Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 233
  1. #141  
    Your post mixes bits of truth from the 9/11 commissin report, with your own silly conclusions.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    "In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998,after Bin Ladinís public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladinís Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

    Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sidesí hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
    This part does actually come from the report, but you fail to mention that the report goes on to say that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." The rest of what you have to say is your own conspiracy theory.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The notion that the religious bin Laden and the secular Saddam were natural enemies is a myth that was promoted by Democrats who knew better and by some who didn't.
    Of course the left wing conspiracy.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    We don't know the details of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. We don't know how much they trusted each other, and how much information they shared with each other. We do know they met repeatedly and that they were on friendly terms.
    Friendly terms? I didnt see that in the report, or did you just pull that part out of your ***?
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The point of talking about their "ties" isn't to claim that Iraq was behind 9/11, as some like to focus on.
    The point of talking about ties, is that it is so vague it can mean anything. But thanks for your own personal take on it.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I think revenge is an awful reason to go to war and an awful reason to send troops to die.
    Quote Originally Posted by cnn
    And, in discussing the threat posed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Bush said: "After all, this is the guy who tried to kill my dad."
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The issue is national security. The nightmare scenario for us, and the ultimate victory for al Qaeda, is for them to get their hands on a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon and to use it to kill hundreds of thousands, or millions of Americans. In fact, Uday Hussein, in an editorial in his Iraqi newspaper the day we learned of the anthrax attacks in September 2001, spoke hypothetically about how a nation can deliver a WMD attack via a third party. Perhaps he was playing mind games, but that was enough for me to consider Iraq a threat.
    Except for that it does not make for much of a justification for war since the administration did not even know he said it.
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Combine that with their obstruction of inspectors, their prior cheating on inspections, and their mysterious relationship with al Qaeda, and that paints a picture that we couldn't ignore.
    Huh? It was George W, that ordered the inspectors to leave. Lol, The real story is thousands of lives, and billions of dollars of digging through every corner of Iraq desperately attempting to justify this folly, and this is the best you can come up with.
  2. #142  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Almost everything in your post is a carefully worded fabrication put together after every other justification for this action fell through.
    You're not that dumb.

    In case you missed the quotation marks, the excerpt was a direct copy and paste. You can read it for yourself: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf

    And the justification for the war in Iraq has been from the very beginning the threat that WMD will fall into the hands of terrorists. Where have you been? None of this really should be news to you. You're supposed to respond, "BUT, there were no WMD in Iraq!!!"

    Huh? Which part? The part that Saddam was secular? The part that Osama was a religious fanatic? The part where Osama wanted to undermine Saddam's regime?
    Try reading the sentence more slowly.

    The part where their meetings at attempting a truce were fruitless?
    Apparently they were fruitful. Read the Report.
  3. #143  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You're not that dumb.

    In case you missed the quotation marks, the excerpt was a direct copy and paste. You can read it for yourself: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec2.pdf
    I saw it, and I saw that you plucked it out of context, most likely from a right wing talking points site. And I saw that you left out the part that said ...

    the September 11 investigators found "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States." And you made the beginning sound like a rebuttal to ....

    "According the the 9/11 Commission, there were at least several meetings between al Qaeda and Iraq in the mid 90s, where bin Laden was mostly reaching out to Saddam, but there's no indication that these meetings led anywhere."
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim

    And the justification for the war in Iraq has been from the very beginning the threat that WMD will fall into the hands of terrorists. Where have you been? None of this really should be news to you. You're supposed to respond, "BUT, there were no WMD in Iraq!!!"
    lol, now I admit that did give me a chuckle, you caught yourself sounding silly
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    Try reading the sentence more slowly.

    Apparently they were fruitful. Read the Report.
    Apparently they were fruitfull? Huh? What were the fruits exactly? Is this going to be another conspiracy theory?
  4. #144  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Your post mixes bits of truth from the 9/11 commissin report, with your own silly conclusions.This part does actually come from the report, but you fail to mention that the report goes on to say that the September 11 investigators found "no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." It also says that the commission did not find any "evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
    LOL You didn't even read my post. Not only do I state both points explicitly, I also included both sentences in my quote. They're also both in the text you quoted! It's all in there!


    Friendly terms? I didnt see that in the report, or did you just pull that part out of your ***?
    Perhaps because you can't read. Try again, more slowly. It's in there!


    The point of talking about ties, is that it is so vague it can mean anything.
    Try not to confuse yourself. According to the 9/11 Commission, they had repeated meetings, and they were on friendly terms. That's all you need to know.


    Except for that it does not make for much of a justification for war since the administration did not even know he said it.
    What you mean is that you didn't know he said it. It was in the Wall Street Journal. It was discussed on TV. I think if they picked it up, then I think you can be certain the intelligence services picked it up too.
  5. #145  
    Samkin, it's ďfruitlessĒ. Some people will read the same words you did and see things that aren't there. All your handholding will do no good, truth is Kryptonite to libs.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  6. #146  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    I saw it, and I saw that you plucked it out of context, most likely from a right wing talking points site. And I saw that you left out the part that said ...
    Nope. You can't read.
    And I copied it from the 9/11 Commission Report. I gave you the link.


    lol, now I admit that did give me a chuckle, you caught yourself sounding silly
    Nope. I was giving you an example of the expected silly response.

    Apparently they were fruitfull? Huh? What were the fruits exactly? Is this going to be another conspiracy theory?
    They were on friendly terms. Saddam offered help to al Qaeda. Please read the report. I shouldn't have to walk you through all the details over and over.
  7. #147  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    LOL You didn't even read my post. Not only do I state both points explicitly, I also included both sentences in my quote. They're also both in the text you quoted! It's all in there!


    Perhaps because you can't read. Try again, more slowly. It's in there!


    Try not to confuse yourself. According to the 9/11 Commission, they had repeated meetings, and they were on friendly terms. That's all you need to know.


    What you mean is that you didn't know he said it. It was in the Wall Street Journal. It was discussed on TV. I think if they picked it up, then I think you can be certain the intelligence services picked it up too.
    Now you are flat out lying! It is very simple, click on the link you provided, type in "friendly terms" and do a search. Give me a line number.
  8. #148  
    In fact, the only instance of the word friendly in the report says.

    Quote Originally Posted by 9/11 Commission report
    The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sidesí hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.
    Or were you going to post everything up to the word "but".

    The report says EXACTLY what we have known from the beginning. Saddam and Al Quaida have had meetings in the past in order to put aside their differences, but NOTHING CAME OF IT!

    Hardly a justification for this war. Even when you combine it with the non existant WMDs you bring up in the last post.
  9. #149  
    The term is "friendly contacts". "The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sidesí hatred of the United States." Page 24

    EDIT - I didn't see: "The report says EXACTLY what we have known from the beginning. Saddam and Al Quaida have had meetings in the past in order to put aside their differences, but NOTHING CAME OF IT!"
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  10. #150  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    The term is "friendly contacts". "The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sidesí hatred of the United States." Page 24
    LOL, which is exactly what he did lol... EVerything up to the but ... lmao
  11. #151  
    Quote Originally Posted by geatches
    The term is "friendly contacts". "The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sidesí hatred of the United States." Page 24

    EDIT - I didn't see "The report says EXACTLY what we have known from the beginning. Saddam and Al Quaida have had meetings in the past in order to put aside their differences, but NOTHING CAME OF IT!"
    lol, ok better, but while you are in there, you might as well edit out the part that makes you look silly
  12. #152  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Or were you going to post everything up to the word "but".
    Read my post. It's all in there.
  13. #153  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Read my post. It's all in there.
    Really? Because your posts say that the report claims Saddam and Al Quaida are on "friendly terms". Several of them.
  14. #154  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze
    Or were you going to post everything up to the word "but".
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Read my post. It's all in there.
    and by the way "were you going to" suggests a tense of the verb in which you might be inclined in the future, not the past

    Read it more slowly, perhaps you can't read.
  15. #155  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Really? Because your posts say that the report claims Saddam and Al Quaida are on "friendly terms". Several of them.
    Which was true.

    We've wasted nearly 20 posts because you can't read.
    Here: http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=136
    Please don't respond until you've spotted my explicit statements that you thought I was hiding, the quotes that you thought were missing, and the reference to the friendly relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq which you accused me of making up.
  16. #156  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    and by the way "were you going to" suggests a tense of the verb in which you might be inclined in the future, not the past
    Exactly. This indicated that you did not know that I already included it twice in the first post.

    Good night.
  17. #157  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Which was true.

    We've wasted nearly 20 posts because you can't read.
    Here: http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...&postcount=136
    Please don't respond until you've spotted my explicit statements that you thought I was hiding, the quotes that you thought were missing, and the reference to the friendly relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq which you accused me of making up.
    lol

    You accusing me of being illeterate is not helping your cause.

    Post 136 contains the word friendly twice.

    The first time is an uncited copy past from the 9/11 commission report, which says ...
    Quote Originally Posted by 9/11 commission report
    The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sidesí hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship.
    The second time is your unsubstantiated claim that ..
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    We do know they met repeatedly and that they were on friendly terms.
    As I have said b4, I haven't seen you substantiate that claim anywhere.
  18. #158  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Exactly. This indicated that you did not know that I already included it twice in the first post.

    Good night.
    lol, wow

    sleep tight
  19. #159  
    I'll miss your back and forth already.
    Freedom of some speech in the US, through someone in the UK.
  20. #160  
    Quote Originally Posted by theBlaze74
    Can someone help me? How can i put 1911 on my ban list?
    Click on his name and go to public profile, which should get you to:
    http://discuss.treocentral.com/member.php?userid=37989

    then click on 'Add 1911sforever to Your Ignore List'
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
Page 8 of 12 FirstFirst ... 3456789101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions