Terrorists getting their beepbeeps kicked (merged)

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 167
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    You've forgotten the KEY element of the argument(s):



    They threw everything at the wall to see what would stick, moving from one argument to the next when they didn't play well. And when it's all over, no one can say "hey, that wasn't what you said!" because they actually tried a little bit of everything.
  • Reply 62 of 167
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    This tends to support the admins reasons for war, no?



    http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBAR1NGMVD.html
  • Reply 63 of 167
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Not as far as I can tell . . . its damn vague, non-specific and doesn't say anything
  • Reply 64 of 167
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    This tends to support the admins reasons for war, no?



    http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGBAR1NGMVD.html




    Uh, no.



    This is really vague and if it was a supporting reason it would be big news. Not just at some florida website.



    Also why didn't we hear about this until now?
  • Reply 65 of 167
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Ok, here it is on CNN :



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...ror/index.html



    But they seem to be drawing the same conclusions I am.



    Also if true why was Russia one of the strongest critics of our invasion?





    From the article :





    -----------------------------------------------------------



    " The United States never cited Russian intelligence when it was making its case for the war and Putin said the information did not change his country's opposition to the war. "



    -----------------------------------------------------------
  • Reply 66 of 167
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    Uh, no.



    This is really vague and if it was a supporting reason it would be big news. Not just at some florida website.



    Also why didn't we hear about this until now?




    Associated Press is just some florida website?





    It is dated June 15th, no?
  • Reply 67 of 167
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Associated Press is just some florida website?





    It is dated June 15th, no?








    Read above.....
  • Reply 68 of 167
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    More news on the WOT front:

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5457910



    "WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces killed a top tribal warrior wanted for sheltering al Qaeda militants in an overnight swoop on his hideout in a remote region bordering Afghanistan, officials said Friday."
  • Reply 69 of 167
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    More news on the WOT front:

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5457910



    "WANA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Pakistani security forces killed a top tribal warrior wanted for sheltering al Qaeda militants in an overnight swoop on his hideout in a remote region bordering Afghanistan, officials said Friday."




    This is the same Pakistan that founded the Taliban with Us blessing. right?
  • Reply 70 of 167
    naplesxnaplesx Posts: 3,743member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    This is the same Pakistan that founded the Taliban with Us blessing. right?



    Yes. This is the same Taliban that married AQ and is now perpetrating terrorist tactics inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is also the same Taliban that is being hunted by the US and it's allies.
  • Reply 71 of 167
    newnew Posts: 3,244member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    Yes. This is the same Taliban that married AQ and is now perpetrating terrorist tactics inside Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is also the same Taliban that is being hunted by the US and it's allies.



    okidoki, just found it kinda ironic how Pakistan suddenly turned into a good ally of the US in the holy WOT... You don't find that slightly problematic?
  • Reply 72 of 167
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by New

    okidoki, just found it kinda ironic how Pakistan suddenly turned into a good ally of the US in the holy WOT... You don't find that slightly problematic?



    Don't forget that Pakistan's current government came to power through a military coup.
  • Reply 73 of 167
    giantgiant Posts: 6,041member
    Or that there is no dividing line between Pakistan's ISI and al-qaeda.
  • Reply 74 of 167
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Gosh we're sooooooooo much safer!



    I already knew the truth about this so called " War On Terror.



    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ror/index.html
  • Reply 75 of 167
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,990member
    1337_5L4Xx0R writes:



    Quote:

    1. Ties to Al Quaeda - proved false (although most Americans probably still believe it)



    2. Weapons of Mass destruction - ditto (ditto)



    3. Violation of UN Resolutions - viewed by many as weak reason to invade, kill, bomb, overrun.





    First, thanks for the earlier praise...but:



    1. The ties have not been proven false.

    2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.

    3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?
  • Reply 76 of 167
    jimmacjimmac Posts: 11,898member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1337_5L4Xx0R writes:









    First, thanks for the earlier praise...but:



    1. The ties have not been proven false.

    2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.

    3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?






    1. There are no ties.

    2. We needed to find stockpiles to make the excuse for this war viable.

    3. We need to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks unless we're in imimnent danger. Which it's clear now we weren't.
  • Reply 77 of 167
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,990member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    SDW,



    The only thing that matters here really is did SH have WOMD shortly ( months ) before the war. Going back to 1998 ( the last century )isn't relevant in this particular matter. If he did that would be a different matter. Maybe if the Bush Administration had shared this " secret " evidence with these others at the time you might have a point. However SH had no WOMD at the time that's clear. There was no reason for this war.



    Bush seems to like playing his cards close to his chest and bluffing. They were so sure that there was WOMD. Just like they still contend that there was a connection between 911 and Saddam. Which it's clear now there wasn't.




    You're a riot. "The last century"!!! Well, excuse me!



    First, while we have not found stockpiles of WMD, we have found chemicals and nerve agents...and the warhead that they could be delivered in. None of this was disclosed as it was required to be. We've also found evidence tht Iraq was trying to buy missle technology from North Korea. Hmmm...missles plus warheads plus chemicals=WMD threat, if you ask me.



    There was no reason for this war? Bullshit. There was every reason. Violation of 17 UN resolutions. Firing on our aircraft. Genocide. Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change. No...no reason at all.
  • Reply 78 of 167
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by giant

    Or that there is no dividing line between Pakistan's ISI and al-qaeda.



    http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/01/inv.pakistan.funds/



    and



    http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/archive....3eb610c8.html



    This aspect of 9-11 is interesting; the wiring from Pakistan (ISI) of a large sum, $100,000+ to the man who went by the name "Mohamed Atta", the alleged leader of the hijack teams.



    Quote:

    We also looked at the links between the I.S.I, Pakistan, Mohamed Atta, and top U.S. government officials. Why was head of Pakistan's I.S.I., Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad, the "money man behind 9-11," who had $100,000 wired to Mohamed Atta meeting with top U.S. officials from September 4th- the 13th? When we marched on our Senators demanding an investigation of 9-11, this was one of the questions we raised, only to have Bush and Cheney ask to have the Inquiry limited and overseen by the CI,A and the very men who breakfasted with Lt. Gen. Mahoud Ahmad, Pakistani's I.S.I. chief, on the morning of September 11th (Rep. Porter Goss and Senator Bob Graham- headed the House/Senate Intelligence Oversight Committee which conducted the official Inquiry into 9-11)..... etc etc etc



    extremely suspect stuff...and I bet that pathetic fiasco, AKA the 9-11 "inquiry" (yeah, right, as if) disallowed the ISI material from being discussed. They even refused to allow evidence from the firefighters, the people who were closest to the disaster from giving evidence....the guys who went up to the impact floors on both towers of the WTC on 9-11 to report that the fires were virtually out.
  • Reply 79 of 167
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 16,990member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jimmac

    1. There are no ties.

    2. We needed to find stockpiles to make the excuse for this war viable.

    3. We need to pay attention to what the rest of the world thinks unless we're in imimnent danger. Which it's clear now we weren't.




    1. Lie.



    2. That's your opinion. Is one chemical attack not enough?



    3. Who is the "rest of the world"? France? Germany? And really...what are you implying...that we should take a poll of what other world leaders think before taking action? Maybe we should give them veto powers! Oh...wait...we have that. It's called the UN...and it's a splineless, corrupt, ineffective and anti-semetic joke of an organization.
  • Reply 80 of 167
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by SDW2001

    1337_5L4Xx0R writes:









    First, thanks for the earlier praise...but:



    1. The ties have not been proven false.

    2. We've found chemicals and warheads. No stockpiles...agreed.

    3. Weak? Then why was it so important to win UN approval to invade? Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not?




    You show your true willingness to believe that crumbs mean cake . . . but really they are feeding cracker bits:



    1-- 'ties' are technically true in that there was a meeting between the two . . . we knew even then that nothing came of it.

    By saying that there were ties you are admitting that taking the above mentioned meeting as satisfactory, and that that is all that you demand of your leaders: stretch minor half truths that are truly inconsequential into giant balloons worth waging war against a soveriegn country . . . that is sad





    2-- A coupla old mortar shells etc, any other supposed and viable 'chemicals and warheads' are the fictions of ultra-right websites . . . same as #1 -- why can't you see how flimsy it all is?!?!





    3-- Which is it....the UN is weak irrelevant, or not? If you think the UN is irrelevant then why go to war for breaking a UN agreement?



    Firing on our aircrafts? . . .haha . . which would result in absolutely no damage, not even remotely . .. except when the American planes would proceed to obliterate the offending guns and gunners . . . and this was nothing new . . it had been going on for years and years hurting nobody but Iraq and Iraqi soldiers.



    "Open hostility towards the US. A US public law calling for regime change." --are you serious? That's more absurd than green eggs and ham!!!
Sign In or Register to comment.