda as having anything but an ancillary significance where the war is concerned.
I think there are potentially interesting and more pertinent discussions about the "democracy domino" effect/preemption theories that Wolfowitz/ Rumsfeld etc. have been so hot about, and how they would theoretically make the Middle East safe for Western Democracy. IMO that is the only direct relationship Iraq has with the war on terror and the rest, WMD included, are just tools to sell the bigger policy.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Rafe35
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/05/25/alqaeda.ap/index.html
Killing 4 millions americans?
from the link
" The terrorist group poses a growing threat to Western interests "
bu bubu ... grrrr... run for your lifes
another
" The estimate of 18,000 fighters was based on intelligence "
Same inteligence whitch claim to prove WMD in Iraq, Trades with Nigeria ? Actualy same Inteligence that propared wrong materials to Powel and poor Bush so they made "not best" decision and they "misslead" people ?
from that link
"The U.S.-led war in Iraq has increased the risk to Western interests in Arab countries"
WOW ... they didnt throw flowers on Freedom fighters ? .. What a surprise...
" The West and its allies must continue to mount a major offensive against al Qaeda and progress will be incremental "
IMAO .... They probably think Wild West :D
We are having good fun reading that article, thanks for link
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its not that complex. Terrorists are not born they are created. When you go out of your way to create a situation that pretty much validadates the terrorist orginizations world view you will create more of them. When you dump all your resources into creating them in Iraq your not hunting them as effectivly else where they will propogate else where.
When you attack Iraq(that had no Alquida) and ignore Saudi Arabi(that is practically run by them) you will allow them to propogate.
Totalitarian Iraq was very anti muslim fundimentalist, thats why Huesien was so popular with Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush I.
Dont you know any of this Nuke? Its open knowledge and common sense.
So yes. The invasion of Iraq has and will create many "terrrorists". Thats what war does, it creates enemies. The rest or Iraq would have normally been more against Muslim Fundimentalists. But since the enemy of your enemy is your friend, they are getting lots more support there then they would have other wise.
Just another reason why the invasion of Iraq was so stupid. Its almost like it was done inspite of all reason and only silly lies will defend it.
hush hush Pongo
i could not write/spell it better :D
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
How is your glock going to stop a bomb?
You must prefer the pre-911 status quo that brought us peace. Hiding from problems does not solve them....doing what is right is most often not easy nor is it comfortable.
-
Originally posted by Rude
You must prefer the pre-911 status quo that brought us peace. Hiding from problems does not solve them....doing what is right is most often not easy nor is it comfortable.
actualy eliminating people who means problem doesnt eliminate thing, whitch create sutch people.
So be a brave american and let everyone of you invite his own terrorist home for reeducation :D
actualy.. pre 9/11 problems were probably hidden only in US.
It were not secret here, that you are doing a lot of bad things in ME area.
But "bombs" moved from ME to US and some of you discovered piece of land behind big water. And some of you discovered good chance, how to spend some money.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Its not that complex. Terrorists are not born they are created. When you go out of your way to create a situation that pretty much validadates the terrorist orginizations world view you will create more of them. When you dump all your resources into creating them in Iraq your not hunting them as effectivly else where they will propogate else where.
When you attack Iraq(that had no Alquida) and ignore Saudi Arabi(that is practically run by them) you will allow them to propogate.
Totalitarian Iraq was very anti muslim fundimentalist, thats why Huesien was so popular with Presidents Carter, Reagan and Bush I.
Dont you know any of this Nuke? Its open knowledge and common sense.
So yes. The invasion of Iraq has and will create many "terrrorists". Thats what war does, it creates enemies. The rest or Iraq would have normally been more against Muslim Fundimentalists. But since the enemy of your enemy is your friend, they are getting lots more support there then they would have other wise.
Just another reason why the invasion of Iraq was so stupid. Its almost like it was done inspite of all reason and only silly lies will defend it.
If our little war created the terrorist, then where did the pre-911 terrorists come from? Must have been our support for Isreal or something else the US did to make it our fault?
By the way...tell us all how the overthrow of Saudi Arabia would bring stability to the middle east and specifically castrate Al Queda?
-
Originally posted by lada
actualy eliminating people who means problem doesnt eliminate thing, whitch create sutch people.
So be a brave american and let everyone of you invite his own terrorist home for reeducation :D
actualy.. pre 9/11 problems were probably hidden only in US.
It were not secret here, that you are doing a lot of bad things in ME area.
But "bombs" moved from ME to US and some of you discovered piece of land behind big water. And some of you discovered good chance, how to spend some money.
Well...then solve this for us...what should we do?
-
Originally posted by Rude
Well...then solve this for us...what should we do?
so first of all you should take passport and move to some free country, where you can drink beer on the street or in the park :cool:
-
Originally posted by StabbyTheIcePic
How is your glock going to stop a bomb?
If most of the people on board the three planes on 9-11 where armed with a handgun I kinda doubt that the dipchits would have had much luck with box cutters.
I have a simple solution It Is not very American at all but It is fool proof.
Deport all middle eastern people from America done problem solved.
Unless alqueda has recruited buba from hickville Georgia we will be able to tell apart are enemys and friendlys.
LOL ofcoures It is not going to happen but one can dream.
-
Goodbye Danny Thomas
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Goodbye Danny Thomas
I have a satellite dish.:)
-
you can almost hear many here hoping/cheering for the next attack against US ....
you think we are "doing bad things in ME" now?
we are not Spain
you ain't seen nothing yet...
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you can almost hear many here hoping/cheering for the next attack against US ....
you think we are "doing bad things in ME" now?
we are not Spain
you ain't seen nothing yet...
RGR that And we still have a whole bunch of them nasty thinks called tacticle nukes.
And at some point someone in charge is gonna say F*** it and start pressing buttons.
Don't get me wrong I am against nukes but if we are attacked again I say the gloves must come off.
Hate to say it but it might just be whats needed to get these jihad monkeys to leave us out of it and go play in the sand before we turn it into a giant glass bowl.
-
Originally posted by Rude
If our little war created the terrorist, then where did the pre-911 terrorists come from? Must have been our support for Isreal or something else the US did to make it our fault?
Yes.
-
Originally posted by txmx
RGR that And we still have a whole bunch of them nasty thinks called tacticle nukes.
And at some point someone in charge is gonna say F*** it and start pressing buttons.
Don't get me wrong I am against nukes but if we are attacked again I say the gloves must come off.
Hate to say it but it might just be whats needed to get these jihad monkeys to leave us out of it and go play in the sand before we turn it into a giant glass bowl.
You've just pretty much become the "Don't Vote Republican" poster boy.
-
Originally posted by spock
Lazs
The wife of the Saudi ambassador to the US paid the rent for one of the 911 terrorists, might be a good place to start. I think she is still in the states.
Well Medieva Total Warl lack cut scenes, Now siccing Inquistors on islamic Princesses might be a start, a remedy
-
Originally posted by txmx
RGR that And we still have a whole bunch of them nasty thinks called tacticle nukes.
And at some point someone in charge is gonna say F*** it and start pressing buttons.
Don't get me wrong I am against nukes but if we are attacked again I say the gloves must come off.
Hate to say it but it might just be whats needed to get these jihad monkeys to leave us out of it and go play in the sand before we turn it into a giant glass bowl.
Even if that is the right thing to do it will never happen. You will never win an election if you nuke another country, no matter how much it needs it.
-
The A-Q/Iraq link was rolled out to point out the flippin' floppin' of those who just want to bash.
First the flippers told us there was no A-Q/Iraq link. None at all; don't even think about linking those two with causus belli.
Then they flop; the news says the Pentagon KNEW A-Q was in Northern Iraq playing with poisons but the NSA wouldn't let the military go get 'em. This is, of course, used to show the inability of the US to respond to a threat, to show the leadership doesn't know what it's doing.
Of course, they want to have it both ways. There was no A-Q/Iraq linkage before the war and this dang administration failed to attack the A-Q in Iraq when they knew they were there and had the chance.
The fig leaf is that "Saddam didn't know/ didn't control that part of Iraq." Horsepuckey. Powell said the Regime knew. The only preventative presence in that area was in the form of a "no-fly zone". Iraqi forces could and did operate on the ground in those regions. They just couldn't fly in those regions.
But some still want to have it both ways. So which is it? Was there an A-Q/Iraq link or not? Again, only those that have the 100% correct answer need reply. Thanks!
-
Originally posted by medicboy
Even if that is the right thing to do it will never happen. You will never win an election if you nuke another country, no matter how much it needs it.
True It will have to waite till his second term LOL.
-
you all are arguing over things that are hard to pin real numbers on. The article assumes 20k AQ fighers trained and 2000 dead. Some are probably in Iraq Hopefully lots more will die soon.
The war probably helped AQ recruitment, as the first gulf war did. Evidence is in the resistance in Iraq today - and the US response to maintain security. A lot of civilians get killed and that pisses off the average joe (or achmed or whatever). That creates fertile ground for recruitment in these terror orgs.
Imagine if the reverse was happening in the US - we were invaded and every day we saw folks getting killed. I dont know if Id strap a bomb to my dumb bellybutton but I would sure be willing to carry a rifle and join whatever guerrilla orgs were running ops.
So maybe there is more AQ in Iraq, maybe not. The point is it that right now it probably isnt hard to recruit young men to fight and to bomb. Its happenin every day. Besides that the borders appear to be porous and who knows who is pouring into and out of the country.
-
Somebody explain to me "the resistance in Iraq today".
As as far as I can tell, the primary organized resistance is the Sadr Militia, which is currently undergoing the unpleasant experience of having their own tulips handed to them shaved thin on a silver salver with a hummus and lemon garnish courtesy of the US military.
There are the IED and car bomb terrorists, much akin to what the Israelis are experiencing. This occurs primarily in Baghdad.
Seems to me that the vast majority of the country is going on about the business of daily living.
I'm sure I'm wrong though, so feel free to explain it all to me in a single-syllable diatribe.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Somebody explain to me "the resistance in Iraq today".
As as far as I can tell, the primary organized resistance is the Sadr Militia, which is currently undergoing the unpleasant experience of having their own tulips handed to them shaved thin on a silver salver with a hummus and lemon garnish courtesy of the US military.
There are the IED and car bomb terrorists, much akin to what the Israelis are experiencing. This occurs primarily in Baghdad.
Seems to me that the vast majority of the country is going on about the business of daily living.
I'm sure I'm wrong though, so feel free to explain it all to me in a single-syllable diatribe.
I bet and hope that the vast majority of Iraqis are just going about their lives. They are the only hope of peace imo.
besides Sadr's forces I think that each faction has its own forces if needed. ITs also possible that there are a number of independent guerilla orgs at work too.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Muammar al-Qaddafi would disagree. He's playing very nice after the Saddam video.
Hell, I don't care about the election, but it consumes you. At your age, I cared about nothing but stuff I can't post, so good for you. Kerry should do as bad as any President. I'll just vote for him. GWB lets the ATF do stupid ****, so Kerry it is.
I'll hate more taxes though.
that is a clever RW canard. Libya has been strapped by its weapons programs that appear to not have panned out like they hoped. Quadaffi has been trying to normalize relations for a decade.
-
bombers in any half arse free ME country are like no see-ums at the beach at sunset when there isn't a breeze - they are a fact of life
if you think a free Iraq will ever be rid of these rodents you are dreaming - the breeze will take them away for a while but as soon as it stops they'll return..
-
Originally posted by Toad
Let's see..... there was ABSOLUTELY no A-Q link to Iraq before the war. Lots of the guys that really KNOW right here on this BBS have told us so.
OTOH,
But Wait! Powell said (07 February 2003)
So that must be true, right? It was in an area beyond Hussein's control. Powell said so! Not Hussein's fault! He didn't know they were there!
He also followed that sentence with:
So, will the guy registered on this BBS that knows the absolute truth in this matter please go ahead and tell me which way it really was?
Thanks!
I believe that those camp claims were never verified. Here is part of a NYTimes editorial that explains how the Times did not follow through on these kinds of claims from the admin. It specifically mentions the camps and says they were never verified or some such
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?8dpc
The Times and Iraq
Published: May 26, 2004
ver the last year this newspaper has shone the bright light of hindsight on decisions that led the United States into Iraq. We have examined the failings of American and allied intelligence, especially on the issue of Iraq's weapons and possible Iraqi connections to international terrorists. We have studied the allegations of official gullibility and hype. It is past time we turned the same light on ourselves.
In doing so — reviewing hundreds of articles written during the prelude to war and into the early stages of the occupation — we found an enormous amount of journalism that we are proud of. In most cases, what we reported was an accurate reflection of the state of our knowledge at the time, much of it painstakingly extracted from intelligence agencies that were themselves dependent on sketchy information. And where those articles included incomplete information or pointed in a wrong direction, they were later overtaken by more and stronger information. That is how news coverage normally unfolds.
But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge.
The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks. (The most prominent of the anti-Saddam campaigners, Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991, and has introduced reporters to other exiles. He became a favorite of hard-liners within the Bush administration and a paid broker of information from Iraqi exiles, until his payments were cut off last week.) Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq. Administration officials now acknowledge that they sometimes fell for misinformation from these exile sources. So did many news organizations — in particular, this one.
Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.
On Oct. 26 and Nov. 8, 2001, for example, Page 1 articles cited Iraqi defectors who described a secret Iraqi camp where Islamic terrorists were trained and biological weapons produced. These accounts have never been independently verified.
On Dec. 20, 2001, another front-page article began, "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." Knight Ridder Newspapers reported last week that American officials took that defector — his name is Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri — to Iraq earlier this year to point out the sites where he claimed to have worked, and that the officials failed to find evidence of their use for weapons programs. It is still possible that chemical or biological weapons will be unearthed in Iraq, but in this case it looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in. And until now we have not reported that to our readers.
-
Originally posted by strk
Quadaffi has been trying to normalize relations for a decade.
Which decade was that?
N Korea 'sent uranium to Libya' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3740289.stm)
Diplomats quoted by The New York Times said the agency had found evidence that Pyongyang provided Libya with nearly two tons of uranium in early 2001.
Oh, wait... I get it. The best way to "normalize" relations with the US and the rest of the world is to violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and try to build yourself some nukes.
Clever tactic!
-
OK, so you're going with no A-Q in Iraq before the war.
Fine by me. As long as you don't also jump on the "BOOSH could've let the military attack the A-Q ricin camp but failed to do it!!!!" bandwagon.
Just pick a side and be consistent; that's all I ask. ;)
-
Originally posted by Rude
If our little war created the terrorist, then where did the pre-911 terrorists come from? Must have been our support for Isreal or something else the US did to make it our fault?
By the way...tell us all how the overthrow of Saudi Arabia would bring stability to the middle east and specifically castrate Al Queda?
If your going to change what I said then do it like a man so I can correct you.
But as to the answer to your question. They where saudis funded by saudi state sponsered muslim schools using an orginzation created by the CIA to orginize and recruit muslim terrrorists to fight in Afganistan. Would you care to refrute any of that? Cause its exaclty who al quida was. Pre 9/11. Thier primary reason for attacking the US was the US military presense in Saudi Arabia. Which has now ended by the way.
In answer to your second question. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with stabalizing the middle east so why put that constraint on an invasion of Saudi Arabia? The Saudi Arabians attacked your country. They killed thousands of your country men. And you let them get away with it Rude.
Your sitting here debating the existance of 15 muslim extremists in the Kurdish held mountains of northern Iraq when the whole religios wing of the Saudi goverment wants your whole country dead and has been in the business of funding just that for decades.
-
Originally posted by Toad
OK, so you're going with no A-Q in Iraq before the war.
Fine by me. As long as you don't also jump on the "BOOSH could've let the military attack the A-Q ricin camp but failed to do it!!!!" bandwagon.
Just pick a side and be consistent; that's all I ask. ;)
An enclave of Iranian muslim fundimentalists that had encroached into the US enforced Kurdish area of North Eastern Iraq in oposition to the Bath goverment is now your "Iraq/El quida " link.
Man that is getting pretty pathetic. Is that really what your saying is a justification for the invasion of Iraq?
-
Nope, better re-read all of that.
You'll see I make no reference to "justification for the attack" whatsoever. That's not what the post is about.
And I make no statement saying that al-Ansar is the "A-Q" link to Iraq.
I merely said if you're going to argue it, you can't argue both sides.
The same guy can't say:
"BOOSH did not attack the A-Q link when he could have!" and "There never was an A-Q link in Iraq! It's simply redickilickulous!"
It's one or the other; well, at least if one wishes to be diatribically consistent. It one tries to put forth both as gospel, one simply looks foolish.
Note also, I'm not saying anyone here did this. I have seen it, however on other BBS sites and even from a few "famous" editorialists.
-
Ok.. so seems we have only two choices... we can wipe out every jew on the planet or wipe out every arab on the planet.
lazs
-
I call heads.
-
Pongo's got one of them coins with heads on both sides, I think.
;)
-
Originally posted by medicboy
Even if that is the right thing to do it will never happen. You will never win an election if you nuke another country, no matter how much it needs it.
Actually that's not entirly correct. Strategic nukes yur right cause we cant really justify their use due to the fact that we cant get enough baddies in the blast radius.
tactical nukes is a different story entirly
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
a cargo ship sailing to the US with a biologic or chemical WMD onboard do you
A. destroy it with convetional ords.
B. destroy it with a tactical nuke <1 kiloton range>
answer would be B.
conventional ord. wouldn't destroy the biologic/chemical agent it would disperse it.
A nuke however would vaporize anything harmful.
and before u say C. send in a special forces team thats really dicey since the baddies have no quams about dying and could set it off in numerous ways before the good guys could disarm the wepon.
Now say some baddies light one off killing thousands of of americans and we know where more are that are gonna be used ....I betcha that the guy in charge could use one and would win a reelection.
It all depends on the circumstances at the time.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
If your going to change what I said then do it like a man so I can correct you.
But as to the answer to your question. They where saudis funded by saudi state sponsered muslim schools using an orginzation created by the CIA to orginize and recruit muslim terrrorists to fight in Afganistan. Would you care to refrute any of that? Cause its exaclty who al quida was. Pre 9/11. Thier primary reason for attacking the US was the US military presense in Saudi Arabia. Which has now ended by the way.
In answer to your second question. The invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with stabalizing the middle east so why put that constraint on an invasion of Saudi Arabia? The Saudi Arabians attacked your country. They killed thousands of your country men. And you let them get away with it Rude.
Your sitting here debating the existance of 15 muslim extremists in the Kurdish held mountains of northern Iraq when the whole religios wing of the Saudi goverment wants your whole country dead and has been in the business of funding just that for decades.
I didn't change anything you said....you're drinking again aren't you?
Again....tell us what happens to the geopolitical landscape if we attacked Saudi Arabia....you really feel that would be a feasable alternative?
-
Originally posted by WilldCrd
Actually that's not entirly correct. Strategic nukes yur right cause we cant really justify their use due to the fact that we cant get enough baddies in the blast radius.
tactical nukes is a different story entirly
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
a cargo ship sailing to the US with a biologic or chemical WMD onboard do you
A. destroy it with convetional ords.
B. destroy it with a tactical nuke <1 kiloton range>
answer would be B.
conventional ord. wouldn't destroy the biologic/chemical agent it would disperse it.
A nuke however would vaporize anything harmful.
and before u say C. send in a special forces team thats really dicey since the baddies have no quams about dying and could set it off in numerous ways before the good guys could disarm the wepon.
Now say some baddies light one off killing thousands of of americans and we know where more are that are gonna be used ....I betcha that the guy in charge could use one and would win a reelection.
It all depends on the circumstances at the time.
Ok I see your point but my response was to the idea of nuking the middle east in general. That will never happen even if we are attacked by WMD , too many civi's in the area. The ship thing, I bet we would do "c", even though it is risky, if we sink the ship or vaporise it we have no proof of WMD existing and we get slammed for nuking a cargo merchant ship, if we take the ship intact or they release the WMD we have proof, and if it is far enough out at see for us to nuke it, than a WMD release killing a few SOG guys is worth the political risk. Sad but true.
-
Yoo hoo!!! Pongo!!!
Do I get an answer?