See other Miscellaneous Articles
Title: LP owner allows poster to plant 1-pixel gifs in order to track LP users
Source:
Libertypost
URL Source: http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/ ... .cgi?ArtNum=179683&Disp=16#C16
Published: Mar 9, 2007
Author: add925
Post Date: 2007-03-09 14:17:36 by F.A. Hayek Fan
Keywords: None
Views: 9034
Comments: 257
FYI....very interesting indeed.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-127) not displayed.
.
.
.
#128. To: scrapper2, ALL (#126)
Food for thought ... According to http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/default.asp, "2002 Iraqi Intelligence Correspondence concerning the presence of al-Qaida Members in Iraq. Correspondence between IRS members on a suspicion, later confirmed, of the presence of an Al-Qaeda terrorist group. A translation of the document shows that the Al Qaeda terrorist that Saddam Hussein’s government had identified was none other than Abu Mus’ab al Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. ... Although the document goes on to outline activities of the group, there is no indication that the Iraqi government took any steps to stop Al Qaeda from operating within Iraq, in clear defiance of international law." According to http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1598259/posts "In regards to the Iraqi intelligence documents that discussed Al Zarqawi presence in Iraq, as posted on the Foreign Miliarty Services Office (FMSO) website (document ISGZ-2004-019920 ) it appears that the some in the Iraqi intelligence apparatus provided the accurate information about Zarqawi presence in Iraq with attached pictures of him, but when the information reached the Director or a Director of the Iraqi intelligence he dismissed it as not accurate." Is that not turning a blind eye to al-Qaeda's presence? Perhaps you can explain why there's nothing to really indicate Iraq made an effort to capture al-Zarqawi, despite being told of his presence by the US and Jordan (which, by the way, wished to extradite him to face charges of terrorism). Perhaps the authors of this report can explain a CIA report that indicated that Iraqi regime security forces detained several of al-Zarqawi's group in Baghdad before the war and released at least one of them per the orders from Saddam (see http://www.veteransforpeace.org/CIA_review_finds_100504.htm and http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12328). That's turning a blind eye. And according to the later article, the WP spoke to a Jordanian security official who "added that documents recovered after its overthrow in 2003 show that Iraqi agents did detain some Zarqawi operatives but released them after questioning. Furthermore, the Iraqis warned the Zarqawi operatives that the Jordanians knew where they were, he said." That's not just turning a blind eye ... that's support. Perhaps you should explain documents that indicate there were al-Qaeda training camps in Iraq ... not just in northern Iraq but near Baghdad. Perhaps you should explain reports like this: http://cgi.warblogging.com/warfarking/mirror/1050418238.html "Guerrilla fighters seen as threat to allied forces, By Bill Gertz, THE WASHINGTON TIMES ... snip ... Conventional military conflict in Iraq is nearly over, but thousands of foreign fighters and supporters of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein remain in the country and pose a danger to U.S. and allied forces, U.S. officials said yesterday. The allies have discovered that Iraq was training or harboring guerrillas from North Africa and throughout the Middle East. Army Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, said the foreign guerrillas are "still threats" even though organized fighting by the Iraqi military has all but stopped. ... snip ... Intelligence reports also indicate that al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists remain in Iraq and are a threat to coalition forces. More than 100 al Qaeda terrorists are believed to have been in Iraq before the start of the war, the official said. How about you explain reports like these: ************ http://www.lauramansfield.com/j/031706_iraq.asp "March 17, 2006: Declassified documents from Iraq show 3,000 Saudi and Iraqi mujihideen depart Iraq in Nov 2001 to fight US in Afghanistan The newly declassified documents shed more and more light on the evolution of the violent insurgency in Iraq, and show that Saddam Hussein’s government was aware not just of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorist Abu Mus’ab Al Zarqawi, but also was aware that the Anbar province in Iraq was being used as a launch point for organized groups of jihadis headed to fight the United States in Afghanistan. The document, addressed to the Security Board, Fedayeen Saddam at the office of the Presidency in Iraq, reports what it describes as a “rumor”, says: there is a group of Iraqi and Saudi Arabians numbering around 3,000 who have gone in an unofficial capacity to Afghanistan and have joined the mujahidin to fight with and aid them in defeating the American Zionist Imperialist attack This clearly indicates that Iraq was being used as a transit point or launch point for Saudi Arabian jihadis, as well as Iraqis, who wanted to go join the forces of Osama Bin Laden in Iraq in November 2001, nearly a year and a half before the US and Coalition forces commenced military action against Saddam Hussein’s regime. The sheer volume of “mujahideen” that reportedly departed from the Anbar province, combined with the presence of Zarqawi in Iraq, indicates the presence of an organized Al Qaeda infrastructure within Iraq just a few months after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. ************** http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/024eyieu.asp Camp Saddam: What we've learned about Iraq's terrorist training camps. by Stephen F. Hayes 04/03/2006, Volume 011, Issue 27 ... snip ... "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there," said Murtha. "None. There was no connection with al Qaeda, there was no connection with, with terrorism in Iraq itself." This is now the conventional wisdom on Iraq and terrorism. It is wrong. A new study from the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, paints quite a different picture. According to captured documents cited in the study and first reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD in January, the former Iraqi regime was training non-Iraqi Arabs in terrorist techniques. "Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."" Some of this training came under the auspices of the Iraqi Intelligence Service's "Division 27," which, according to the study, "supplied the Fedayeen Saddam with silencers, equipment for booby-trapping vehicles, [and] special training on the use of certain explosive timers. The only apparent use for all of this Division 27 equipment was to conduct commando or terrorist operations." ************** http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/011/990ieqmb.asp Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection: And other revelations from the Iraqi regime files. by Stephen F. Hayes 03/27/2006, Volume 011, Issue 26 SADDAM HUSSEIN'S REGIME PROVIDED FINANCIAL support to Abu Sayyaf, the al Qaeda-linked jihadist group founded by Osama bin Laden's brother-in-law in the Philippines in the late 1990s, according to documents captured in postwar Iraq. An eight-page fax dated June 6, 2001, and sent from the Iraqi ambassador in Manila to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Baghdad, provides an update on Abu Sayyaf kidnappings and indicates that the Iraqi regime was providing the group with money to purchase weapons. The Iraqi regime suspended its support--temporarily, it seems--after high-profile kidnappings, including of Americans, focused international attention on the terrorist group. ... snip ... One Iraqi memo, from the "Republican Presidency, Intelligence Apparatus" to someone identified only as D4/4, makes the case for supporting the work of the Qaddafi Charity Establishment to help Abu Sayyaf. The memo is dated March 18, 2001. "1. There are connections between the Qaddafi Charity Establishment and the Abu Sayyaf group in the Philippines; meanwhile, this establishment is providing material support to them. The short response, two days later: "Mr. Dept. 3: ... snip ... ON MARCH 26, 2003, as war raged in Iraq, the State Department's Matthew Daley testified before Congress. Daley, the deputy assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, told a subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee that he was worried about Abu Sayyaf. "We're concerned that they have what I would call operational links to Iraqi intelligence services. And they're a danger, they're an enemy of the Philippines, they're an enemy of the United States, and we want very much to help the government in Manila deal with this challenge," Daley told the panel. Responding to a question, Daley elaborated. "There is good reason to believe that a member of the Abu Sayyaf Group who has been involved in terrorist activities was in direct contact with an IIS officer in the Iraqi Embassy in Manila. This individual was subsequently expelled from the Philippines for engaging in activities that were incompatible with his diplomatic status." This individual was Hisham Hussein, the second secretary of the Iraqi Embassy in Manila. And Daley was right to be concerned. ... snip ... Interestingly, an Abu Sayyaf leader named Hamsiraji Sali at least twice publicly boasted that his group received funding from Iraq. For instance, on March 2, 2003, he told the Philippine Daily Inquirer that the Iraqi regime had provided the terrorist group with 1million pesos--about $20,000--each year since 2000. ... snip ... A new and highly illuminating article in Foreign Affairs draws on hundreds of Iraqi documents to provide a look at the Iraq war from the Iraqi perspective. The picture that emerges is that of an Iraqi regime built on a foundation of paranoia and lies and eager to attack its perceived enemies, internal and external. This paragraph is notable: "The Saddam Fedayeen also took part in the regime's domestic terrorism operations and planned for attacks throughout Europe and the Middle East. In a document dated May 1999, Saddam's older son, Uday, ordered preparations for "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas [Kurdistan]." Preparations for "Blessed July," a regime-directed wave of "martyrdom" operations against targets in the West, were well under way at the time of the coalition invasion." Think about that last sentence. *************** http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618519/posts 2003 Document: Saddam Ordered To Treat The Arab Feedayeen Terrorists The Same As Iraqi Soldiers Posted on 04/20/2006 2:00:22 PM PDT by jveritas Document ISGQ-2004-00060580 is a memo that contains a direct order form Saddam Hussein in the middle of the war asking to treat the Arab Feedayeen i.e. the non Iraqi Foreign Arab Terrorists as equal as the Iraqi soldier in salary and benefits and not just any soldier but like those in the Special Forces. These are the same Arab terrorists who stayed in Iraq after the removal of the regime and caused those horrible attacks mostly on innocent civilians. This document is a follow on another document where the Iraqi were training Foreign Arab terrorist since the year 2000 (please see those two translations: Document: Iraqi Intelligence To Train Arab Feedayeen Terrorists In the Year 2000 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1617431/posts Document: Saddam Regime Training and Using Foreign Arab Terrorists As Suicide Bombers. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600367/posts ). The extremely strong connection between Saddam and Terrorism is something that we need to tell the whole world about it, because for this reason alone we would have all the right to remove this Terrorist Regime after the 9/11, we just cannot afford to live with it. ************** http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3378 Case Closed From the November 24, 2003 issue: The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. by Stephen F. Hayes ... snip ... 25. Investigation into the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000 by al Qaeda revealed no specific Iraqi connections but according to the CIA, "fragmentary evidence points to possible Iraqi involvement." 26. During a custodial interview, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi [a senior al Qaeda operative] said he was told by an al Qaeda associate that he was tasked to travel to Iraq (1998) to establish a relationship with Iraqi intelligence to obtain poisons and gases training. After the USS Cole bombing in 2000, two al Qaeda operatives were sent to Iraq for CBW-related [Chemical and Biological Weapons] training beginning in Dec 2000. Iraqi intelligence was "encouraged" after the embassy and USS Cole bombings to provide this training. ... snip ... 27. According to sensitive CIA reporting, . . . the Saudi National Guard went on a kingdom-wide state of alert in late Dec 2000 after learning Saddam agreed to assist al Qaeda in attacking U.S./U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia. ... snip ... "The Czech counterintelligence service reported that the Sept. 11 hijacker [Mohamed] Atta met with the former Iraqi intelligence chief in Prague, [Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir] al Ani, on several occasions. During one of these meetings, al Ani ordered the IIS finance officer to issue Atta funds from IIS financial holdings in the Prague office." And the commentary: "CIA can confirm two Atta visits to Prague--in Dec. 1994 and in June 2000; data surrounding the other two--on 26 Oct 1999 and 9 April 2001--is complicated and sometimes contradictory and CIA and FBI cannot confirm Atta met with the IIS. Czech Interior Minister Stanislav Gross continues to stand by his information." It's not just Gross who stands by the information. Five high-ranking members of the Czech government have publicly confirmed meetings between Atta and al Ani. The meeting that has gotten the most press attention--April 9, 2001--is also the most widely disputed. Even some of the most hawkish Bush administration officials are privately skeptical that Atta met al Ani on that occasion. They believe that reports of the alleged meeting, said to have taken place in public, outside the headquarters of the U.S.-financed Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, suggest a level of sloppiness that doesn't fit the pattern of previous high-level Iraq-al Qaeda contacts. Whether or not that specific meeting occurred, the report by Czech counterintelligence that al Ani ordered the Iraqi Intelligence Service officer to provide IIS funds to Atta might help explain the lead hijacker's determination to reach Prague, despite significant obstacles, in the spring of 2000. (Note that the report stops short of confirming that the funds were transferred. It claims only that the IIS officer requested the transfer.) Recall that Atta flew to Prague from Germany on May 30, 2000, but was denied entry because he did not have a valid visa. Rather than simply return to Germany and fly directly to the United States, his ultimate destination, Atta took pains to get to Prague. After he was refused entry the first time, he traveled back to Germany, obtained the proper paperwork, and caught a bus back to Prague. He left for the United States the day after arriving in Prague for the second time. ... snip ... 31. An Oct. 2002 . . . report said al Qaeda and Iraq reached a secret agreement whereby Iraq would provide safe haven to al Qaeda members and provide them with money and weapons. The agreement reportedly prompted a large number of al Qaeda members to head to Iraq. The report also said that al Qaeda members involved in a fraudulent passport network for al Qaeda had been directed to procure 90 Iraqi and Syrian passports for al Qaeda personnel. The analysis that accompanies that report indicates that the report fits the pattern of Iraq-al Qaeda collaboration: "References to procurement of false passports from Iraq and offers of safe haven previously have surfaced in CIA source reporting considered reliable. Intelligence reports to date have maintained that Iraqi support for al Qaeda usually involved providing training, obtaining passports, and offers of refuge. This report adds to that list by including weapons and money. This assistance would make sense in the aftermath of 9-11." Colin Powell, in his February 5, 2003, presentation to the U.N. Security Council, revealed the activities of Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Reporting in the memo expands on Powell's case and might help explain some of the resistance the U.S. military is currently facing in Iraq. 37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere. 38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions. The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance." ... snip ... The memo contains only one paragraph on Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, the Iraqi facilitator who escorted two September 11 hijackers through customs in Kuala Lumpur. U.S. intelligence agencies have extensive reporting on his activities before and after the September 11 hijacking. That they would include only this brief overview suggests the 16-page memo, extensive as it is, just skims the surface of the reporting on Iraq-al Qaeda connections. Other intelligence reports indicate that Shakir whisked not one but two September 11 hijackers--Khalid al Midhar and Nawaq al Hamzi--through the passport and customs process upon their arrival in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Shakir then traveled with the hijackers to the Kuala Lumpur Hotel where they met with Ramzi bin al Shibh, one of the masterminds of the September 11 plot. The meeting lasted three days. Shakir returned to work on January 9 and January 10, and never again. Shakir got his airport job through a contact at the Iraqi Embassy. (Iraq routinely used its embassies as staging grounds for its intelligence operations; in some cases, more than half of the alleged "diplomats" were intelligence operatives.) The Iraqi embassy, not his employer, controlled Shakir's schedule. He was detained in Qatar on September 17, 2001. Authorities found in his possession contact information for terrorists involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1998 embassy bombings, the 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and the September 11 hijackings. The CIA had previous reporting that Shakir had received a phone call from the safe house where the 1993 World Trade Center attacks had been plotted. The Qataris released Shakir shortly after his arrest. On October 21, 2001, he flew to Amman, Jordan, where he was to change planes to a flight to Baghdad. He didn't make that flight. Shakir was detained in Jordan for three months, where the CIA interrogated him. His interrogators concluded that Shakir had received extensive training in counter-interrogation techniques. Not long after he was detained, according to an official familiar with the intelligence, the Iraqi regime began to "pressure" Jordanian intelligence to release him. At the same time, Amnesty International complained that Shakir was being held without charge. The Jordanians released him on January 28, 2002, at which point he is believed to have fled back to Iraq. Was Shakir an Iraqi agent? Does he provide a connection between Saddam Hussein and September 11? We don't know. We may someday find out. But there can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to plot against Americans. *******************
Whooping it up with the black ops boys ... Whooping it up with the black ops boys ... Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is. ~George W. Bush Posts someone who thinks Doug Rokke is an expert in DU. Someone who has bozo'd herself rather than see both sides of a debate.
Strawman. Is that all you have? Unbelievable. Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link. Then when I ask for you of any proof of that Saddam-Zarqawi link, you call it a "strawman." Tell me all you have about Saddam actually being connected with Zarqawi. Then tell me why you claim to know more than the CIA and the US Congress.
Zarqawi was not killed for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous. Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden, if the purpose of invasions is to kill or capture people who are "continuing to plot and fund terrorist attacks."
I didn't say that, of course, which demonstrates how desperate you've become in this debate. So BAC wants to make a Saddam-Zarqawi connection, then changes the subject and says that Saddam's relationship with Zarqawi was unimportant. But you're desperate. Now the new botshill talking point is there were alleged terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was in power. But now there are there more terrorists inside Iraq now than there were in 2002.
I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot. So that was a strawman. Is that all you have?
Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous. And perhaps it shows how much help he must have had amongst the Iraqis of the insurgency. Saddam's insurgency. Because those are the folks he must have been hiding amongst. Perhaps dead. You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link? Well ............?
You like to use strawmen instead of valid logic as a debating technique. Established fact. Even the Senate Intelligence Committee recognized this. Who can say how many terrorists there might have been in Iraq now had we not invaded. Certainly the signs are there that Iraq was adopting terrorism as a tactic. During the invasion they found factories for making suicide bombs and camps where terrorists had obviously been trained. They found records showing that Saddam's regime had given safe haven to terrorists who had previously attacked the US (such as one of the 1993 WTC bombers). And al-Zarqawi was definitely expanding operations inside Iraq. They cited a 2002 CIA document saying: "The CIA summarized its overall views of possible Iraqi complicity regarding al-Zarqawi's presence and activities in Iraq as follows: "The presence of al-Qa'ida militants on Iraqi soil poses many questions. We are uncertain to what extent Baghdad is actively complicit in this use of its territory by al-Qa'ida operatives for safehaven and transit. Given the pervasive presence of Iraq's security apparatus, it would be difficult for al-Qa'ida operatives to maintain an active, long-term presence in Iraq without alerting the authorities or without at least their acquiescence." Then, the SCI wrote "The Committee concluded in 2004 that the CIA reasonably assessed that al-Qa'ida or associated operatives were present in 2002 in Baghdad, and in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq. The Committee noted that the CIA approached the issue of safehaven by describing the presence of al-Qa'ida and individuals associated with Ansar al-Islam - mainly the al-Zarqawi network - and explaining why the Iraqi regime likely knew of their presence in Baghdad and Kurdish areas." Now it is true that the report then states: "A postwar CIA assessment on al-Zarqawi notes that both former regime documents and former regime officials show that the IIS did respond to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley. In the spring of 2002, the IIS formed a "special committee" to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable to locate and capture him. The CIA, the DIA and FBI all reported that no evidence suggests that al-Zarqawi had been warned by a former Iraqi regime element that he had been located in Baghdad by the IIS. The CIA assessed that Zarqawi left Baghdad in the late November 2002." And notes that "During a postwar debriefing with the FBI, a high-ranking Iraqi official stated that in October 2002, the IIS received a request from a foreign government service to locate five individuals who were also suspected of involvement in the Foley murder. According to the official, the IIS Headquarters passed down a written order to locate and arrest these individuals. In early 2003, the IIS successfully arrested one of the individuals, Abu Yasim Sayyem." But after saying documents confirm the above, it says this: "Although Sayyem denied any affiliation with al-Qa'ida or Zarqawi, the IIS officer believed the evidence of criminal activity provided by the foreign intelligence service against Sayyem was compelling. For this reason, the IIS officer was shocked when the Director of his division ordered Sayyem to be released. According to the Iraqi official, the Director of his division told him that Saddam Hussein ordered Sayyem's release." And then after noting that Sayyem claimed he wasn't al-Qa'ida or had affilition with Zarqawi, the report goes on to say this about the other 4 that were sought along with him: "The Iraqi official claimed that he could not recall the names of the four associates of Sayyem sought by the foreing intelligence service. The Iraqi official claimed that the "IIS suspected the four suspects were hiding in Northern Iraq and may have had connections to Zarqawi." Hard to believe Sayyem's denial. Then it states that: "According to the CIA, a former IIS officer believed that Saddam released Sayyem because he "would participate in striking U.S. forces when they entered Iraq." I don't know about you or the SIC, but that sounds to me like Saddam KNOWINGLY allowing someone from al-Qaeda and with an association with al-Zarqawi to remain in Iraq BEFORE the invasion. That sounds like cooperation. That sounds like a direct contradiction to the next statement in the report .. namely that: "In 2005, the CIA assesssed that prior to the war, "the regime did not have a relationship, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates." So, let's take a close look at the members of this committee Pat Roberts, Chairman Not a very inspiring group or one above playing political games. There are some mighty liberal and far left members in that list. There are a bunch who clearly ignored the facts during the impeachment of Clinton ... highly partisan in their behavior. There is one who may have been blackmailed during the Clinton impeachment. The Vice Chairman suggested in a memo written before the 9/11 Commission that his party should use the investigations of 9/11 to further their political interests. Let's face it ... it is hard to have a whole lot of faith in a report with the section on post war discovery of chemical munitions doesn't even mention the binary sarin shell that was used as an IED. Or a report that doesn't even discuss the possibility of munitions being moved to Syria before the war. Given the implications of both. It's hard to have faith in a document that doesn't even mention the Jordan chemical bomb plot and what they learned from the admissions of those terrorists. One admission being that they met al-Zarqawi IN BAGHDAD. And that occurred before the invasion. And obviously, the terrorists were able to move around rather freely in Iraq. It's hard to have faith in a report that tells us there was no Atta/al-Ani connection yet blacks out 4 large paragraphs in the portions of the report on that connection (see page 96, 97, 98 and pages 100-101). And while the report says the evidence shows that Atta is unlikely to have been in Prague for a April 9th meeting, it's evidence for this is that Atta checked out of a hotel in Virginia Beach on April 4th, cashed a check in the area on April 4th and rented an apartment on April 11th and his cell phone was in use between April 6 and April 11th in the US. Well, only the later would suggest that and even then, they don't know who used the phone. The hijackers were sharing many other things. And curiously, there is no mention in the report of al-Ani's day calendar containing an entry for a meeting with a "hamburg student", which is what Atta listed as his occupation on his travel documents. And there is no mention of Atta possibly having an anthrax infection, which might have bearing. And the exact same reasons given for Atta not being in Prague apply to his presence in the US at that time. At least there was a witness who says he saw Atta in Prague. There wasn't even a witness to his presence in the US during that time. And one more point, AGAviator. How many terrorists were in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, and before 9/11? Just as many as are claimed to now be in Iraq. You see?
You want to play the strawman game too?
Please answer the question.
Weakened by war, they most certainly would have if they were sensible, but of course they weren't.
God is always good! Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi "Strawman. Is that all you have?" Unbelievable. Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link. I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot. So that was a strawman. Is that all you have? You certainly have been making noises like Saddam and Zarqawi had some kind of connection. But if all you have is Zarqawi knew some people in Iraq, you can say the same thing about him knowing people in Saudia Arabia, Jordan, Yeman, Algeria, and Egypt. So you haven't explained to us why it is so important to invade Iraq and take 3 years to capture Zarqawi, when Saddam himself wanted to capture Zarqawi, but not invade Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Yemen, Algeria, and Egypt. In other words, if you want to claim you are not making a case for a Saddam-Zarqawi link, then you have nothing for invading Iraq. Nada. Zip. Zilch. And what's more, then Zarqawi has become your straw man. I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls. Now let's see those WMD's. I'm betting you won't be able to supply them.
Please answer the question.
He was difficult to capture by a foreign army who does not know the culture and the language and makes enemies by its actions. Says who, you and your arm? After more than a trillion dollars and 5 1/2 years, all you can come up with is "perhaps?" "Is that all you have?"
Here's the original quote. BEFORE we invaded Iraq, al-Zarqawi, operating out of Iraq, was plotting attacks against US allies and Americans. One such plot hoped to kill every American in the US embassy in Amman. What would you have done about him and his associates, given that Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him?" (1) Zarqawi was not "operating out of Iraq" that was under Saddam's control any more than he was operating out of Jordan, Yemen, or any other country where he had followers. (2) Except for Afghanistan, the US had not invaded any other country Zarqawi has affiliates in, so Beachooser's claim he was not alleging a Saddam connection with Zarqawi reeks of intellectual dishonesty. (3) Saddam had an arrest warrant out for Zarqawi, so the claim that "Saddam was showing no willingness to stop him" is a bald-faced lie. (4) You can make the same statements about the Zarqawi "operating out of Iraq" and the US "showing no willingness to stop him" for the 3+ years since April 2003 to the middle of last year that American forces did not capture or neutralize Zarqawi. (5) Even the US military admits that most of the Iraqi insurgents are local, not foreigners, so the insinuation that conditions in Iraq are caused by international jihadists is also intellectually dishonest.
Zarqawi was not killed [by the Americans] for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous. Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous. What it actually shows is that Zarqawi felt safer in an Iraq under American occupation than he felt in Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, or Iran. What's more, during those 3 years his group killed thousands of people and carried out hundreds of attacks. Now compare that with many people did Zarqawi's groups kill under Saddam.
Hey shit for brains. There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002. Thanks to Bush and his ever-dwindling cadre of shillbot supporters like you. The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were. And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq. What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" should be posed to your butt-buddies in the White House and not to people on this site. Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." That is, the Bush White House let Zarqawi alone so it would have an easier time selling the war in Iraq. Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article: NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself--but never pulled the trigger. In June 2002...[t]he Pentagon...drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.... Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe. The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq. "People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.... The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it. Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam. The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late--Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one. I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls. Now let's see those WMD's. I'm betting you won't be able to supply them. Interpol media release 28 December 2005 Arabic Español Français Interpol issues red notice for Al Qaeda’s Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi Algeria requests notice in connection with diplomats’ murder LYON, France – Interpol has issued an international wanted persons notice for Ahmad Fadil Nazal Al-Khalayleh (alias Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi), one of the world’s most notorious terrorist suspects, wanted by police in several countries for a series of attacks on behalf of Al Qaeda. The Red Notice was issued at the request of Algeria, through the Interpol National Central Bureau, which is seeking Al-Zarqawi’s arrest in connection with the kidnapping and murder of two Algerian diplomats in Iraq in July 2005. Al-Zarqawi is also wanted by authorities in Germany, in Iraq in connection with a series of terrorist offences, and in Jordan where he has claimed responsibility for attacks and bombings, including the triple bombs in Amman in November that killed more than 50 people. Interpol Red Notices are distributed to all of Interpol’s 184 member countries using the organization’s global police communications system. They serve to communicate to the world’s police that a suspect is wanted by a member country and request that the suspect be placed under provisional arrest pending extradition. Earlier in December, Interpol published the first Interpol-United Nations Security Council Special Notices for four individuals, including Al-Zarqawi, who are the targets of UN sanctions against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Those notices are aimed at helping a United Nations Security Council committee to carry out its mandate regarding the freezing of assets, travel bans and arms embargos aimed at groups and individuals associated with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. 'We congratulate Algeria for being the first country to take the important step of requesting an Interpol Red Notice against Al-Zarqawi,' said Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble. 'This will decrease the likelihood that such a notorious suspect will be able to evade detection.' http://www.interpol.int/Public/ICPO/PressReleases/PR2005/PR200551.asp
Saddam allowed terrorists safe haven in his country (like the 1993 WTC bomber). Saddam supplied terrorists with money (for example, the al-Qaeda in the Phillipines and the palestinians). Saddam freed suspected associates of al-Zarqawi even after they were captured and even though those who captured them thought them guilty of the crime they were suspected of having committed. Saddam applauded the 911 hijackers. Saddam continued contacts with al-Qaeda after 9/11. al-Zarqawi not only sought medical treatment in Baghdad but he and an entourage of dozens of other al-Qaeda operated out of Baghdad for many months planning mass casualty attacks against the US and its allies. Are you sure?
In other words, you don't have any proof of an arrest warrant. You just made that up. (or misremembered).
Yes he was. The terrorist captured in Jordan admitted they met with al-Zarqawi IN BAGHDAD and they had to have met with him there BEFORE THE INVASION since they say they didn't return to Iraq after going to Syria before the invasion. The only intellectual dishonesty around here is yours. See #1. Which curiously enough, you seem unable to prove. More examples of your "intellectual dishonesty". By the way, Zarqawi is now DEAD. US troops killed him. The opinion of the US military is actually divided on this point.
Thank you for proving the fine debating skills of 4um members. Those, that is, that don't bozo themselves to avoid debate ... and that appears to be the majority of them. And there were more terrorists everywhere in 2002 than there were in 2000. And more in 2000 than in 1998. You see my point? It is a war. Has it? The number of folks who went through Bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan before we ever invaded ... before 9/11, in fact ... was tens of thousands. Are there tens of thousands of terrorists in Afghanistan now? Do they control the government? Yet thousands were dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control. So have things really changed for the worse? It's not a strawman. It's a real and serious question that you clearly don't and can't answer. You are just like the democRATS. All talk. You have NO plan for what you would have done about a guy in Iraq who was funding and masterminding plans to kill tens of thousands in Jordan, including many Americans. Would you have just ignored him and his activities? Maybe so since you don't seem to think the threat from terrorists is real. At least in that respect some democRATS show a little more sense. Hey, I'm not saying Bush and his administration didn't make serious mistakes. They did. But at least they finally ended the threat of Saddam and no part of Iraq is now the safe haven ... as some once were ... for terrorists. And his proof for this? What's the name of his source? Perhaps what the Bush administration said is the reality. That after what happened with bin Laden (the bombing of his camps and completely missing him), the administration wanted to end the problem once and for all. By going in on the ground. Again, what would you have done about al-Zarqawi? Am I correct in suggesting that you'd have also been against bombing the camps in Northern Iraq? That you would have been against sending in special forces to take care of them? Perhaps this indeed just another strawman you are putting forth to avoid telling us what you would have done about al-Zarqawi and al-Qaeda in Iraq ... to avoid telling us what you would have done to end Saddam's growing support of terrorists worldwide? Again, what's the source in the administration for this?
do you want me for a sunbeam?
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Hahahaha, you almost made me puke.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
What an interesting term! Is there another kind, or is this another element of disinformation and psyops, on the order of "pro-active?" You're active or inactive; what's this "Pro" crap?
I think Zarqawi was a simple baker or something from Amman who because he was poor only had that one picture of himself that we kept seeing. He probably died, and the military decided to use his identity and turn him into this fierce super-terrorist for our benefit. They won't need to create anymore terrorists though because the actions of the US in the mideast have created a whole lot at this point that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/08/AR2006060800299.html "His real name was Ahmed Fadhil Nazar al-Khalaylah, an identity that he abandoned several years ago when he renamed himself after his home town, Zarqa, an industrial city 17 miles northeast of Amman. He grew up in a family of modest means and was a troublemaker from an early age, dropping out of high school and repeatedly getting into drunken brawls, intelligence officials said." http://www.intelligence.org.il/eng/eng_n/zarqawi.htm " Ahmad Fadheel Nazaal al-Khalaylah (“Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” is his nom de guerre) was born in Zarqa, Jordan in October 1966. He came from a large family belonging to the trans-Jordanian Bani Hassan tribe, which is known for its loyalty to the royal Hashemite family. He grew up in the al-Ma’ssoum slum, was an indifferent student and spent most of his time in the municipal cemetery (located opposite his home), which served as his playground. He was known for being rebellious, got left back at school and turned into a juvenile delinquent, even spending time in jail."
I'm not doing any such thing. I just said if he did exist he was probably some simple guy who died and then had a new identity created for him. How do you know that stuff above isn't made up? If he got into drunken brawls, hey wait, I thought Muslims are forbidden to drink alcohol.... Don't be doing things like accusing me of making Zarqawi out to be a saint; we don't want Aaron from LP to be tying up the Homeland Security phone lines again.
And a zoom-zoom sha-boom-boom to you, pervert.
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Speaking of bin Laden videos, do you view the "confession" video as authentic?
Only if videos I film under duress are legally admissable. /Wait...no...
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
The one I'm talking about is the one that Bush used as evidence that bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks. Here's an image that compares the real bin Laden to the one in that video.. The one on the right is the real bin Laden, where the one on the left is the one in the "confession video". Notice anything wrong?
Howdy Ho!
If you look carefully at my lips, you'll realize that I'm actually saying something else. I'm not actually telling you about the several ways I'm gradually murdering Joan. - Tom Frost
Hey asswipe. When you post your off-the-wall drivel, such as your Zarqawi strawman, and your totally dishonest "What would you do about Zarqawi" when Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi, you're insulting the intelligence of anyone who reads it. Either you're saying they're stupid enough to be blind to your obvious twisting and spinning, or you're saying you don't consider them worthy enough of a serious answer. Kind of like farting loudly instead of replying when someone asks you a question. So fuck you, troll. Interactions with you are not about *debate* because you are fundamentally intellectually dishonest, and debates have rules and principles which you continually flout. You've been rebutted soundly time and time again with facts and basic logic, and your only reply is to change channels and bring up other argument(s) and hope you can wear others down with your sheer volume of unrelenting bullshit. You'll never admit you've been wrong, and you'll never modify your position. Instead your posts are nothing more than a form of mental masturbation, where you take it as a challenge to distort and twist any arguments and facts that go against your own agenda, and mis-construe them into something they are not. And when you insult people by not bringing your "A" game, you've earned all the insults you receive in response, and then some. So fuck you, troll.
Idiot, if your strategy is creating more enemies rather than fewer enemies, it is a failure. You see my point? Then go fight it yourself. Address the issue, which is the WOT is supposed to result in fewer terrorists, not more. According to the people of Iraq, yes. And your claim that "thousands dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control" is dubious to put it mildly. And even if it were true, it is irrelevant, because you were talking about Zarqawi's terrorism - when it suits you. Hey asswipe. Why was Bush "just like the DemocRATS" and turned down 3 separate requests by his own armed forces to attack Zarqawi when he was in Kurdistan beyond the reach of Saddam and protected by the United States Air Force. You're just like Bush. All talk. Right under the nose of the American occupation, Zarqawi actually did kill thousands including many Americans, and not just "plot" to do it as you allege. So you've been rebutted. Your comments about "What would you have done about Zarqawi" are absolutely and totally irrelevant, because (A) Bush himself did nothing about Zarqawi, and (B) Under American occupation Zarqawi actually killed thousands of people, while all you can allege under Saddam is that he was considering doing it, but never actually did it. You've absolutely and totally been refuted. So naturally, you'll come up with more bullshit to try to obscure this fact. Is Bush a democRAT, brainless twerp? Because Bush did nothing about "him and his activities" in spite of being asked by his own armed forces on 3 separate occasions to do something. Iraq is a safe haven for terrorists to this day. And far more of them than there were during Saddam's time. That's why thousands of non-terrorists are dying every month. More of your patented intellectual dishonesty. Get your butt kicked with facts, and demand more proof. Again, what would Bush have done about Zarqawi? The facts are that Zarqawi was not killing people when Saddam was in power, so all your bullshit about Zaraqwi is irrelevant. Fuck you and do your own research, troll.
Comments (168 - 257) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
2. This establishment is one of the Libyan Intelligence fronts.
3. The Tripoli post has indicated that there is a possibility to form what connections are available with this establishment as it can offer the premise of providing food supplies to [Ed: word missing] in the scope of the agreement statement. Please review . . . it appears of intelligence value to proceed into connections with this establishment and its intelligence investments in the Abu Sayyaf group."
Study this idea, the pros and the cons, the relative reactions, and any other remarks regarding this."
#129. To: All (#125)
The Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show
The Abu Musab al-Zarqawi show
1 June 2005
By week’s end the world’s most wanted terrorist – scourge of the occupation and Shiite Muslims, representative of Osama bin Forgotten – gravely wounded in battle, had made his way to the safety of Shiite Iran. Think about that. He manages to get from the west of Iraq, across the war-torn country, through dozens of checkpoints, to seek safety among apostates he had sworn to expunge from the face of the earth. If you believe that, I have a second-hand Nissan Bluebird to sell you. 
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was a real Zarqawi. Nobody is willing to tell what really happened to him, but at some point before the invasion of Iraq he vanished from the real world and entered the twilight zone of black operations to become a symbol of evil and a master of disguise. Nowadays he hides out in the CIA complex at Langley, Virginia, a basement in Baghdad’s Green Zone, an office in Kuwait … or maybe all three.
Are the black ops boys who script the Zarqawi character having fun? We can only imagine the mirth as they workshop their man’s next adventure over a Budweiser or three, the snickers as they upload his latest message to the internet, the hysterical laughter as they follow the earnest accounts of his evil deeds in the world’s media. With journalists as compliant as this, it must be like shooting fish in a barrel.
For those who haven’t been following the Zarqawi show here’s a synopsis:
The wicked Wahabist first came to notice when Colin Powell tried to coerce the UN into backing the invasion of Iraq. Our man was his key bit of evidence for collusion between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Zarqawi, having lost a leg in combat, had an artificial one fitted in one of Saddam’s hospitals, Powell claimed. Oddly enough, he was said to be hiding out among his bitter enemies in Kurdish-controlled territory, then protected by the US enforced no-fly zone. Really?
After the invasion of Iraq the Coalition Provisional Authority “discovered” a CD containing a letter from Zarqawi to bin Laden in which the dastardly insurgent railed against Iraq’s Shiite majority and outlined his plan to foment civil war in the country. Naturally, Coalition spokesman trotted out this proof of the evil of the Resistance on every possible occasion. Not only was Zarqawi behind every car bombing in Iraq he then went international and masterminded the Madrid train bombing.
Then, just in time to counteract the shock of the Abu Ghraib scandal, Zarqawi beheaded the missing American contractor, Nick Berg. Trouble was, the tin-leg terrorist was seen on the notorious beheading video stepping nimbly forward to wield the knife. Ah, the US spokesmen glibly admitted, maybe his leg wasn’t shot off after all, maybe we were wrong about that. Pity about the 100,000 Iraqis who died in the invasion, but, hey, everybody makes mistakes.
After the Berg job, Zarqawi vanished for a while, before surfacing in Fallujah, where he provided the excuse for the Yanks to flatten the city, with the loss of tens of thousands more lives. There was vague media talk of US troops finding Zarqawi’s torture chambers, but strangely, no pictures or first-hand accounts. Alas, the man himself vanished … to be useful another day.
He popped up in the West of Iraq, near the Syrian border, where he became the subject of the recent Operation Matador. A few more towns were flattened but gosh, no Zarqawi.
Which brings us down to the last week of May, when the world’s press began to run with stories by embedded journalists to the effect that Zarqawi had been wounded in an ambush. At first this stuff was attributed to statements on those mysterious Islamic websites (“the authenticity of which couldn’t be confirmed”) that only embedded journalists get tipped off about and that vanish after a few hours.
The US army spokesman played inquiries with a straight face. “We don’t know whether it’s fact or fiction. He continues to be our number one target”, he said. Naturally.
So did the puppet Iraqi prime minister’s “security advisor” who added: “In all cases there are many probabilities. Maybe he is not wounded and he posted this statement on the internet to say he is wounded and then post another statement to say that he is treated and fine and he is like superman”.
Indeed. Like Superman: mythical figure with fabulous powers.
But then the plot had thickened. By Thursday 26 May the mainstream media were breathlessly reporting that a struggle for succession had broken out within al-Qaeda Iraq Inc., which was leaking like Australia’s Liberal Party during a leadership contest. Half the organization was spending hours on the phone to Western journalists, who were offering direct quotes from a variety of talkative terrorists. Yeah, right. How likely is that?
On that day Donald Rumsfeld, no less, told thousands of US paratroopers that Zarqawi was cornered like Hitler in his bunker (he must have just seen the movie). Even hardened observers like me were thinking the scriptwriters had decided to kill off their creation. Perhaps he’d evaded his pursuers so often they were looking incompetent. Perhaps they were risking making him into a kind of Robin Hood.
But it wasn’t to be. How could they replace an asset as useful as Zarqawi? Even as Rummy was speaking the black ops scriptwriters were moving their prize asset out of harm’s way.
Iran. Yes, that’s it. Let’s get him to Iran. That’s more evidence of Iranian perfidy. Another reason why we should bomb the crap out of them.
Don’t buy the novel folks, wait for the musical.
(About the quote: Speaking on the war in Kosovo.)
#130. To: robin, ALL (#129)
Don’t buy the novel folks, wait for the musical.
#131. To: BeAChooser (#117)
Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#132. To: BeAChooser (#122)
The issue is whether Saddam and Zarqawi were in collusion.
No, the issue is not that. The issue is what you would have done had we not invaded and al-Zarqawi continued to plot and fund terrorists attacks like the one in Jordan.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#133. To: scrapper2, BeAChooser (#127)
Concerning BAC's contention that Zarqawi and Saddam were pals
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#134. To: AGAviator, ALL (#131)
Tell me which of those stories had any terrorists saying they met with Saddam and Zarqawi
"Strawman. Is that all you have?"
Unbelievable.
Your whole sthick is based on an alleged Saddam-Zarqawi link.
#135. To: AGAviator, ALL (#132)
Zarqawi was not killed for 3 years. That's a pretty spectacular failure to get someone who you are claiming was so dangerous.
Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden,
#136. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#134)
I made no claim that Saddam met with the terrorists who carried out the Jordan bomb plot.
#137. To: AGAviator, scrapper, ALL (#133)
So BAC wants to make a Saddam-Zarqawi connection
Now the new botshill talking point is there were alleged terrorists in Iraq when Saddam was in power.
But now there are there more terrorists inside Iraq now than there were in 2002.
John D. Rockefeller IV, Vice Chairman
Orrin Hatch
Mike Dewine
Christopher Bond
Trent Lott
Olympia Snowe
Chuck Hagel
Saxby Chambliss
Carl Levin
Dianne Feinstein
Ron Wyden
Evan Bayh
Barbara Mikulski
Russell Feingold
#138. To: SKYDRIFTER, ALL (#136)
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link?
#139. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#138)
You're saying that you never claimed that there was a Saddam-Zarqawi link?
#140. To: BeAChooser (#123)
Would Hitler and Tojo have been content to leave us alone from then on?
"It was an interesting day." - President Bush, recalling 9/11 [White House, 1/5/02]
#141. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, Skydrifter (#134)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#142. To: BeAChooser (#122)
Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#143. To: BeAChooser (#138)
#144. To: BeAChooser (#135)
Actually, that shows how difficult he was to capture. One reason he was dangerous.
And perhaps it shows how much help he must have had amongst the Iraqis of the insurgency. Saddam's insurgency. Because those are the folks he must have been hiding amongst.
Oh, and by the way. Where's Bin Laden,
Perhaps dead. You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#145. To: SKYDRIFTER (#143)
"Thousands and thousands of islamo- fanatics have gone to Iraq ... and died there. If they weren't attacking us there, they'd likely be causing trouble elsewhere.
Off the top of my head there are 5 serious flaws in these claims.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#146. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, skydrifter (#135)
(Edited)
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#147. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, Skydrifter, christine (#137)
(Edited)
And one more point, AGAviator. How many terrorists were in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, and before 9/11? Just as many as are claimed to now be in Iraq. You see?
In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government.
You lying little troll.
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#148. To: AGAviator, christine, Zipporah, Rowdee, Robin, Minerva, Diana, kiki (#142)
To: BeAChooser
#149. To: AGAviator, ALL (#141)
You certainly have been making noises like Saddam and Zarqawi had some kind of connection.
Saddam himself wanted to capture Zarqawi
#150. To: AGAviator, ALL (#142)
"Let's see that arrest warrant. I'm betting you won't be able to supply one."
I've already told you, I don't supply proof to trolls.
#151. To: AGAviator, ALL (#145)
(1) Zarqawi was not "operating out of Iraq" that was under Saddam's control
(2) ... snip ... Beachooser's claim he was not alleging a Saddam connection with Zarqawi reeks of intellectual dishonesty.
(3) Saddam had an arrest warrant out for Zarqawi,
(4) You can make the same statements about the Zarqawi "operating out of Iraq" and the US "showing no willingness to stop him" for the 3+ years since April 2003
(5) Even the US military admits that most of the Iraqi insurgents are local, not foreigners, so the insinuation that conditions in Iraq are caused by international jihadists is also intellectually dishonest.
#152. To: AGAviator, ALL (#147)
Hey shit for brains.
There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002.
The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were.
And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq.
What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi"
Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach
In March 2004, NBC News' Jim Miklaszewski reported that the White House had three times in 2002 turned down a Pentagon request to attack Zarqawi, who then was believed to be running a weapons lab in northern Iraq--in territory not controlled by Saddam Hussein's government.
Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
Here are some excerpts from the Miklaszewski article:
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
#153. To: BeAChooser (#152)
#154. To: BeAChooser (#152)
You are just like the democRATS.
#155. To: beachooser, Christine, Brian S, Honway, Robin, Aristeides, Red Jones, Diana, Kamala, All (#151)
.... "intellectual dishonesty".
#156. To: BeAChooser, SKYDRIFTER, robin, All (#151)
#157. To: Diana, ALL (#156)
I think Zarqawi was a simple baker or something from Amman
#158. To: BeAChooser (#157)
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ...
#159. To: BeAChooser (#157)
Before you raise him to sainthood, Diana ...
#160. To: BeAChooser (#135)
You seen a video of him since Tora Bora? Prior to that he LOVED to make videos of himself.
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#161. To: BeAChooser (#135)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#162. To: BeAChooser, Dakmar, christine, AGAviator (#135)
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#163. To: FormerLurker (#162)
#164. To: Dakmar (#163)
Only if videos I film under duress are legally admissable. /Wait...no...
You appear to be a major trouble maker...and I'm getting really pissed. - GoldiLox, 7/27/2006
#165. To: FormerLurker (#164)
#166. To: BeAChooser, christine, scrapper2, SKYDRIFTER, dakmar, FormerLurker (#152)
(Edited)
Hey shit for brains.
Thank you for proving the fine debating skills of 4um members.
Those, that is, that don't bozo themselves to avoid debate
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
#167. To: BeAChooser, scrapper2, christine, SKYDRIFTER, FormerLurker, Dakmar (#152)
(Edited)
There are more terrorists everywhere there are any terrorists than there were in 2002. And there were more terrorists everywhere in 2002 than there were in 2000. And more in 2000 than in 1998.
You see my point?
The number of terrorists has not decreased in any countries where they previously were.
It is a war.
And the number of terrorists, alleged terrorists, and terrorist incidents has increased exponentially in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Has it? Blah blah blah blam spam spam spam spam.
Terrorist attacks in Iraq routinely kill hundreds week in and week out. There were no such attacks when Saddam was in control of Iraq.
Yet thousands were dying week in and week out when Saddam was in control. So have things really changed for the worse?
What's more, your stupid little straw man about "What would you have done about Zarqawi"
It's not a strawman. It's a real and serious question that you clearly don't and can't answer. You are just like the democRATS. All talk.
You have NO plan for what you would have done about a guy in Iraq who was funding and masterminding plans to kill tens of thousands in Jordan, including many Americans.
Would you have just ignored him and his activities? Maybe so since you don't seem to think the threat from terrorists is real. At least in that respect some democRATS show a little more sense.
Because, the Bush Administration turned down 3 separate requests to attack Zarqawi in Northern Iraq, where he was protected by the US Air Force and beyond Saddam Hussein's reach
Hey, I'm not saying Bush and his administration didn't make serious mistakes. They did. But at least they finally ended the threat of Saddam and no part of Iraq is now the safe haven ... as some once were ... for terrorists.
Miklaszewski wrote that "the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."
And his proof for this? What's the name of his source?
Again, what would you have done about al-Zarqawi?
Again, what's the source in the administration for this?
Just because [Christine] exercises this type of tolerance for the absurd (ie. you)...doesn't mean she has to smell your droppings up close. - Scrapper2 to BeALooser
.
.
.