Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    by the way, today, the new iraqi president - I believe that is his title, not sure ( this info was text messaged to me today) stated today the following:

    " all terrorists caught in iraq will be beheaded in just same manner as they had delivered to their innocent hostages.

    this my friends, in my opinion, IS POETIC JUSTICE. bravo iraq!! I should think this alone will cause the insurgents to think twice about their actions.

    bravo, bravo!
    I would bet this is complete nonsense. Do you believe everything that is text messaged to you? And you indeed think that the threat of being beheaded would stop an Al Qaida terrorist? How terribly naive... And please note that "insurgents" and "terrorists" are not the same thing and have different goals and means of action, even if they agree on some.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    in my view, our attack on terrorism had to be done. you can argue which country you think we should have focused on first, but in the end, these terrorists are going to have occupied all of these middle eastern nations anyway.
    Name one single terrorist attack into which Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved.... If Rumsfeld can't you can't either. The Al Qaida Terrorism-Iraq link was one of Bush's fairy tales for his voters, a story debunked long ago. Sad you still buy into it.

    And: If terrorists are present in all Middle East countries, that means you suggest occupying all of them, right?
  3. #23  
    These threads do get terribly boring. I reckon to liven it up we should consider having a custard pie fight! It would achieve precisely as much as this thread, i.e. nothing, but it would be tastier.
    Animo et Fide
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Name one single terrorist attack into which Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved.... If Rumsfeld can't you can't either. The Al Qaida Terrorism-Iraq link was one of Bush's fairy tales for his voters, a story debunked long ago. Sad you still buy into it.

    And: If terrorists are present in all Middle East countries, that means you suggest occupying all of them, right?
    The link between Saddam and al Queda is not a myth that was debunked long ago. The truth about this is still coming out. The myth is that there was no link. Sad that you still buy in to it.

    ...David
  5. #25  
    Well the senate committee don't seem to think there was a link. I'm taking their word for it as I'm hoping they're better informed than anyone on this forum.

    Weeeeeeeee.... splat
    Animo et Fide
  6. #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbaldon
    The link between Saddam and al Queda is not a myth that was debunked long ago. The truth about this is still coming out. The myth is that there was no link. Sad that you still buy in to it.

    ...David
    So please, David, go ahead, name one single terrorist attack into which Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved (outside of Iraq, of course).... If Bush and Rumsfeld can't provide ANY evidence, you can't either.

    Of course it is true that there was some sort of contact between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but there is absolutely no evidence beyond mere claims of the Bush administration that these contacts were of the slightest importance for al Qaeda's activities:

    "The 9/11 commission issued a staff report last week stating that preliminary contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in the 1990s went nowhere."

    "[9/11 commission vice chariman Lee Hamilton] said there was no evidence that Iraq had responded to any of al Qaeda's requests for assistance from Iraq in the 1990s, but they had "a very difficult, complex relationship." "

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/20/cheney.iraq/

    That the Bush administration was able to make the majority of the US population believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks is a great PRPRPR $and$ $disinformation$ $success$. $Very$ $few$ $people$ $believed$ $this$ $outside$ $of$ $the$ $USA$, $btw$.
  7. #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    These threads do get terribly boring. I reckon to liven it up we should consider having a custard pie fight! It would achieve precisely as much as this thread, i.e. nothing, but it would be tastier.
    Come on, the starter of this thread wanted to nuke major parts of Iraq and the Middle East, and later changed his/her mind about this subject. That IS quite a success.
  8. #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Well the senate committee don't seem to think there was a link. I'm taking their word for it as I'm hoping they're better informed than anyone on this forum.

    Weeeeeeeee.... splat
    I am just a humble non-native English speaker, but shouldn't it be "doesn't"?
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So please, David, go ahead, name one single terrorist attack into which Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved (outside of Iraq, of course).... If Bush and Rumsfeld can't provide ANY evidence, you can't either.

    Of course it is true that there was some sort of contact between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but there is absolutely no evidence beyond mere claims of the Bush administration that these contacts were of the slightest importance for al Qaeda's activities:

    "The 9/11 commission issued a staff report last week stating that preliminary contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in the 1990s went nowhere."

    "[9/11 commission vice chariman Lee Hamilton] said there was no evidence that Iraq had responded to any of al Qaeda's requests for assistance from Iraq in the 1990s, but they had "a very difficult, complex relationship." "

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/20/cheney.iraq/

    That the Bush administration was able to make the majority of the US population believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks is a great PRPRPR $and$ $disinformation$ $success$. $Very$ $few$ $people$ $believed$ $this$ $outside$ $of$ $the$ $USA$, $btw$.
    Part of the problem that people outside of the US have is a lack of news sources other than CNN. CNN is known to be far left leaning in their thinking and their reporting. It is well known that most of the major media outlets oppose Bush and consequently their reporting is skewed to cast him in the worst light possible. It's kinda like the BBC where one of their editors was sacked over altered photograhs of the military abusing prisoners http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3716151.stm.

    Bush did not make the majority of the US believe that Saddam was behind 9/11. It was made abundantly clear that al Queda (Osama bin Laden) was responsible for 9/11. What Bush did say was that Saddam was aiding and abetting terrorists and that he was a threat to the rest of the world. Oh yeah, most of the worlds leaders have at time or another stated basically the same thing.

    BTW, what solution do you offer to solve the problem? So far all you've posted is criticism of the solutions offered by others.

    ...David
  10.    #30  
    chulup, well you seem to have all the answers and all the wiseass remarks on all of this, don't you?
    this is nonsense, that is stupid, this is naive - everyone's else' opinion is oh so terribly off course right then - let's hear YOUR take on all of this. why don't you offer YOUR OWN view on the situation rather than being the backseat whiner here. surprise us and contribute something that's actually worthwhile - you up for it?
  11. #31  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    So please, David, go ahead, name one single terrorist attack into which Saddam Hussein's Iraq was involved (outside of Iraq, of course).... If Bush and Rumsfeld can't provide ANY evidence, you can't either.
    I think it's that they can't provide any evidence that Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attack. I'm sure Bush could recall that little incident when Hussein attempted to have his father assasinated. I would say that a foreign leader attempting to assasinate the President of the United States counts as a big YES in the terrorist attack column.

    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    Of course it is true that there was some sort of contact between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, but there is absolutely no evidence beyond mere claims of the Bush administration that these contacts were of the slightest importance for al Qaeda's activities:

    "The 9/11 commission issued a staff report last week stating that preliminary contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in the 1990s went nowhere."

    "[9/11 commission vice chariman Lee Hamilton] said there was no evidence that Iraq had responded to any of al Qaeda's requests for assistance from Iraq in the 1990s, but they had "a very difficult, complex relationship." "

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/20/cheney.iraq/

    That the Bush administration was able to make the majority of the US population believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks is a great PRPRPR $and$ $disinformation$ $success$. $Very$ $few$ $people$ $believed$ $this$ $outside$ $of$ $the$ $USA$, $btw$.

    Again, the administration has never said that Iraq was a part of 9/11. What it has said is that they've supported and harbored Al Qaeda in their country and the war on terrorism is attempting to destroy those support systems. You do realize that al-Zarqawi, the guy who lives in Iraq and is having people beheaded every other day, is not even Iraqi, right? He's Jordanian. He's Al-Qaeda. He's up near bin Laden in rank. He's living in IRAQ and I don't think he somehow just relocated there after 100,000+ American troops invaded the country.

    "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," Bush told a group of reporters at the White House.

    "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said. "That it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."

    Opponents have twisted that into saying that Bush said Hussein was involved in 9/11 - just so they can say he's lying! It's NOT true. Show me ONE quote where the President said that Hussein was involved in 9/11. JUST ONE! And if you can't, then start actually reading Bush's quotes and make up your own opinions instead of letting Democrats like John Kerry do it for you.
    ROOTING for WebOS makes me more sympathetic to Cubs fans.
  12. #32  
    Nukes aren't the answer but, they sure would solve a lot....nuculear blasts turn sand into glass. If there is no link to Al Queda and Iraq, then who the heck are these people resisting our occupation of Iraq, blowing stuff up, and cutting off our citizens heads in retaliation of our tactics to get information (whether that was actually the case or not). This is not a chicken or egg situation nor is the US to be considered terrorists. We did not start to occupy Iraq or Afganistan for the fun of it nor does George Bush or his administration just do something like this because they want to. All the issues that are being dealt with regarding terrorism and the controversies surrounding it has been around since even before the....oh yeah.....Persian Gulf War. Bill Clinton ignored the situation until oh yes....the terrorists, devised a plan to terrorize us and get away with it. The US is not to be considered terrorists because we are going somewhere to get rid of vermin as it is in fact an issue of national and world wide security as they continued to wreck havoc in other locations when debate was out over what to do. Is society considered terrorists when we kill people for killing other people ie death penalty...ok there is a debate but, seriously how much good is it going to do to play nice, not do anything, talk it over or any other hairbrained ideas that you can think of that don't require using any force against people who are evil and don't give one crap about your existance. Trust me they dont want to talk it over with you so the US or others are not considered terrorists for trying to disable people who refuse to come to terms or reality. Remember, they hate you and are crazy committed to their religion which refers to us as something lower than pigs. Infedels. So stop playing devil's advocate, if there was a country full of terrorists then yeah we could nuke them otherwise we are going to have to do it the way we are...any situation can be done better after the fact but I applaud the fact that Bush and his administration took action instead of not inhaling and screwing secretaries. Ok so youre mad now but, honestly what solution is there that will make anyone happy.....just remember you're not happy and you dont want to kill people.....these "terrorists" are not happy and they want to kill you no questions asked.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    I am just a humble non-native English speaker, but shouldn't it be "doesn't"?
    Depends whether you're referring to the committee as a group of people or a single body. I think that's a difference between US and UK English in general. So nice try, but no cigar!
    Animo et Fide
  14. #34  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbaldon
    Part of the problem that people outside of the US have is a lack of news sources other than CNN.

    I can't be bothered reading the whole of this thread any more, like I said it's boring, but I can't actually think of anyone I know who watches CNN! Or who uses it as a news source. You are so US-centric it's not true, are you aware that virtually no-one apart from Americans actually watch CNN? There are hundreds of news sources out there, CNN is one of the more minor ones outside the US.
    Animo et Fide
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbaldon
    Part of the problem that people outside of the US have is a lack of news sources other than CNN.
    Yeah, very funny David. I hope you do not actually believe in what you are saying, because it would expose your total ignorance about the world outside of the US.
    CNN is known to be far left leaning in their thinking and their reporting. It is well known that most of the major media outlets oppose Bush and consequently their reporting is skewed to cast him in the worst light possible.
    So you actually think CNN misquoted the results of the 9/11 commission in order to fool people about the real content of the report.... ? Hard to believe, isn't it?

    BTW, what solution do you offer to solve the problem? So far all you've posted is criticism of the solutions offered by others.
    The solutions offered were (a) nuking Iraq and (b) killing people without a trial. If you call that a solution, I think I am wasting my time here.
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by Bob-C
    "We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s," Cheney said. "That it involved training, for example, on [biological and chemical weapons], that Al Qaeda sent personnel to Baghdad to get trained on the systems, and involved the Iraqis providing bomb-making expertise and advice to the Al Qaeda organization."
    The problem is that there is no evidence for Cheney's claim. The 9/11 commission found no evidence, the CIA etc., Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld could not provide any. THAT is precisely the point.

    Opponents have twisted that into saying that Bush said Hussein was involved in 9/11 - just so they can say he's lying! It's NOT true. Show me ONE quote where the President said that Hussein was involved in 9/11. JUST ONE!
    I never claimed Bush had actually SAID Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. Nevertheless, he kept mixing the two subjects until in the end a majority of Americans thought it was so. That is why I called it a PRPRPR $or$ $rather$ $a$ $disinformation$ $masterpiece$.
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown

    I can't be bothered reading the whole of this thread any more, like I said it's boring, but I can't actually think of anyone I know who watches CNN! Or who uses it as a news source. You are so US-centric it's not true, are you aware that virtually no-one apart from Americans actually watch CNN? There are hundreds of news sources out there, CNN is one of the more minor ones outside the US.
    My statement was made based on my travels in Europe where the primary English news channel is CNN. I would much prefer to watch the Fox News Channel but I can't get it in the hotels I have stayed in. I have heard people state that FNC is available internationally but I haven't see it. What I have seen is CNN.

    ...David
  18. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by clulup
    The solutions offered were (a) nuking Iraq and (b) killing people without a trial. If you call that a solution, I think I am wasting my time here.
    You have still not offered YOUR solution. The original poster has since backed off of the "nuke-em" statement and he never advocated killing people that were not terrorists.

    BTW, what country do you live in that makes you an expert on what the Americans think and or thought? I ask only because I'm curious about your souce of information.

    Lastly, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin, they had evidence of an Iraq terror plot against the US. The eveidence is there and is growing but you won't find a lot of reporting on it on CNN and others of their ilk. You also have to take into consideration that not all of the papers of Saddam's government have been analyzed.

    ...David
  19. #39  
    the primary English news channel is CNN
    Only in countries where the primary language isn't english. The primary news channel will be in the primary language.
    Animo et Fide
  20. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterBrown
    Only in countries where the primary language isn't english. The primary news channel will be in the primary language.
    Doesn't that cover most of Europe and the Middle East?
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions