Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

the mother of all connections
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 15:53:56 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp?pg=1


 
Zacq Posted: Tue Jul 12 17:37:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Well I haven't read beyond the introduction, because the author(s) mention a few times that this evidence obtained after the Iraq War from further interrogations and documents etc...

I don't care about evidence of the connection that we can now prove. If we didn't know it when we started the war, it's not evidence for having the war.

Let's go to war with another country and hope that our points get justified by evidence we find/create. That's the ultimate preemptive war - war based on the assumption evidence may be found to support the justification of war.


 
DanSRose Posted: Tue Jul 12 18:35:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The evidence stated:

1 agent with explosives training and allegencies to Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the Republican Guard. The agent became loyal to Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in 1994 and worked almost entirely with them since. The agent did do 2 missions in Iraq in 1997 and 1998.

Shortly before the War began, Hussein took in a number of al-Qaeda members to act as fighers. Among these was Zarqawi, who Jordan Intellingence knew of.

That's it. Everything else is meetings and contacts before the year 2000, including a broadcast UBL had aired in Iraq.

The rest is inneundo and creative use of language. Also, it's all data that we've already discussed here. Nothing new about a Iraq-Al Qadea relationship directly in 9-11, but some afterwards, just before the war.



 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Jul 12 21:37:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>Well I haven't read beyond the introduction, because the author(s) mention a few times that this evidence obtained after the Iraq War from further interrogations and documents etc...
>
>I don't care about evidence of the connection that we can now prove. If we didn't know it when we started the war, it's not evidence for having the war.
>
>Let's go to war with another country and hope that our points get justified by evidence we find/create. That's the ultimate preemptive war - war based on the assumption evidence may be found to support the justification of war.
>
I didn't post it to prove justification for the war in Iraq. I posted it to show that there is/has been a connection between Iraq and Al-quaeda for some time now.
The war in Iraq doesn't need justification from you or I, the UN resolutions justified it.
As does the war on terror justifies it.
Anyone who thinks that Saddam was not up to his neck in terror ties is living in a vacuum.


 
addi Posted: Tue Jul 12 22:46:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:


>I didn't post it to prove justification for the war in Iraq. I posted it to show that there is/has been a connection between Iraq and Al-quaeda for some time now.

Balderdash and poppycock. Perhaps...perhaps some relatively inconsequential activity while Saddam was in power, but thanks to this President it is now the CENTER of terrorist activity.

>The war in Iraq doesn't need justification from you or I, the UN resolutions justified it.

One minute you're trashing the U.N. as totally worthless, and the next you use their vote to justify Bush's war. Talk about straddling both sides of the fence.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the others ultimately justified it...via half-truths and twisting intelligence info to that end.

>As does the war on terror justifies it.

The real war on terror was in isolated terrorist cells spread across the world, and in Afghanistan (which we pulled needed troops from).
You don't win the war on terror fighting Iraq. It's impossible. Not only did it distract us from hunting down Osama, but it gave cause and purpose for muslims all over the middle East and Indonesia to become terrorists. Bush's eye was on the prize, but it was fool's gold.

>Anyone who thinks that Saddam was not up to his neck in terror ties is living in a vacuum.

Saddam ruled the country through fear and terror tactics through his own henchmen. Saddam was not up to his neck in Al-Queda terrorists. Anyone who still believes they had close ties to a secular heathen like Saddam must relie soley on Fox News, conservative talk shows, and right wing web sites for their news information.


 
Silentmind Posted: Tue Jul 12 23:34:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I must say Mr. McNasty that in no way, shape, or form are the UN economic and weapon related sanctions justification for war. They may have been broken, but the UN never issued a resolution sanctioning war. Had the UN determined that the sanctions and resolutions been violated to an extent that a war was required, a resolution would have been tabled and passed. But, the United States chose not to take that route. So the sanctions cannot be used as justification for war, as they are in the realm of the UN and the US acted outside of that realm.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 13 06:58:20 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  You guys are SO predicatable !
The facts are laid before you and you refuse to see them because you are blinded by your own ideology.
UN resolution 1441 did in fact justify the Iraq war.

And yes Addie, I will continue to trash the UN as a corrupt, useless parasitic body as long as they squat and piss on the rest of the world as they do now.
None of that changes the fact that we sought UN approval and got it. Unanimously, I might add.

We've had this argument before.
You guys say it's for oil yet not one shred of evidence has been produced. Not one.
And no the war on terror cannot be won in Iraq, but we are making a huge dent in it as the terrorists are making their stand in Iraq instead of in our streets.
Would you have us fight the war on terror as Clinton did, by looking the other way ?
And what makes you think we've been distracted from searching for Bin Laden ? Because it's not the lead story in the news every night ?



 
addi Posted: Wed Jul 13 07:41:43 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>You guys are SO predicatable !

Thank you. I had to look that one up. Found out it meant intelligent, and sexy. (If you meant "predictable" then I take this all back).


>You guys say it's for oil yet not one shred of evidence has been produced. Not one.

lol!
Not only have our guys not been able to locate any WMD's, but now we can't find one shred of oil there either. Sad!

>And no the war on terror cannot be won in Iraq, but we are making a huge dent in it as the terrorists are making their stand in Iraq instead of in our streets.

Yeah, cuz if we hadn't invaded Iraq they'd be in our streets right now..probably stealing CD's out of our cars and laying lit bags of dog poop on our doorsteps, ringing the doorbell and then running.

>Would you have us fight the war on terror as Clinton did, by looking the other way ?

I think he was just checking out hot chicks.


*sorry, hif. I just can't force myself this morning to dignify your responses with serious replys. We've all become quite predicatable here.
: )




 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 13 08:17:13 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>filthy mcnasty said:
>>You guys are SO predicatable !
>
predicatable ?
I typed predicatable ? HA !
At 6:30 in the morning when I was typing that post, I still had boogers in my eyes.
I suppost that I could argue that in the redneck vernacular, that spelling would be considered correct.
LOL


 
addi Posted: Wed Jul 13 08:24:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  it's a cheap shot pointing out anyone's typo's here. I mess up all the time myself. I just couldn't resist this one cuz when I sounded it out phonetically it made me laugh.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Jul 13 14:00:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Hif, have you even read the entire text of 1441? The only thing that even partially states that force can be used is paragraph 13:

"13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations;"

Now, it may face serious consequences, but those consequences must be cleared with the security council, not arbitrarily decided upon by the US. The council must decide that the provisions of 1441 were being broken. They still had inspectors on the ground, when the US asked they be removed, so as to not be killed by any American bombs. That means that the UNMOVIC and IAEA had not completed their investigation to determine if weapons restricted by any past resolutions were in the country. 1441 was a vehicle to propose war if conditions were not met {which as stated above, had not been determined by the relevant agencies to have been broken}. It was not a chapter 7 mission. That is when the UN says force can be used. 1441 was not within the realm of a chapter 7 mission.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Wed Jul 13 14:24:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm pretty sure that all inspectors had been expelled by Saddam quite some time before the start of hostilities.
And it was made quite clear to the security council what would happen if 1441 was violated before they ever voted on it.
Now that said, and knowing what we know now, can you supply any good reason not to depose Saddam ?


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Jul 13 14:35:51 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>I'm pretty sure that all inspectors had been expelled by Saddam quite some time before the start of hostilities.
>And it was made quite clear to the security council what would happen if 1441 was violated before they ever voted on it.
>Now that said, and knowing what we know now, can you supply any good reason not to depose Saddam ?

Okay but now disprove what Silentmind just said without ignoring half of what he said.


 
Zacq Posted: Wed Jul 13 14:36:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>You guys are SO predicatable !

I don't know whether to say 'you should talk' or 'takes one to know one'.

This truly is a pickle.


 
Silentmind Posted: Wed Jul 13 17:06:57 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  filthy mcnasty said:
>I'm pretty sure that all inspectors had been expelled by Saddam quite some time before the start of hostilities.
>And it was made quite clear to the security council what would happen if 1441 was violated before they ever voted on it.
>Now that said, and knowing what we know now, can you supply any good reason not to depose Saddam ?


There were inspectors in the country right before the hostilities started. The US asked them to be removed, so they could start the hostilities with no risk of UN casualties. It was made clear, yes, but a resolution was not tabled for the allowance of armed hostilities. The US can't use 1441 as an excuse.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Thu Jul 14 07:01:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
The US can't use 1441 as an excuse.
>
Excerpt from David Horowitz's essay "Why we are in Iraq" :

There was no rush to war. In September 2002, six months before the war, the President went to the UN and said that UN must enforce its resolutions on Iraq or become "irrelevant." If the UN Security Council was not up to meeting its obligations to enforce its own resolutions and defend the peace, the United States intended to do so for them. The United States had already begun sending troops to the Gulf, which immediately caused Saddam to readmit the UN inspectors. In these months, the American president said more than once to Saddam: "You will disarm, or we will disarm you." This was not a rush to war, but a very deliberate march to a moment of truth in which Saddam's intentions would be tested a final time: disarm; open your borders to unobstructed UN inspections -- or else.

In October, following his UN appearance, the President went to Congress and got the authorization he needed to use force against Iraq if Saddam persisted in the course of evasion and obstruction he had pursued for more than a decade. The vote was 77 to 23 in the Senate, and received majorities on both sides of the aisle. On November 9 the President got the unanimous vote of the security council, 15 to 0, behind Resolution 1441, which said to Saddam: "You will disarm, and you will show that you have disarmed by making a comprehensive report on your weapons of mass destruction 'or serious consequences' will follow." The deadline for compliance was set for thirty days from then.

I have read the Chief UN Weapons Inspector's book, Disarming Iraq. Hans Blix is a Swedish leftist who, by his own admission, was against the war under any circumstances. But in his book he clearly states that UN resolution 1441 was diplomatic language for an ultimatum of war. The deadline for Saddam's compliance was December 7, 2002.


 
Silentmind Posted: Thu Jul 14 11:32:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  >>or serious consequences' will follow." The deadline for compliance was set for thirty days from then.
>
>I have read the Chief UN Weapons Inspector's book, Disarming Iraq. Hans Blix is a Swedish leftist who, by his own admission, was against the war under any circumstances. But in his book he clearly states that UN resolution 1441 was diplomatic language for an ultimatum of war. The deadline for Saddam's compliance was December 7, 2002.

The UN would have been force to issue another resolution to allow for armed action in Iraq. 1441 simply stated that consequences would follow if demands were not met. Those consequences were not outlined within 1441. As stated, another resolution would have to have been tabled. And on the issue of the inspectors: America asked them to leave! They were still in the middle of investigating when the Americans decided to bomb the shit out of Iraq.


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]