Great, Just Great...

[MJDuncan1982]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-17-zarqawi-al-qaeda_x.htm

 

[insein]

Pretty much making official what we already knew. All the more reason to kill these bastards.

 

[Avatar4321]

So Al-Zarqawi has ties with Al Queda...yet somehow Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda and the war on terror.

 

[dmp]

So Al-Zarqawi has ties with Al Queda...yet somehow Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda and the war on terror.

I'm guessing we'll see some replies saying it's GWB's fault - I mean, if he hadn't removed a dictator who killed those who didn't agree with him, the terrorist wouldn't be able to 'align' with anyone.

 

[theim]

And if we had just let the Soviets own the Middle East the terrorists wouldn't be mad at us

 

[wade]

Ummm.. this is a post-war connection.

The war in Iraq has created an ally for Al-Queda. Lets keep cause and effect in the proper order guys.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ummm.. this is a post-war connection.

The war in Iraq has created an ally for Al-Queda. Lets keep cause and effect in the proper order guys.

nice try to spin it but Americans are alot smarter than you give them credit for. Simply because they announced their alliance now doesnt mean that they havent been allies for a very long time.

The point is moot anyway. We are fighting terror, not simply Al Queda. Al Zarqawi has always been a terrorist and he has been in Iraq since Saddam was in power. But regardless of the facts im sure you will still pretend that Iraq is not part of the war on terror.

 

[Democrat4Bush]

Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the coalition attacked. He just made it convient for him to continue his attacks againist the US.

October 2001 After the Taliban lost control in Afghanistan Zarqawi fled to Iran with a wounded leg. While he was there Zarqawi dispatched two Palestinians and a Jordanian who entered Turkey and then they were supposed to go to Israel to conduct bombing attacks.

15 February 2002 The three terrorists who were sent by Zarqawi were caught in Turkey.

May 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Iraq. He had his leg amputated and had a prosthetic limb to replace it.

May-July 2002 Zarqawi spent time recovering in Baghdad. At the same time several extremists also came to Baghdad and established a base of operations.

Late Summer 2002 Zarqawi traveled to Lebanon to meet with leaders from Hezbollah, another terrorist group.

October 2002 Lawrence Foley, an United States official with the Agency for International Development, was assassinated. After some arrests were made of the actual shooters in December 2002, and Zarqwai was linked to the plot by providing the murder weapons.

Early 2003 Zarqawi returned to the Ansar al-Islam camp in northern Iraq. Other terrorist who have trained at this particular camp have plotted chemical attacks with various toxins in Britain, France, Georgia, and Chechnya.

http://www.worldhistory.com/zarqawi.htm

 

[Zhukov]

Ummm.. this is a post-war connection.

The war in Iraq has created an ally for Al-Queda. Lets keep cause and effect in the proper order guys.

Does it embarass you at all to constantly buy in to the terrorists' propaganda? Or do you not really believe it and just use it as a means to an end?

 

[dmp]

Does it embarass you at all to constantly buy in to the terrorists' propaganda? Or do you not really believe it and just use it as a means to an end?

Nicely put.

 

[wade]

Does it embarass you at all to constantly buy in to the terrorists' propaganda? Or do you not really believe it and just use it as a means to an end?

I believe that the war in Iraq has empowered people like Al-Zarqawi and given them the means to be much more dangerous than they were before the war.

I'm not saying I don't think that perhaps it might have been warranted to kill Al-Zarqawi, but that does not require a war to accomplish.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

So Al-Zarqawi has ties with Al Queda...yet somehow Iraq has nothing to do with Al Queda and the war on terror.

Correct, why is that distinction hard for you to see? Simply because someone in Iraq had or has a connection to Al-Qaeda does not mean Iraq had or has a connection.

We had/have terrorists in this country, that does not make the United States have a connection with them.

 

[Democrat4Bush]

Correct, why is that distinction hard for you to see? Simply because someone in Iraq had or has a connection to Al-Qaeda does not mean Iraq had or has a connection.

Shortly after the 9/11 attack, President Bush made it clear that we would go after terrorist countries and countries that support terroism. Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, pretty much showed which side of the fence he stood on.

Why does the left continue to leave that fact out.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Shortly after the 9/11 attack, President Bush made it clear that we would go after terrorist countries and countries that support terroism. Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, pretty much showed which side of the fence he stood on.

Why does the left continue to leave that fact out.

Because it's not what the invasion was about in reality. The Administration was relying on the people to connect 9/11 to Iraq by conneting Iraq to terrorism in general.

The left continues to leave the fact out because the right leaves out the fact that we haven't invaded, nor threatened to invade any other countries with credible connections to Al-Qaeda (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan).

 

[MJDuncan1982]

Shortly after the 9/11 attack, President Bush made it clear that we would go after terrorist countries and countries that support terroism. Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers in Palestine, pretty much showed which side of the fence he stood on.

Why does the left continue to leave that fact out.

Because it's not what the invasion was about in reality. The Administration was relying on the people to connect 9/11 to Iraq by conneting Iraq to terrorism in general.

The left continues to leave the fact out because the right leaves out the fact that we haven't invaded, nor threatened to invade any other countries with credible connections to Al-Qaeda (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan).

The impetus for war in Iraq was not its general ties to terrorism no matter how much the attempt to rewrite history is made.

 

[dilloduck]

Because it's not what the invasion was about in reality. The Administration was relying on the people to connect 9/11 to Iraq by conneting Iraq to terrorism in general.

The left continues to leave the fact out because the right leaves out the fact that we haven't invaded, nor threatened to invade any other countries with credible connections to Al-Qaeda (Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan).

The impetus for war in Iraq was not its general ties to terrorism no matter how much the attempt to rewrite history is made.

what makes you think we are done--you mean the left really expected every single country that supported terorism to be attacked at the SAME TIME.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

what makes you think we are done--you mean the left really expected every single country that supported terorism to be attacked at the SAME TIME.

Of course not. I still do not think it was a major impetus for the war but if Bush is re-elected and Saudi Arabia is attacked, well, then I stand corrected.

I won't be holding my breath.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course not. I still do not think it was a major impetus for the war but if Bush is re-elected and Saudi Arabia is attacked, well, then I stand corrected.

I won't be holding my breath.

And what makes you think that dialogues are not occuring as we speak? The Saudis have a history of supporting terrorism. What current info do you have that they still are. Just because most of the hi-jackers had Saudi passports doesn't mean the Saudis supported their actions

 

[Zhukov]

I believe that the war in Iraq has empowered people like Al-Zarqawi and given them the means to be much more dangerous than they were before the war.

I'm not saying I don't think that perhaps it might have been warranted to kill Al-Zarqawi, but that does not require a war to accomplish.

No, the propaganda is that this alliance is somehow an important development. The truth is al-Zarqawi has probably been aligned with bin Laden in fact since he fought in Afghanistan. Zarqawi was probably a member of Islamic Jihad which merged with al Qaeda in '98, he's worked with Ansar al Islam which has been linked to al Qaeda, he's been in communication with al Qaeda evidenced by the note intercepted in January.

Does this 'alliance' mean Zarqawi is going to start using terror tactics, start killing innocent people in gruesome fashion to create fear in order to promote his own ambitions like al Qaeda? No, he's already doing that so who really cares who he announces symbolic 'alliances' with.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

And what makes you think that dialogues are not occuring as we speak? The Saudis have a history of supporting terrorism. What current info do you have that they still are. Just because most of the hi-jackers had Saudi passports doesn't mean the Saudis supported their actions

Dialogues?

every single country that supported terorism to be attacked at the SAME TIME

I thought we were going to attack all of these countries? And I agree. There needs to be hard evidence that Saudi Arabia supports terrorism before an invasion.

But I am inclined to believe that if Saudi Arabia does not meet the threshold, Iraq certainly did not either.