Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by NATO AIR, Oct 26, 2004.
great analysis from christopher hitchens
You may find this article of interest:
It may be taking some time to dot the "i", and cross the "t"`s, but the pile of documents is growing againts those that would question weather there was a connection between the ruling party in Iraq, and terrorist.
The part thats always caused me pause has been WHY, why have some been reluctent to see the connection between Saddam, and the terrorist ?
Off course, the "elite media" has done their part in slanting the story lines in the direction of the liberals.
I don't get this either. They would rather give Saddam and the terrorists the benefit of the doubt over Bush or anyone else that thinks they have some connection. I'm with ya with the
You mean the New York Times was WRONG?!?!?!?!?!?!?! BLASPHEMOR!!!!!!!! THE NYT IS NEVER WRONG!!!!!!
Well, maybe just this once...
Your claim is that Saddam had terrorist ties and those associations connect him to 9-11. First of all, this article links Zarqawi to Bin Laden, and then morphs that into some connection between Saddam and Bin Laden. Admittedly, Saddam and Bin Laden are both dirty rotten scoundrels, or worse, but they were miles apart on their agendas. Saddam, being the DECADENT dictator that he was, murdered and suppressed his country's people so that he could enjoy his wealth. Bin Laden is a horse of a different color. He does have an agenda and that is to AVENGE the wrongs behest upon him by the non muslim world. (Religious fanaticism) I dont know if Bin Laden is sincere but I know he means business. He will use his wealth and power to destroy us if he can. This I guess is the basic difference that I see between these two. Saddam wanted to enjoy his wealth, Bin Laden wants to use his.
I can say that under almost any circumstances I oppose war, but I supported our efforts to get Osama Bin Laden. I think expanding this war into Iraq was a predetermined and secret plan to destabilize the middle east and further our agenda politically. It was necessary to make Saddam the enemy of the US in order to do this. If a link between Saddam and the terrorists of 9-11 could be fabricated, and even better, add in the accusations of WMDs, the invasion of Iraq could become a reality. This served the purposes of a politically motivated agenda here at home and is an abuse of the trust and faith we place in our leaders.
I don't think it was a link to 9/11. It was a link to terrorism, and just because these guys didn't do 9/11 doesn't mean they wouldn't do something similar. That's why we attacked.
A direct quote from the post:
A comparable elision is now under way in the matter of "terrorism." In that Saddam Hussein will not have to stand trial for direct complicity in the crimes of 11 September 2001
I respect your perception sagegirl, but please keep a open mind as to Saddam, and his connection to terrorist.
As we move forward in this "War on terror", my belief, is that the "dots" will start to be connected, and what is now "unclear", will start to clear.
Your position thought, is sound, we`ll just have to see what the future has in store for us all.
Bush opponents have a responsibilty to PROVE that attacking Iraq DID NOT destabilize terrorist groups, plans and lives. Until they can accomplish THAT , all the other random collection of reasons for condeming the war in Iraq are merely political rhetoric. If indeed the war in Iraq disrupted terrorism in general, it has proved it's legitimacy. Let the Bush opponents defend themselves for awhile !!!!
Separate names with a comma.