Iraq's Link To Terror Proven Again [Archive]

silera

04-15-2003, 06:29 PM

Saddam gave aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through the PLF. Many have argued that this was done not as repayment but as assistance for families that lost their main bread winner or homes etc. I think it's a combination of the two. I'm not about to defend Saddam Hussein.

The thing is, you add up all the maybes, could bes, and possibilities, and I'm still left with the unsettling feeling that the war on terror is nothing more than a push for a world in which the US decides who gets to play on the b-ball court simply because it's the biggest bully on the block.

We're better than that.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

LiquidCourage

04-15-2003, 08:02 PM

There was an Iraqi terrorist in Baghdad. All we know is that we caught him there. That, in and of itself, doesn't prove (nor does it disprove) that the Iraqi government was supporting terrorists.

It's a pretty well known fact that Iraq has been supporting terrorism against the US since the 1980s. That's one of the reasons we started helping them in the 1980s; we wanted them to knock it off.

They didn't, and so Iran got arms too.

TheMojoPin

04-15-2003, 08:47 PM

Wow, Saddam was supporting Palestinian terrorists.

Oh, snap, we knew that already. My bad.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

Snoogans

04-15-2003, 08:48 PM

Exactly. If there's anyone out there NOT convinced of this and that the war was a great idea and success so far, then they just don't want to believe the truth. So fuck them.

So i guess that means rory is fucked

Iris Loves You!

http://wnewsgirl.homestead.com/files/Snoogans.jpg

Snootchie Bootchies!

TooCute

04-15-2003, 08:48 PM

t's a pretty well known fact that Iraq has been supporting terrorism against the US since the 1980s. That's one of the reasons we started helping them in the 1980s: we wanted them to knock it off.

That is true. The ONLY point, I reiterate, was the simple fact that this guy was in Baghdad doesn't mean that the Iraqi government was supporting him. It doesn't mean that they weren't, either. Yes?

And either way it's not going to change anyones minds at this point (we knew he was supporting terrorists before we went into this war. This "proof" doesn't "justify" it.)

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

Bergalad

04-15-2003, 08:56 PM

I reiterate, was the simple fact that this guy was in Baghdad doesn't mean that the Iraqi government was supporting him.

Yes it most certainly does. You don't have a major terrorist leader hanging out in your town and not know about it, not for that long. And yes, this does justify our actions even more. After 911, most everyone agreed with Bush that we should not only take out the terrorists, but also those that harbor them. Well, here you go, yet some of you still refuse to get behind the president. Seems hypocrytical to me.

TheMojoPin

04-15-2003, 09:08 PM

And yes, this does justify our actions even more. After 911, most everyone agreed with Bush that we should not only take out the terrorists, but also those that harbor them. Well, here you go, yet some of you still refuse to get behind the president. Seems hypocrytical to me.

Except basically the main opponents here, Silera, TooCute and myself, have all said basically from day one that it's a long and easily proven fact that Saddam supports Palestinian terrorists. Our issue was with the notion that it was being spun that Saddam, in addition to somehow being the biggest direct threat he's ever been to US, was also supporting/arming/funding/housing terrorists a la Al Queda left and right. No dice, Dr. Jones!

Who the fuck are "the terrorists"? Al Queda? Or is it just some big, giant club where they all hang out together and play ping-pong while talking about what they'll do after they graduate and how much they want to blow up everyone else that isn't awesome enough to be in their club? "The terrorists" makes it sound like it's one, big enemy we can just go out and fight like a "normal" foe. We're going to have to fight a lot of different groops a lot of different ways. It's cute to say "we're getting the terrorists, and awa-a-a-a-ay we go!" and point to a big map of Iraq, but in the end it doesn't accomplish dick except for Israel, Iraq's neighbors and the people of Iraq. All noble causes, but I got the inkling that the "war on terror" was going to protect US first.

Until we slap our buddy Britain on the back and help them with that pesky Irish terrorist problem that has claimed thousands of lives in the last century alone, it really seems like this like a big, sloppy helping of SPIN. There we don't even need the UN, because Tony Blair LOVES us! Simple!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-16-03 @ 1:23 AM

HBox

04-15-2003, 09:11 PM

Well, here you go, yet some of you still refuse to get behind the president. Seems hypocrytical to me.

Well, it seems hypocritical to me to pursue a military strategy with Iraq but not with Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Egypt, all of which are either bigger supporters of terror, bigger harborers of terror, or bigger sellers of weapons to terrorists. They also all support terrorists who target the US, a connection that has been flimsy at best with Iraq. Iraq supported Palestinian terrorists targeting Israel. If this guy is the biggest link we have found, it's pretty weak in comparison to what is known in these other countries.

Frankly, I'm done worrying about Israel. We give them enough goddamn weapons and aid to defend themselves. That's more than anyone else will do and enough in my opinion. Can we deal with terrorists who target us please?

Bergalad

04-15-2003, 09:16 PM

Nothing's going to be enough for you because this isn't Mojo's Fantasyworld. The US is taking actions that, in spite of what you think should be happening, are helping. You can't change your tune now on Iraq, even though now the things you demanded proof of before are coming to light. We fix something in one place and you yell about the IRA, or Silera decries our interference in South America. Nothing positive to say and never enough.

Doomstone

04-15-2003, 09:17 PM

does. You don't have a major terrorist leader hanging out in your town and not know about it, not for that long. And yes, this does justify our actions even more. After 911, most everyone agreed with Bush that we should not only take out the terrorists, but also those that harbor them. Well, here you go, yet some of you still refuse to get behind the president. Seems hypocrytical to me.

But, the US harbors terrorists too. Do a web search on Emmanuel Constant, since I doubt you know who he is.

TooCute

04-15-2003, 09:18 PM

Seems hypocrytical to me.

I'm really dumb. Please spell out for me explicitly why I am a hypocrite.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

HBox

04-15-2003, 09:21 PM

Damn. Everybody jumped on him at the same time.

TooCute

04-15-2003, 09:30 PM

You can't change your tune now on Iraq, even though now the things you demanded proof of before are coming to light.

This isn't one of those things. And why should he "change his tune" if nothing's changed?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

silera

04-15-2003, 09:33 PM

The reason we point out our mistakes is because it is obvious that we have yet to learn from them.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

GaryWyze

04-15-2003, 09:34 PM

Saddam gave aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through the PLF. Many have argued that this was done not as repayment but as assistance for families that lost their main bread winner or homes etc. I think it's a combination of the two.

Yep, that Saddam was quite the humanitarian.

That probably explains why after killing a husband & wife, he'd often times come for the children, too. The big lug just couldn't bear the thought of them living as orphans.

You know how much I like you, but I can't even imagine someone like Said Sahaf being insane enough to say that the money paid to the family of suicide bombers is, in part, a way of helping the family get back on their feet.

Sorta like the Arab World's version of Social Services, I suppose.

The offer was a standing one, with no mention of how destitute a family has to be in order to receive it. In fact, the profile for the average suicide bomber is that of a very young arab male with no wife or children. They're significantly more likely to be somebody's son, than they are to be somebody's father.

It's one thing to be against the war, quite another to be humanizing the murderers of innocent men, women and children, and those who put out the hit.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

TheMojoPin

04-15-2003, 09:39 PM

We fix something in one place and you yell about the IRA, or Silera decries our interference in South America. Nothing positive to say and never enough.

BECAUSE I'VE BEEN JERKED AROUND. First it's the "war on terror" is our priority, but then all of a sudden Iraq is a priority, but they only "kindasortamaybe" support terrorists that can hurt us...then WMD's are the prioroty, and NK goes apeshit and starts waving their nukes in the wind, but nobody even blinks. Now it's presented that the liberation of Iraq was the goal all along and our most important goal when it most certianly is fucking NOT. Hypocrisy, lies, spin and horseshit. No sir, I have nothing positive to say and it's far, FAR too much.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-16-03 @ 1:43 AM

Doomstone

04-15-2003, 09:40 PM

Yep, that Saddam was quite the humanitarian.

That probably explains why after killing a husband & wife, he'd often times come for the children, too. The big lug just couldn't bear the thought of them living as orphans.

You know how much I like you, but I can't even imagine someone like Said Sahaf being insane enough to say that the money paid to the family of suicide bombers is, in part, a way of helping the family get back on their feet.

Sorta like the Arab World's version of Social Services, I suppose.

The offer was a standing one, with no mention of how destitute a family has to be in order to receive it. In fact, the profile for the average suicide bomber is that of a very young arab male with no wife or children. They're significantly more likely to be somebody's son, than they are to be somebody's father.

It's one thing to be against the war, quite another to be humanizing the murderers of innocent men, women and children, and those who put out the hit.

So the threat to Americans and American interests is exactly...where?

Bergalad

04-15-2003, 09:46 PM

Glad to be here for you all to vent to tonight. Here's my opinion on all this. Iraq wasn't a direct threat to the US right now. Iraq was an implied threat for the future, who knows how far ahead that might have been. The government of Iraq trained, fostered, sheltered, and funded individuals who were terrorists. No, not the 911 ones, but similar. By defeating Iraq, we have put all other ME countries on notice, and for that matter the world. Yes, there are terror cells in Iran, Syria, Yemen, and countless other nations around the world. Maybe we will get to them, maybe we won't, but they all know that we aren't the "paper tiger" Bin Laden labeled us before. They are now forced to reassess their ties to these groups, and many will change for the better. North Korea now wants to talk seriously about the nuclear issue, a far cry from before the war when they refused to talk at all. I know there are problems all over the world, some bigger than the one we just defeated. I think it is important to remember that we did defeat one of those problems this last week, and I because of that we are safer. Yes there will be more terrorism, yes there will be more attacks and problems, yet I am sure that the US did a good thing by defeating Saddam's regime. I think we are all better now than we were two months ago, and I look forward to the next problem knowing we have leadership that does more than talk. Just my opinion.

silera

04-15-2003, 09:58 PM

It's one thing to be against the war, quite another to be humanizing the murderers of innocent men, women and children, and those who put out the hit.

I didn't do that.

Don't twist my words or intent.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

Doomstone

04-15-2003, 10:03 PM

Wow...

Glad to be here for you all to vent to tonight. Here's my opinion on all this. Iraq wasn't a direct threat to the US right now. Iraq was an implied threat for the future, who knows how far ahead that might have been.
Who knows? Maybe Hussein would have died tomorrow from a hangnail. Who knows?

The government of Iraq trained, fostered, sheltered, and funded individuals who were terrorists. No, not the 911 ones, but similar.
Can you please define "terrorist" for me? Thank you.

By defeating Iraq, we have put all other ME countries on notice, and for that matter the world. Yes, there are terror cells in Iran, Syria, Yemen, and countless other nations around the world.
Including ours.

Maybe we will get to them, maybe we won't, but they all know that we aren't the "paper tiger" Bin Laden labeled us before.
So was this war to prove our military power?

They are now forced to reassess their ties to these groups, and many will change for the better.
Riiiiiiiiiiight...cause suicidal bombers will stop suicide bombing, cause if they don't, we'll kill them. Makes perfect sense.

North Korea now wants to talk seriously about the nuclear issue, a far cry from before the war when they refused to talk at all. I know there are problems all over the world, some bigger than the one we just defeated.
There are bigger problems here. Our economy for example...you know, stuff that affects US.

I think it is important to remember that we did defeat one of those problems this last week, and I because of that we are safer.
Third world dictator with a small penis complex...NEXT!

Yes there will be more terrorism, yes there will be more attacks and problems, yet I am sure that the US did a good thing by defeating Saddam's regime.
How? How are Americans now safer?

I think we are all better now than we were two months ago, and I look forward to the next problem knowing we have leadership that does more than talk. Just my opinion.
We're worse off now. More enemies, less allies. One less BS dictator...

TheMojoPin

04-15-2003, 10:10 PM

Just my opinion.

Fair enough.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

HBox

04-15-2003, 10:10 PM

North Korea now wants to talk seriously about the nuclear issue, a far cry from before the war when they refused to talk at all.

They always wanted to talk. We just wanted it to be on our terms (Multilaterally, with South Korea, Japan and others involved). So now they are willing to speak on our terms.

Iraq may have someday been a threat (it still could someday be a threat, given our track record in the Middle East), but I would feel better dealing with the actual threats. $80 billion and all the lives lost seem a high price to pay for essentially "setting an example." Especially when, IMO, there are more pressing concerns here and abroad.

GaryWyze

04-15-2003, 10:19 PM

I didn't do that. Don't twist my words or intent.

That's exactly what you're doing.

One mo' time:

Saddam gave aid to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers through the PLF. Many have argued that this was done not as repayment but as assistance for families that lost their main bread winner or homes etc. I think it's a combination of the two

Many have argued? Other than yourself, I can't recall anybody else. Sources, please?

In making Saddam's bounty on the lives of innocent civilians about anything other than money for murder, you're giving it an air of respectability. I'm sure the families of the 9/11 hijackers have also been taken care of, but I guess that too was a combination of wickedness and charity?

Sorry, but I don't need to twist your words... they're pretty twisted as is.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

This message was edited by GaryWyze on 4-16-03 @ 2:26 AM

Doomstone

04-15-2003, 10:24 PM

Our government pays welfare to families of convicted murderers.

Just saying...

GaryWyze

04-15-2003, 10:26 PM

But they don't do it BECAUSE they're convicted murderers.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

Doomstone

04-15-2003, 10:29 PM

No, probably not. And nobody's saying Saddam's a good guy either.

Doomstone

04-15-2003, 10:32 PM

...nevermind...

This message was edited by Doomstone on 4-16-03 @ 2:33 AM

TheMojoPin

04-15-2003, 10:55 PM

I'm sure the families of the 9/11 hijackers have also been taken care of

Really?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

GaryWyze

04-15-2003, 11:05 PM

Well, I haven't seen a copy of any cashed checks, but yeah, I think it's safe to assume that the families saw some money.

And we do know that in the days before 9/11, the hijackers were spending huge amounts of money at Daytona Beach strip clubs.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

Doomstone

04-15-2003, 11:16 PM

Tim McVeigh loved American Hookers.

Don't prove nothing...

silera

04-16-2003, 03:22 AM

I specifically stated I am not defending Saddam's actions or the payments to families of suicide bombers. I simply stated that I've read statements from both sides regarding the repayment of suicide bomber's families, and figure that intent of these actions lies somewhere in the middle.

EDIT: I just realized that my first statement wasn't clear enough. I choose to believe that the intent of the aid given to the family's of suicide bombers is "combination of the two" meaning incentive for people considering to be suicide bombers and aid for family's that aren't responsible for said suicide bomber's actions.

Again, we knew about this practice, and the clear link between this practice and Iraq being a direct threat to the US doesn't exist.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>


This message was edited by silera on 4-16-03 @ 7:46 AM

silera

04-16-2003, 04:56 AM

Sorry, but I don't need to twist your words... they're pretty twisted as is.

That pissed me off.

Could paying the families of suicide bombers be abhorrent? Yes, it's implications are vile.

Could burning down or demolition the homes of the families of suicid bombers be just as abhorrent? Yes, I believe so.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The whole middle east is one big clusterfuck. Still, the direct and immediate threat to us has yet to be proven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2952879.stm

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>


This message was edited by silera on 4-16-03 @ 9:16 AM

A.J.

04-16-2003, 05:13 AM

I'm just glad the bastard was finally caught.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

Captain Stubing

04-16-2003, 05:14 AM

BECAUSE I'VE BEEN JERKED AROUND. First it's the "war on terror" is our priority, but then all of a sudden Iraq is a priority, but they only "kindasortamaybe" support terrorists that can hurt us...then WMD's are the prioroty, and NK goes apeshit and starts waving their nukes in the wind, but nobody even blinks. Now it's presented that the liberation of Iraq was the goal all along and our most important goal when it most certianly is fucking NOT. Hypocrisy, lies, spin and horseshit. No sir, I have nothing positive to say and it's far, FAR too much.

Based on your prior work Mojo you know that information from the Government is often presented in fits and starts and that this does not necessarily mean that the policy being pursued is not correct......additionally you present information as if it's mutually exclusive ('war on terror'...no, Iraq.....no, WMD's) when many people believe (including many leading this government) that they are inclusive.

And the outrage at the 'spin'? You would use the point that the government has been hypocritical (in your opinion) to justify not supporting a policy objective (or the means to accomplish it)?? I would speculate that your feeling jerked around is as much your disagreement with the administration and/or its Iraq policy as anything else but, regardless, if you won't support something coming from the government because of spin you've pretty much relagated yourself to the sidelines. Organizations spin because they are comprised of people, who themselves spin. One persons spin is another's core belief......

Fezaesthesia - Prognosis poor...

FiveB247

04-16-2003, 06:40 AM

I got to agree with Mojo on this one. The US is using the 'war on terrorism' to encompass a lot more then its actual agenda and goals. When it comes down to it, they just group together all the rhetoric of 'threats', 'WMD', 'enemies', 'terrorism' and all the other catch phrases in order to achieve some sort of goal or objective. When you look at the BS our government officials say and then do...they rarely coincide. We pick and choose where and when to apply laws, issues and policies. It's hypocritical to say the least (even if the goals are worthy).

"The rich and powerful have every right to demand that they be left in peace to enjoy what they have gained, often by violence and terror; the rest can be ignored as long as they suffer in silence, but if they interfere with the lives of those who rule the world by right, the 'terrors of the earth' will be visited upon them with righteous wrath, unless power is constrained from within." Winston Churchill

I believe that statement from Churchill is very descriptive and can be easily applied to the war on terrorism.

TheMojoPin

04-16-2003, 07:50 AM

Based on your prior work Mojo you know that information from the Government is often presented in fits and starts and that this does not necessarily mean that the policy being pursued is not correct.....

This is true, very true, but almost just as often, it IS simply not correct, period, and it drove me bonkers. I, like many people, had hope and assumed that the shock and horror of 9/11 would "change things", but to me, what's currently going on simply and sadly shows that the game remains the same.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

GaryWyze

04-16-2003, 09:02 AM

EDIT: I just realized that my first statement wasn't clear enough. I choose to believe that the intent of the aid given to the family's of suicide bombers is "combination of the two" meaning incentive for people considering to be suicide bombers and aid for family's that aren't responsible for said suicide bomber's actions.

I understand what you're saying. You've been clear all along. I just couldn't disagreee more.

Could paying the families of suicide bombers be abhorrent? Yes, it's implications are vile.

Could burning down or demolition the homes of the families of suicid bombers be just as abhorrent? Yes, I believe so.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, they don't. But 1) I've never heard that the homes of suicide bombers are systematically destroyed after the fact, and 2) even if they are, it doesn't seem wrong to me.

And certainly not *as* wrong. After all, there's not a whole lot you can do in way of deterrent with somebody who's convinced he was born to die while doing this. Of course, if Israel was Iraq, and the situation was reversed, the policy would almost definitely be to kill the families of these bombers. And that might very well put an end to them, but of course that won't (nor should) happen.

Still, by saying that the murder of a bus full of innocent people is "just as abhorrent" as later destroying the home of the murderer is a logic I can't even begin to argue with.

Such statements, coupled with your belief that money-for-murder is in part a form of humanitarian aid, sounds more like the propaganda Baghdad Bob puts forth, than it does the common sense you can usually be counted on for.

G'day to you. I SAID GOOD DAY!!!

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

silera

04-16-2003, 09:50 AM

Again, another discussion regarding Iraq and its threat to the US has devolved into a debate about Israel/Palestine. My opinion is that both sides are wrong.

Still, haven't seen where Iraq was threatening us.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>


This message was edited by silera on 4-16-03 @ 2:00 PM

GaryWyze

04-16-2003, 11:00 AM

If you didn't want to discuss anything other than Iraq, why even weigh in on the suicide bombers and Iraqi support for them in the 1st place? You said what you said, that's why we're here.

But it is all relevant anyway, because it's reasonable to assume that if Iraq has a policy where they favor terrorism and financially reward terrorist, that eventually that policy will become a problem for us here as well (you know, since Saddam had that nasty habit of trying to assassinate our Presidents and apllauding the actions of 9/11).

Perhaps you and others just don't get this, but Israel's problems are our problems. We share a common enemy. Religiously, Muslim extremist hate Israel and Jews. Secularly, they hate America and democracy.

Sticking our head in the desert sand won't make this problem go away. And putting a humanitarian slant on money for murder doesn't make it any less vile.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

FiveB247

04-16-2003, 11:07 AM

gary...You just can't easily group everyone in two separate groups like that. That's beyond a simplistic view on the situation.

GaryWyze

04-16-2003, 11:12 AM

Sure I can. We good, they bad.

Bomb Syria, kill evil. Nice day, I go.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

FiveB247

04-16-2003, 11:19 AM

Sure I can. We good, they bad.

kill evil. Nice day, I go.

That's the same perspective the extremists hold...kill the enemy or be killed. It won't ever get past war and death.

Bigden

04-16-2003, 11:22 AM

I agree Gary. I would like to know whether maybe those still opposed to our actions in Iraq realize one thing:
The Body of a jetliner was used as training by IRAQI'S at the Al Sabad terror training camp outside of Baghdad.
Now lets see....... those big jet liners crashed into a couple my friends 19 months ago as they worked in their offices. What the hell else proof do you want that these people needed killing to save future bloodshed. I don't know about you but I didn't want to wait till Saddam's terrorist regime found a way to strike us. To me its pretty clear.

TheMojoPin

04-16-2003, 11:35 AM

The Body of a jetliner was used as training by IRAQI'S at the Al Sabad terror training camp outside of Baghdad.
Now lets see....... those big jet liners crashed into a couple my friends 19 months ago as they worked in their offices. What the hell else proof do you want that these people needed killing to save future bloodshed. I don't know about you but I didn't want to wait till Saddam's terrorist regime found a way to strike us. To me its pretty clear.

Oh, WOW. Keep yelling it, and maybe it'll all be REAL!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

IrishAlkey

04-16-2003, 11:35 AM

What's clear to me is that the problems in the Middle East will never be resolved.

This forum is more pathetic than the game room as far as padding post counts goes.

Debate this shit in a classroom and at least you might get a degree for your troubles.

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee>2%</marquee>

TheMojoPin

04-16-2003, 11:36 AM

If you didn't want to discuss anything other than Iraq, why even weigh in on the suicide bombers and Iraqi support for them in the 1st place? You said what you said, that's why we're here.

Huh?

Not that anyone needed any further reinforcement, but today the US captured Abu Abbas, leader of the Palestinian Liberation Front. He orchestrated the whole Achille Lauro hijacking in 1985 and a few other terrorist acts.

Because the thread started off about Palestinian terrorists, and it's kinda hard to NOT discuss suicide bombers when they're involved.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

TheMojoPin

04-16-2003, 11:43 AM

What's clear to me is that the problems in the Middle East will never be resolved.

This forum is more pathetic than the game room as far as padding post counts goes.

Debate this shit in a classroom and at least you might get a degree for your troubles.

Haven't you realized this is how I gett off? Now get out of the away and quit trying to ruin my batch. Cunt.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

IrishAlkey

04-16-2003, 11:44 AM

Sorry.

I just noticed the new status.

Batch away.

Try not to get any on silera.

<center>http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/alkey2.gif</center><marquee>2%</marquee>

A.J.

04-16-2003, 11:48 AM

Haven't you realized this is how I gett off? Now get out of the away and quit trying to ruin my batch. Cunt.

Mojo -- "The Conscience of the Politics and Current Events Forum".

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

TooCute

04-16-2003, 11:57 AM

The Body of a jetliner was used as training by IRAQI'S at the Al Sabad terror training camp outside of Baghdad.
Now lets see....... those big jet liners crashed into a couple my friends 19 months ago as they worked in their offices. What the hell else proof do you want that these people needed killing to save future bloodshed.
I flew in a jetliner to get to my friend's wedding a couple of months ago. What the hell else proof do you need that I need killing to save future bloodshed?!

In other words because the Iraqis had a jet, they're the ones that killed your friends?

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

silera

04-16-2003, 01:01 PM

a + 7= blue.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

TheMojoPin

04-16-2003, 05:26 PM

Mojo -- "The Conscience of the Politics and Current Events Forum".

QUICKLY!!! Bring me my SHEEPY-HORN!!!

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

GaryWyze

04-16-2003, 09:25 PM

If you didn't want to discuss anything other than Iraq, why even weigh in on the suicide bombers and Iraqi support for them in the 1st place? You said what you said, that's why we're here.

Huh?

What are you huhing about?

Silera said "Again, another discussion regarding Iraq and its threat to the US has devolved into a debate about Israel/Palestine."

I pointed out that that's gonna happen when you claim that Iraq's financial support for the family of terrorist doesn't amount to supporting terror. And that if she didn't wanna get into the whole Israel/Palestinian thing, maybe commenting on payments to PALESTINIANS for killing ISRAELIS probably wasn't the best way to go about it.

All caught up?

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

silera

04-17-2003, 04:46 AM

I pointed out that that's gonna happen when you claim that Iraq's financial support for the family of terrorist doesn't amount to supporting terror.

I didn't say that.

Your problem with my statement is that I refuse to have assigned a good guy in that conflict. You have, it's your opinion.

In my opinion, both sides are assholes that repeat the same mistakes and will NEVER have peace even though one may be a bigger asshole than the other.

However, Iraq's payment to Palestinian suicide bomber's surviving families isn't new news and isn't indicative of any increase as a threat to the US. It isn't the reason that the Palestinians are doing it and now that the practice will stop, do you expect to see a sharp decline in the number of suicide bombers? I doubt it.

So, our attack on terrorism hasn't decreased any terrorist threat either here or Israel. It may have however, done a great job of creating a new wave of hate for the US. Fresh new images of the destruction the US has caused in the Middle East for fodder and propaganda, and it doesn't help that now our leadership and military have a hard on for Syria.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>


This message was edited by silera on 4-17-03 @ 9:03 AM

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 06:35 AM

Bergalad, It's been widely talked about now. Abbas could have been arrested in Israel a few yrs back and wasn't due to certain international laws. The US and Israel both knew of his where abouts. So how does this even have anything to do with a terror link? If anything, all it proves is that we knew where he was and didn't do anything about it. Or that a former terrorists lived in Iraq. It's got nothing to do with the terror issues we have now.

Bigden

04-17-2003, 08:13 AM

Opinions are one thing facts another. I was simply stating the facts reported by the Army. Any regime who teaches individuals to storm the cockpits of airliners = Bad people Who want to harm innocents. USA protects innocents even if some people don't like that, it will always be true. We are not France,Germany or Russia. We fight so we have the rights to argue over message boards. Iraqis until now didn't have those rights.

Bergalad

04-17-2003, 12:36 PM

So how does this even have anything to do with a terror link? If anything, all it proves is that we knew where he was and didn't do anything about it.
How is this even a question? Abbas was being harbored/sheltered/safeguarded by Saddam's regime. You Five have said many times there was no proof of Iraqi support for terrorism. Well, here it is and yet you still equivocate. Oh, and the US did do something about it...we captured a known terrorist and crushed the government that protected him.

silera

04-17-2003, 12:59 PM

Bergelad did you even http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2952879.stm ???

If you had you would have read this interesting tidbit of info...

Even Israel allowed him in and out of Gaza a few years ago as it accepted that he had given up violence and was supporting the Oslo peace process.

So the "capture" doesn't mean squat.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

Bergalad

04-17-2003, 02:02 PM

So with your reasoning, if Bin Laden repents of his ways and gives up a life of terror for one of peace, capturing him would be meaningless. Makes sense to me.

silera

04-17-2003, 02:10 PM

It's not my reasoning.

That's what happened.

He was not "being harbored/sheltered/safeguarded by Saddam's regime."

This guy has been there, and we knew it all along, and apparently even Israel has accepted his presence.

The capture has no effect on the reasons for the war or the safety of the US.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>


This message was edited by silera on 4-17-03 @ 6:18 PM

Bergalad

04-17-2003, 02:20 PM

You said:
So the "capture" doesn't mean squat.

You are saying the capture of an admitted and "convicted" terrorist doesn't mean anything. I think it would mean more to you if you were the daughter of the man Abbas killed on the hijacked cruiseliner. The point is he was a wanted terrorist (wanted by Italy at the very least) and was being protected by Saddam. I am not here to argue his level of "terroristicness" with you.

*Edit*
Can't link it, but the London Telegraph has an article outlining Saddam's support of the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan guerrilla group with ties to other anti-western Islamist organizations. Among items found was a letter which stated:
Its mission, he (Bekkah Abdul Nassir)said, "will be to smuggle arms on a global scale to holy warriors fighting against US, British and Israeli influences in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Far East". The letter, dated April 2001, was signed: "Your Brother, Bekkah Abdul Nassir, Chief of Diplomacy ADF Forces". Nassir offered to "vet, recruit and send youth to train for the jihad" at a centre in Baghdad, which he described as a "headquarters for international holy warrior network".
Thought I would add that to the Iraq-supporting-terror discussion.

This message was edited by Bergalad on 4-17-03 @ 7:01 PM

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 03:45 PM

Bergalad, Yes they caught a convicted terrorist from the past. That is good. But Israel and the US had several opportunities to arrest him and did not. (due to certain international laws). So in the realm of 'Iraq harboring terrorists', this does not fit the bill whatsoever.

Sage

04-17-2003, 03:56 PM

I flew in a jetliner to get to my friend's wedding a couple of months ago. What the hell else proof do you need that I need killing to save future bloodshed?!

In other words because the Iraqis had a jet, they're the ones that killed your friends?

now now.

Jets don't kill people, people kill people.

and

Friends don't let friends fly into buildings.

=========

One for all, all for handies...
<IMG SRC="http://unknown.hedgerow.net/rfshows/handies_signature.gif">
<a href="http://www.cafeshops.com/handiesusa">Handies Across America</a> :)

silera

04-17-2003, 03:57 PM

Bergalad, I am not going to continue discussing anything with you if you're going to selectively quote me and ignore my statement.

This thread is titled "Iraq's Link to Terror Proven Again." In support of this, you referred to Abu Abbas's capture as reinforcement of Iraq's link to terror.

I have linked articles by reputable newspapers, that give the full background of this case. You're assertion that this capture is concrete support of the US's reasons for going to war do not hold water.

That the capture is a good thing and brings closure to a horrific incident, is not being disputed. However, if you're going to try and prove that Iraq was a large enough threat to the US that we had to forge new ground in the launching of a preemptive war, we really have to come up with more evidence than a man that severed ties with the group and was allowed to travel freely between Israel and Iraq for the last ten years.

If you could provide the link to that article you referred to, which seems to address what I have yet to be convinced of, I would read it and form my opinion on it.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

FiveB247

04-17-2003, 06:34 PM

TheMojoPin

04-17-2003, 08:07 PM

None of you can fight the power that is SKANK.

I WIN.

<img src=http://crick.com/alex/ska/rudeboy2.jpg>

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

Bergalad

04-18-2003, 04:55 AM

If you could provide the link to that article you referred to, which seems to address what I have yet to be convinced of, I would read it and form my opinion on it.

Here is the page from the London Telegraph from yesterday http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F17%2Fwsad17.x ml about that article.

TooCute

04-18-2003, 05:28 AM

Its mission, he said, "will be to smuggle arms on a global scale to holy warriors fighting against US, British and Israeli influences in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Far East".

The letter, dated April 2001, was signed: "Your Brother, Bekkah Abdul Nassir, Chief of Diplomacy ADF Forces".

ADF!!!! YOU BASTARD!

You'd think that the first place big news like this would be broken would be the rah-rah US newspapers.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-18-03 @ 9:30 AM

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 05:51 AM

Bergalad, I don't know much about the Telegraph as a source of media. I really couldn't comment either way about it. But I've searched many different news sources and have yet to find any mention or anything regarding the items mentioned in that story you posted. It would seem to me that if something was found in that nature (especially the details and facts as they portray them), it would be all over the US media in some way, shape or form....or even mentioned. Just thought I'd mention my search and the skepticism.

TooCute

04-18-2003, 05:57 AM

So I actually waded through this poorly written monstrosity of an article. It's pretty funny, really!

Saddam link to terror group
By Philip Smucker in Baghdad and Adrian Blomfield in Nairobi
(Filed: 17/04/2003)

Saddam Hussein's regime was linked to an African Islamist terrorist group, according to intelligence papers seen by The Telegraph. The documents provide the first hard evidence of ties between Iraq and religious terrorism.
Woo, here we go, what we've all been waiting for...
Secret dossiers detailing the group's discussions with the Iraqi Intelligence Service were found in the spies' Baghdad headquarters, among the detritus of shredding.
Which spies? Oh, the IIS I get it.
The papers show how Iraq's charge d'affaires in Nairobi, Fallah Hassan Al Rubdie, was in discussion with the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan guerrilla group with ties to other anti-western Islamist organisations.
So an Iraqi in Nairobi was talking to a Ugandan guerilla group... so far so good. Which Islamist organisations?
While the United States has long argued that Saddam's regime was aiding Islamist groups, it has struggled until now to provide compelling evidence.
True.
In a letter to the head of the Iraqi spy agency, a senior ADF operative outlined his group's efforts to set up an "international mujahideen team".
I thought the ADF was talking to the Iraqi in Nairobi - I guess it was actually sent to the IIS. Do we know if they ever responded? (where's the proof of support?)
Its mission, he said, "will be to smuggle arms on a global scale to holy warriors fighting against US, British and Israeli influences in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Far East".

The letter, dated April 2001, was signed: "Your Brother, Bekkah Abdul Nassir, Chief of Diplomacy ADF Forces".

So a Ugandan guerilla group wants to start a holy war. Where does Iraq come into play here? Oh yes...
Nassir offered to "vet, recruit and send youth to train for the jihad" at a centre in Baghdad, which he described as a "headquarters for international holy warrior network". It was not clear whether the centre was established.
So the head of the ADF wants to send his people to Baghdad, nevermind that there's no evidence of such a center.
"We should not allow the enemy to focus on Afghanistan and Iraq, but we should attack their international criminal forces inside every base," the letters said.

The ADF emerged in 1996, when it launched a rebellion against President Yoweri Museveni's government. In December 2001 the movement was placed on the US list of terrorist organisations.

Throughout its campaign the ADF has been provided with weapons and funding by the Islamist government in Sudan, one of more than half a dozen states Washington accuses of sponsoring terrorism.
So a Ugandan guerilla group (that we know about) is apparently funded by the Sudanese government, and this one of the reasons we're using to invade Iraq? Yes, makes perfect sense.
The key figure behind the ADF is widely acknowledged to be a fundamentalist Islamic cleric, Sheikh Jamil Makulu.

According to the Ugandan government and western intelligence sources, Sheikh Makulu became friendly with Osama bin Laden in the early to mid-Nineties, when the al-Qa'eda chief was living in Khartoum.
Oh so he's one of Osama's buddies. We know how much Osama likes Saddam. It was Osama that engineered the WTC bombing, right? So if we know that the ADF is getting money from Sudan and is buddies with Osama (who hates Saddam) why are we going after Saddam?
The IIS's headquarters were only loosely guarded by US special forces yesterday. The Telegraph entered the building through one of the many holes left by devastating bombing.
Well this explains why this story hasn't appeared in any other papers - they kept this news for themselves and didn't bother to get it verified or share it with any US or British intelligence, I guess.

silera

04-18-2003, 06:01 AM

From what I understood of the article, a reporter for this paper snuck into a building and found a letter written to an Iraqi intelligence official from a terrorist group offering to send people to train in a Baghdad jihad center that may or may not exist.

The other articles from this news paper include:

Wild goose chase for bin Laden as second al-Qa'eda leader is arrested

Bush: birdbrain or ideal leader in times of war?

How bin Laden outsmarted the US in Tora Bora

Ceasefire brings hope for the children turned into killers and sex slaves by Uganda's rebels

Africa is a jungle of deceit

The article did not mention whether or not the correspondence was turned over to authorities. The only quotes were from a letter sent to Iraq's Intelligence guy.

Honestly, I'd need for this to be corraborated before believing it. I'm not discrediting it completely, the Star reported a lot of facts about the OJ Simpson case. It just seems like there are a lot of missing pieces of this story.

<center>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silera/files/Silera/sig4.gif

I can't stand myself either.</center>

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 06:10 AM

Yerrrr OUT!

http://www.umpire.org/gifs/Dan5.jpg

TooCute

04-18-2003, 06:18 AM

Here's another great article from this paper:

<a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/13/wrus13.xml">Revealed: Russia spied on Blair for Saddam </a>

The CIA should hire these guys.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

Bergalad

04-18-2003, 06:40 AM

Seriously, who's the president of your guy's club? I mentioned the article as a possible connection. Debunk it if you like, I don't care. This stuff could be true, it could be false, just like every other report from the press. I only presented the information, so no need to pillory me. Let's wait and see what they find over there, then your club can come up with a joint official statement.

TooCute

04-18-2003, 06:53 AM

Seriously, who's the president of your guy's club? I mentioned the article as a possible connection. Debunk it if you like, I don't care. This stuff could be true, it could be false, just like every other report from the press. I'm not only the president, I'm also a member.
You presented it in response to Silera's request for proof of Iraq's link to terror (an irrelevant point at best, since we all agree he supports terrorists). See below.
I only presented the information, so no need to pillory me.
We didn't. We responded to the article. Don't take everytihng personally.
Let's wait and see what they find over there, then your club can come up with a joint official statement.Yes, we've been waiting to see. You are the one who is creating threads titled "Iraq's link to terror proven again".

Can't link it, but the London Telegraph has an article outlining Saddam's support of the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan guerrilla group with ties to other anti-western Islamist organizations.
This thread is titled "Iraq's Link to Terror Proven Again." In support of this, you referred to Abu Abbas's capture as reinforcement of Iraq's link to terror.
... If you could provide the link to that article you referred to, which seems to address what I have yet to be convinced of, I would read it and form my opinion on it.
Here is the page from the London Telegraph from yesterday Visit this Website about that article.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-18-03 @ 2:04 PM

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 07:29 AM

Seriously, who's the president of your guy's club? I mentioned the article as a possible connection. Debunk it if you like, I don't care. This stuff could be true, it could be false, just like every other report from the press. I only presented the information, so no need to pillory me. Let's wait and see what they find over there, then your club can come up with a joint official statement

Name of This Thread (by Bergalad) : Iraq's Link to Terror Proven Again. Who's waiting and who's jumping the gun?

TheMojoPin

04-18-2003, 07:38 AM

America's link to SKANK proven again! SKANK ON.

<img src=http://www.newwavecity.com/3-6-99-sf.gif>

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 4-18-03 @ 11:39 AM

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 07:48 AM

Did someone say Skank?

http://www.christinaaguilera.com/gallery/009_latingrammy/latingrammy00_1.jpg

Bergalad

04-18-2003, 09:03 AM

Name of This Thread (by Bergalad) : Iraq's Link to Terror Proven Again. Who's waiting and who's jumping the gun?

Read the first post clubmaster. The thread title refers to the capture of Abbas, not all the ADF stuff that came later. At least my thread titles tell you what they are about... ah-hem.

FiveB247

04-18-2003, 09:25 AM

Read the first post clubmaster. The thread title refers to the capture of Abbas, not all the ADF stuff that came later. At least my thread titles tell you what they are about... ah-hem.

Actually, Neither of the 2 stories you mentioned prove any Iraqi ties to terrorism. So your thread title is untrue and false advertising.

I prefer to not mention specifically what my threads are about (most of the time anyways), it makes everyone else more likely to read them. Curiousity and the unknown is appetizing to all. :)

GaryWyze

04-18-2003, 09:33 AM

Curiousity and the unknown is appetizing to all.

He who goes to sleep with itchy ass, wakes up with smelly fingers.

<center>http://czm.racknine.net/images/krustysig.jpg

Much thanks to CZM for the killer sig

>>Fuck YERDADDY, Free Our POWs<<

high fly

04-19-2003, 11:52 AM

Oh so he's one of Osama's buddies. We know how much Osama likes Saddam

Further reading on Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and mideast terrorism shows that even though Bin Laden doesn't/didn't like Saddam, that alone would not prevent him from working with him to accomplish his goals.
Al Qaida works with many groups with differing ideologies. It has worked with both Sunni and Shia terrorist groups.
Indeed, on page 150 of Inside Al Qaida: Global Network of Terror by Rohan Gunaratna one will find that twice Al Qaida approached Iraqi intelligence, in Turkey and Egypt. I don't know the result of those meetings, but it at least shows that Bin Laden was not opposed to any contact with Iraq.
According to The Threatening Storm by Pollack [sorry, no first name], on pg.156 it says that following the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, one of the attackers, Abdul Rahman Yasin fled to Baghdad. It also says that Iraq supports Hamas.
Inside Al Qaida says that Al Qaida supports Hamas, and you'll find elsewhere that Iran and Syria do too.
Another book worth looking into is The High Cost Of peace by Yossef Bodansky, where it says that "In June [1990] Barzan al-Tikriti, Saddam Hussein's half brother and Iraq's ambassador to Switzerland, was designated the Iraqi senior commander of terrorist networks in the west. He personally negotiated with Cyrus Naseri, an Iranian intelligence official serving as Hashemi-Rafsanjani's special representative, the modalities for coordinating terrorist operations in Europe".

" and they ask me why I drink"

TheMojoPin

04-19-2003, 01:04 PM

Al Qaida works with many groups with differing ideologies. It has worked with both Sunni and Shia terrorist groups.

Both Muslim extremist groups. The main gripe these groups have with Saddam is that he's NOT ideological, and extremist and is very secular.

I've read "Inside Al Qaida". Excellent book...good heads up, high fly.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << FREE YERDADDY! >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

high fly

04-19-2003, 01:11 PM

Yeah, the thing with Al Qaida is that it wants to replace ALL of the governments in the mideast and eventually the world with Islamic governments, but to reach it's short term goals of kicking the US out of the region, it will work with anyone.

" and they ask me why I drink"

FiveB247

04-19-2003, 01:44 PM

There is a difference between directly supporting a terrorist group or action (funding, sponsoring, harboring, etc) compared to just simply both hating the same enemy and enjoying the misfortune or attacks that common enemy receives. Groups like Al Quada, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc... the more moderate Arabs and Muslims mostly fit into the ladder of the 2 notions of 'support'. Not the direct supporters most want to make them out to be.

high fly

04-22-2003, 04:17 PM

Iraq has funded, sponsored, harbored, encouraged, trained and committed acts of terror. Syria and Iran have done more than Iraq.

" and they ask me why I drink"

A.J.

04-23-2003, 04:00 AM

I said watch out for Iran:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/international/worldspecial/23IRAN.html?ex=1051675200&en=6b52d3c2bcd59f24&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

http://www.internerd.com/frink.retired/frinkv.2/stuff/littlepc.gif

TheMojoPin

04-23-2003, 07:19 AM

Sounds like somebody needs another good gassin'.

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD. >> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

FiveB247

04-23-2003, 07:22 AM

Let's get Moe filled with Bacon and send him over....haha

Bergalad

04-26-2003, 04:04 PM

This just in...http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&ncid=514&e=3&u=/ap/20030426/ap_on_re_mi_ea/britain_iraq_al_qaida
We'll see if this pans out to be anything with Al Qaida. Take a look at this bombshell though:
France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials...One document, dated Sept. 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush. Wow.

TooCute

04-26-2003, 05:43 PM

Fantastic, ANOTHER article from the Telegraph - like I said earlier, the US needs to hire these guys. Please refer to prior comments I've made about this source - especially since not a single "sensational" story that they've "broken" about "links" between Iraq and "terrorists organizations" has thus far even been acknowledged by the US.

Oy, this post reads like Zagats.

Here is the original article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/27/ixportaltop.html[ Beware, however. I don't think the Telegraph writers have figured out the difference between the past and the present tense.
Here is also another version of the story as reported by the Toronto Star (they discovered this paper, too): http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=e32bae6091b40090&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051359175040&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154

Note that the CIA apparently "scoured" this building but missed this document as well as the one mentioned in the earlier article linked in this thread.

<img src=http://thereisnogod.faithweb.com/images/toocute2.gif>
!! 2% !!

This message was edited by TooCute on 4-26-03 @ 9:59 PM

afterganger

04-27-2003, 06:01 AM

As much as I dobelieve there is a link, I don't plan on getting all excited over the Toronto Star and Telegraph intelligence services just yet.

Bergalad

04-27-2003, 10:33 AM

However dubious the Telegraph might seem to you Too Cute, their report is being trumpeted by both Fox and CNN. What I found more interesting in the whole thing was the story of the French passing info to Iraq about our government and officials. THAT information was from the Sunday Times, not the Telegraph, but I am sure you consider them a rag as well.

Death Metal Moe

04-27-2003, 11:06 AM

Again and again and again and again and again......I'm bored of this already.

By the time we establish a new Iraqi government and leave we're gonna have so much shit to prove the need of this war that anti-war protestors are gonna have to go into witness relocation to be take seriously by anyone ever again on the face of the Earth.

Keep hope alive that leaving Saddam in power was the right choice though all you smart people. It makes me laugh.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>

<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</marquee>


666%

FiveB247

04-27-2003, 11:15 AM

Keep hope alive that leaving Saddam in power was the right choice though all you smart people. It makes me laugh.

You logic is far from reasonable or serious; it's closer to a weak linked chain of half-assed and simplistic connections.

Get this through your think head...No one ever said Removing Saddam wasn't a good thing. Most protesters and others in dissent felt and believed that the costs of war out weighed it's actual accomplishment.

Bergalad

04-27-2003, 11:24 AM

You logic is far from reasonable or serious: it's closer to a weak linked chain of half-assed and simplistic connections.

Get this through your think head...
Thought I would bring your words to me in another thread over here for you Five, just so you can eat them.
Must you lash out against those you disagree with? Just like our nation and culture, you act like aggression and ill-will towards others is justified somehow. Grow up.

Death Metal Moe

04-27-2003, 11:36 AM

Thanks Bergalad, but if I gave 2 shits what this guy thought about my opinion I'd have looked up some of his retarded statements myself.

The people on the side of right did what they had to, and all the poeple who who wanted to play even more games with failed diplomacy while leaving Saddam in power are all just grabbing at straws, hoping to find an argument or cause that will hold water.

Hey! Remember that raided museum? How about anit-American protests in Iraq? There has to be SOME leg for your cause to stand on.

Get back to me when you have one. I'll be in the real world.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>

<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</marquee>


666%

Death Metal Moe

04-27-2003, 11:39 AM

This is also why I've decided to boycott the political forum.

Why do I want to hear the opinions of lefties who were proven wrong? I have no want or need to argue points with them.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>

<marquee behavior=alternate scrolldelay=30>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!!!</marquee>


666%

Bergalad

04-27-2003, 11:43 AM

I understand Moe, but remember, where else can you hear gems like those who support removing Saddam are Anti-Peace? After I got over being insulted. that kept me laughing for hours!

HBox

04-27-2003, 12:24 PM

You sure post a lot for someone who has "boycotted" this forum.

EDIT:Your whole post is indicative of how you comletely ignore what people are posting. Nobody said that the looting of the museums was a reason we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. They were saying that we could have planned for it, that our troops could have done more to stop it. For how much you supposedly "care" about the liberation of Iraq and it people, you sure turn a blind eye to when they die in looting and rioting.

But then again, why argue that when you can make up in your own mind what other people are saying. It's a lot easier to win an argument that way.

I don't expect a reply. You are, of course, "boycotting" this forum.

This message was edited by HBox on 4-27-03 @ 4:34 PM