33% Still Believe Saddam 9/11 Link

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Fitnessdiva wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam funded suicide bombers. He paid their families approx. $ 30,000 each. He held televised check writing ceremonies. Baghdad was haven to a number of known terrorists.

His relationship w/ AQ was not strong but he had strong relationships with others.

Bullshit. Extemists viewed him as the secular, socialist infidel.

But that never stopped them from cashing his checks faster than a French whore on a Saturday night. [/quote]

Cashing checks on a Saturday night?

In France?

Mwuahahahha…

42

[quote]FreedomFighterXL wrote:
I would have to admit, the next commander-in-chief should put some emphasis on intelligence reform, in other words improve the way information is gathered. [/quote]

I don’t think that’ll fix the issue. What you need is someone who doesn’t go to war on the other side of the planet based on some report he/she didn’t even bother to proof-check. If this happened in another modern country, Bush’s ass will be in jail right now.

43

[quote]USNS physique wrote:
That’s the 33% who live on the streets under bridges and behind dumpsters and eat cat food and have not read a word of anything or seen a television in years.[/quote]

That’s 100 millions we’re talking about. I doubt you have that many (standing) bridges to accommodate them.

44

[quote]lixy wrote:
FreedomFighterXL wrote:
It’s a true fact today there was no personal connection, but putting blame on the administration and much of the senate for thinking that way at the time doesn’t make much sense to me.

Who should we blame for the countless dead, maimed and orphaned? Making the decision to go to war is not something that should be done on a whim. It should be the absolute last resort when you know beyond a doubt that it’s inevitable. Saddam was no threat to the US and you know it. Everybody (but Americans) knew it all along. Millions took the streets of cities around the world to tell you about it but you were too busy to pay attention.

Anyway, the point here is that such aberrations should be avoided in the future. Had the senate and congress thoroughly checked the (non-)evidence, Iraq wouldn’t be in the present mess.[/quote]

Blame Saddam.

While I do agree that the decision to go to war shouldn’t be taken lightly, I have to disagree that it should be the absolute last resort. When you make it the absolute last resort that will only happen after years or even decades of being jerked around, you undermine the credibility of the threat of military action. If you undermine that credibility you set yourself up for having no option but to use the military.

Carrot and stick diplomacy has to have a very real credible military threat to it. Especially when you are dealing with a really hardcore, thuggish, gangster, like a Saddam. If you want someone who is as ruthless as a Saddam to take you seriously you cannot repeatedly demonstrate a lack of resolve.

All those peace protestors who took to the streets when the US and UK were trying to talk Saddam into giving it up and going into exile in Saudi Arabia undermined the diplomacy and made military action unavoidable.

Iraq wasn’t in a good position before the invasion. Large numbers of people were starving to death because there wasn’t any money to buy them food, in spite of Iraq having the worlds third largest oil reserves.

45

[quote]orion wrote:
Cashing checks on a Saturday night?

In France?

Mwuahahahha…

[/quote]

Whores are very resourceful.

46

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
FreedomFighterXL wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:There is absolutely not one shred of any evidence whatsoever in any of the links you posted. As a matter of fact: "On April 29, 2007, former Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet said on 60 Minutes that the Bush Administration “could never verify that there was any Iraqi authority, direction and control, complicity with al-Qaeda for 9/11 or any operational act against America, period.”

Recognise that? It’s straight from your wiki link.

Words like ‘possibly’,‘allegedly’ and so on have no place in any article you read that purports to have proof of anything.

Brush up on your reading comprehension.

Maybe you should brush up on yours. Could you show me where I said that there WAS a direct Iraq-9/11 links? I think I said otherwise towards the end.

The very first sign of involvement can be summed up in this link:

First Al Qaeda Strike Against Oil Target - Possibly in Collaboration with Iraq

Your very first link ,providing your first ‘sign of involvement’,yes?

And for the record ,no,you didn’t say there was a direct link Iraq/9/11 link.Did I say you had?Of course you weasel out of saying there was no link directly by saying ‘personal connection’

What you’re trying to say,with a blizzard of shit,is that there was an Al Quaeda/Iraq link,and that AQ operatives were allowed to do whatever they wanted in Iraq,and since they were there,it must have been with Hussein’s blessing.

By the same logic,since AQ operatives are in many western countries,it must be with the compliance of those respective govts.

Keep brushing.

[/quote]

You seem to have missed my point entirely. I’m saying that back then there WAS sufficient evidence to think there was a DIRECT connection. We know TODAY, AFTER we invaded that this connection was none existent. I really hate to repeat myself, but sometimes it’s necessary.

There sure seems to be a lot more on that wiki page that supports such a link, but you probably don’t want to view anything you disagree with anyway.

47

Did the evidence dissapear?

Re read what I posted in regards to how the ‘evidence’ you cite was worded.

There was never any evidence.There were ‘allegations’,‘opinions’ and so on.

But evidence?None at all.

48

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Did the evidence dissapear?

Re read what I posted in regards to how the ‘evidence’ you cite was worded.

There was never any evidence.There were ‘allegations’,‘opinions’ and so on.

But evidence?None at all.[/quote]

There was never going to be a way to get enough evidence to suit you. There was enough to sway the all but one US congressman, and enough to convince the UN, and enough for the French to come running to the US.

Of course that was before the uncovering of the OFF scandal which revealed the French filling their pockets with blood money - but that is an entirely different subject.

We proved ourselves wrong - at least we have so far. But that was after the fact. Saddam rattled his saber one too many times, and he paid the price.

49

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Saddam rattled his saber one too many times, and he paid the price.
[/quote]

What’s the sin of the Iraqi children blown up by your bombs?

The US has always been rattling its saber. Is it enough reason to bomb or/and invade the country? Hell no!

50

Interesting… Isn’t Bush’s approval rating still around 33%?

I swear the man could take a big steaming dump live on C-SPAN and then starting playing with it and he’d still have a 33% approval next week. Die hard republicans would rather chew glass than not support a party leader.

51

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Did the evidence dissapear?

Re read what I posted in regards to how the ‘evidence’ you cite was worded.

There was never any evidence.There were ‘allegations’,‘opinions’ and so on.

But evidence?None at all.

There was never going to be a way to get enough evidence to suit you. There was enough to sway the all but one US congressman, and enough to convince the UN, and enough for the French to come running to the US.

Of course that was before the uncovering of the OFF scandal which revealed the French filling their pockets with blood money - but that is an entirely different subject.

We proved ourselves wrong - at least we have so far. But that was after the fact. Saddam rattled his saber one too many times, and he paid the price.

[/quote]

Are you referring to evidence supporting the Iraq-9/11 link as is being discussed in this thread or to the WMD evidence?

52

[quote]lixy wrote:
What’s the sin of the Iraqi children blown up by your bombs?
[/quote]

Do you ask the same question about children blown up by al-qaeda’s bombs? What gives al-qaeda the right to invade Iraq? Aren’t they just as guilty as the US in invading a nation? Yet I never hear you complain about them when it happens. If the enemy did not hide behind children, possibly there would be less hit by US weapons.

In the other war, did you read that the US called in an airstrike against Taliban insurgents and then called it off because they were firing at US troop from behind children? When did Al-qaeda or terrorists in general, ever call off a car bomb to prevent innocent deaths? They thrive on this, and all you do is complain when we try to kill these worthless bastards.

53

[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Are you referring to evidence supporting the Iraq-9/11 link as is being discussed in this thread or to the WMD evidence?[/quote]

My bad. I was referring to WMD. It sounded eerily similar to the WMD discussion.

There is not a connection with 9/11 and Iraq. There is a connection with Iraq and the GWOT, however. What better place to kill terrorists than in their own backyard?

Iraq is quite strategic for this. You have Iraq on the west, and Afghanistan on the east. Jihadist murderers are flooding Iraq, and we are pretty much shooting fish in a barrel.

Better there than digging thousands of dead americans from the rubble of the Sears Tower.

54

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
What’s the sin of the Iraqi children blown up by your bombs?

Do you ask the same question about children blown up by al-qaeda’s bombs? What gives al-qaeda the right to invade Iraq? Aren’t they just as guilty as the US in invading a nation? Yet I never hear you complain about them when it happens. If the enemy did not hide behind children, possibly there would be less hit by US weapons.

In the other war, did you read that the US called in an airstrike against Taliban insurgents and then called it off because they were firing at US troop from behind children? When did Al-qaeda or terrorists in general, ever call off a car bomb to prevent innocent deaths? They thrive on this, and all you do is complain when we try to kill these worthless bastards.[/quote]

Yes. Lixy is worse than hypocritical in these matters.

55

[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Saddam rattled his saber one too many times, and he paid the price.

What’s the sin of the Iraqi children blown up by your bombs?

The US has always been rattling its saber. Is it enough reason to bomb or/and invade the country? Hell no![/quote]

You are always going on about the bombing. You are constantly tring to make it sound like we are just sending B52’s over everyday and carpet bombing everything.

I would be willing to wager that this summer more children were killed by bombs set off by Alqaeda than by America.

56

[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
Interesting… Isn’t Bush’s approval rating still around 33%?

I swear the man could take a big steaming dump live on C-SPAN and then starting playing with it and he’d still have a 33% approval next week. Die hard republicans would rather chew glass than not support a party leader.[/quote]

The latest poll I saw put his approval at 26%, but the congress was at 11%.

57

[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Saddam funded suicide bombers. He paid their families approx. $ 30,000 each. He held televised check writing ceremonies. Baghdad was haven to a number of known terrorists.

His relationship w/ AQ was not strong but he had strong relationships with others.

Bullshit. Extemists viewed him as the secular, socialist infidel.[/quote]

Sure. That’s why bin laden asked for and received positive P.R. work directly from saddam’s regime.

Second, that’s why al zarqawi was treated and sheltered by saddam’s regime.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

JeffR

58

[quote]lixy wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Bullshit yourself. He funded terrorists and he harbored Zarqawi.

He funded Palestinians who believed in the right to defend themselves by setting off bombs. Those folks have absolutely nothing to do with Al-Qaeda so quit trying to amalgamate Palestinians with Ben-Laden. More importantly, Hussein’s contribution to the “suicide-bombing” business is negligible compared to what the Saudis inject.

[/quote]

Voice of reason here: If he funded one set of terrorists, what makes you sure he wouldn’t fund those hostile to his American enemy?

You aren’t and he would.

JeffR

59

[quote]Tithonus81 wrote:
Interesting… Isn’t Bush’s approval rating still around 33%?

I swear the man could take a big steaming dump live on C-SPAN and then starting playing with it and he’d still have a 33% approval next week. Die hard republicans would rather chew glass than not support a party leader.[/quote]

Uh, and you’ll vote for whichever democrat is spit out of your primaries.

You won’t think about it. You won’t take into consideration Rudy’s moderate/liberal stances.

You’ll just pull the democrat lever without thinking.

Hypocrite.

JeffR

60

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I would be willing to wager that this summer more children were killed by bombs set off by Alqaeda than by America. [/quote]

Fuck Al-Qaeda! Nobody in their right mind would actively support them. Stop making it sound as if anyone around here condones their murderous acts. However, a bunch of you guys are not only financing, but also cheering US army actions in Iraq.