Iraq NOT part of Terror War (Anymore)

[freeandfun1]

Again....

Whether or not Bush tried to tie Iraq and Al Queda....

When did Bush ever say this was a war only against Al Queda and/or the 9-11 gang?

Why isn't it called a War on Al Queda?

Because.....


It is a WAR ON TERRORISM!

 

[Zhukov]

Originally posted by rwriter
TWISI, the Iraq situation has changed, since about last August, in two ways:
1) Because no link to Anti-US terror groups prior to 9/11/01 have come anywhere close to being proved (and most have been dis-proved), I say that the Iraq situation is no longer part of the "War on Terror". It's a separate issue.
2) Clearly, since US forces have been the pre-eminent power in Iraq since April 03, it's not a war anymore.
It's an occupation, whether we call it one or not.
Surely that's what the Iraqis think now.

Where do we go from here on Iraq? I say hold elections ASAP, let whoever's not under suspcision of Saddam-era crimes run,
and who cares what happens after that -- it's their problem, not ours.

Thought?:cof:

Well, I don't have time to read the whole thread to see if anyone has brought this up already, but there are terrorists there NOW attacking US. Therefore it continues to be a part of the War on Terror. It was to begin with because Saddam was a terrorist and a terrorist supporter.

 

[Merlin1047]

Originally posted by Kathianne
Interesting that is the one consistancy, the 'control' will be handed over 6/30, no wavering. Actually I think we shall soon hear the left argue that this is just stubborness on the administration's point.

They are not going to want the power turn over, they want to yell occupation as the uninformed are still doing. We shall see.

Kathianne, I don't think you're giving the left enough credit here. Right now, they are simply biding their time. They can bitch that this was war for oil, we had no exit strategy, we had no rebuild strategy, blah, blah, blah.

But after June 30, it's a new ball game. If everything works out, the left will scream that we stayed too long and "wasted" American lives by our extended presence. If things go down the crapper, they will scream that we didn't stay long enough and "wasted" American lives by not seeing this through to the finish.

Either way, you can bet your camel they're going to bitch about something. You know damn well that GW can't possibly do anything right.

 

[Tippy Toes]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
Kathianne, I don't think you're giving the left enough credit here. Right now, they are simply biding their time. They can bitch that this was war for oil, we had no exit strategy, we had no rebuild strategy, blah, blah, blah.

But after June 30, it's a new ball game. If everything works out, the left will scream that we stayed too long and "wasted" American lives by our extended presence. If things go down the crapper, they will scream that we didn't stay long enough and "wasted" American lives by not seeing this through to the finish.

Either way, you can bet your camel they're going to bitch about something. You know damn well that GW can't possibly do anything right.

That's right!

 

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Kathianne
EU doesn't want to take over, even if they did, they wouldn't be able so it's moot.

The dems are all about winning in November, which means Bush must fail, Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability.

He sure is a VERY un-likeable feller isn't he.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by st8_o_mind
Iraq had links to terrorists, particularly palestinians, but not to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. The Hussein government and Al Qaeda were on opposite ends of the Islamic ideoligical spectrum.

Thanks for confirming that Saddam had links to terrorism. You neocoms cant seem to figure out that we are waging a war on terror. Not Al queda. Terror period. It doesnt matter what group they are. we are going to eliminate them.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I was wondering if she isn't a bit tipsy this morning, I have had trouble understanding what she is talking about as well. Thanks for the clarification, lol.

Since I was in school teaching, can I run to DK about your slander?

Just because you are uninformed doesn't make my point less valid. I don't slam normally, don't need to. I try to tell my point of view. L

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Bern80
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nycflasher
"Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay, what is likeable about him? He has not been shown to have much integrity because, while this is getting old, he has flip-flopped on quite a few issues. He hasn't said what he will do in Iraq accept stay the course now, which what Bush has been saying all along. He said he'll do it differently, not only in Iraq but job creation, though he hasn't gone into specifics.

Kerry, however, is not an unlikeable person, but he isn't likeable. That's the problem. He isn't anything. He is bland and has the most nap inspiring drawl I've ever heard.

Bern, why must you misquote me?
I was quoting someone else and now you have attributed that quote to me.
Ah well...

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by Merlin1047
You know damn well that GW can't possibly do anything right.

I wouldn't say anything.

 

[4USA]

Saddam Hussein's regime had numerous contacts with al Qaeda and like minded terrorist groups. Their hatred of the United States was their common motive.

- Bin Laden himself visted Baghdad in 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz to set up training camps in Iraq.

- For two years prior to 9/11, Iraqi intelligence officers visited Afghanistan regularly to meet with bin Laden's chief lieutenant Ayman Al Zawahiri.

- According to an Iraqi intelligence memo addressed to Saddam Hussein dated July 1, 2001, Mohammad Atta - the 9/11 ringleader - had been in Baghdad to receive training from Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist who had ben given sanctuary in Iraq but later "killed himself".

- Zarqawi - the thug who most likely beheaded Berk among other crimes - fled from Afghanistan to Iraq shortly after our toppling of the Taliban regime and got medical treatment in Baghdad courtesy of Sadam Hussein. Zarqawi then went on to set up training camps in Northern Iraq and is still wreaking havoc. The point is that he resided in Iraq before we removed Saddam Hussein, not as a result of our actions.

- Saddam's son Udai wrote in his newspaper Babil ten days after 9/11 and shortly before the anthrax attacks in the U.S. about the ease of using germ warfare. A little over a year later Udai published a "List of Honor" of Iraqi heros, which included the name of an Iraqi inteligence officer who was based in Pakistan and "responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group." That edition of Babil also included photos of Sadam and bin Laden.

- An Iraqi national Shakir, who got his job with Malaysian Airlines with the help of the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, happened to be the individual selected to accompany two of the 9/11 highjackers to a fateful al Qaeda planning meeting in Malaysia held in 2000 where the Cole bombing was planned among other terrorist projects in the planning stages.


And the list goes on. Common motive was hatred of the United States and anything that smacked of democracy ("The enemy of my enmeny is my friend"). Anyone who seriously doubts the extensive dealings between the Saddam Hussein regime and al Qaeda & allied Islamic terrorist groups are also probably members of the Flat Earth Society.

 

[Avatar4321]

Iraq has always been part of the war on terror. Saddams regime funded terrorism. one of the tactics of war is to destroy the enemies supply lines. make it more difficult for them.

 

[Blair]

When destroying supply lines, it's more important to start from the proximal end and work back, so your enemy can't continue to work through its inventory and build strength to defeat you before you get to where he feels it.

Bush is learning that simple stratagem the hard way.

Besides which, Saddam's sole evident contribution to terrorism was his offer to pay to rebuild houses razed by Israel in the occupied territories.

Given that America also gives money to the Palestinians, we too are contributing to rebuilding their razed dwellings. I certainly don't think we forbid use of money for that purpose.

Not to mention money going to Northern Ireland.

So when does Bush attack the U.S.?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Blair
Besides which, Saddam's sole evident contribution to terrorism was his offer to pay to rebuild houses razed by Israel in the occupied territories.

Where do you get your info?

DOH!

Threat of 4,000 suicide bombers is a real one
Many other stories about Saddam's support/financing of terrorist is available through various media sources. Learn to use Google. It might increase your knowledge.

 

[4USA]

Or read the facts that I cited previously on this thread. Here they are again. Don't keep repeating silly denials of the obvious.

Saddam Hussein's regime had numerous contacts with al Qaeda and like minded terrorist groups. Their hatred of the United States was their common motive.

- Bin Laden himself visted Baghdad in 1998 and met with Tariq Aziz to set up training camps in Iraq.

- For two years prior to 9/11, Iraqi intelligence officers visited Afghanistan regularly to meet with bin Laden's chief lieutenant Ayman Al Zawahiri.

- According to an Iraqi intelligence memo addressed to Saddam Hussein dated July 1, 2001, Mohammad Atta - the 9/11 ringleader - had been in Baghdad to receive training from Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist who had ben given sanctuary in Iraq but later "killed himself".

- Zarqawi - the thug who most likely beheaded Berk among other crimes - fled from Afghanistan to Iraq shortly after our toppling of the Taliban regime and got medical treatment in Baghdad courtesy of Sadam Hussein. Zarqawi then went on to set up training camps in Northern Iraq and is still wreaking havoc. The point is that he resided in Iraq before we removed Saddam Hussein, not as a result of our actions.

- Saddam's son Udai wrote in his newspaper Babil ten days after 9/11 and shortly before the anthrax attacks in the U.S. about the ease of using germ warfare. A little over a year later Udai published a "List of Honor" of Iraqi heros, which included the name of an Iraqi inteligence officer who was based in Pakistan and "responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group." That edition of Babil also included photos of Sadam and bin Laden.

- An Iraqi national Shakir, who got his job with Malaysian Airlines with the help of the Iraqi embassy in Malaysia, happened to be the individual selected to accompany two of the 9/11 highjackers to a fateful al Qaeda planning meeting in Malaysia held in 2000 where the Cole bombing was planned among other terrorist projects in the planning stages.


And the list goes on. Common motive was hatred of the United States and anything that smacked of democracy ("The enemy of my enmeny is my friend"). Anyone who seriously doubts the extensive dealings between the Saddam Hussein regime and al Qaeda & allied Islamic terrorist groups are also probably members of the Flat Earth Society.

 

[rwriter]

Prior to 9/11/01, Iraq did NOT have any links to AlQueda. The only possible link was Zarqawi, on the presumption that if he was treated in an Iraqi hospital (which he was, prior to 9/11/01), that it was with Saddam's permission, and therefore a link.
Weak link.
As we can see know, Zarqawi can move around Iraq nicely without Saddam to help him, and therefore it seems to me, just because Z. was in Iraq didn't mean Saddam knew or wanted him there. He's in Iraq now and we sure as hell don't want him there, do we?

I'm tired of the media starting off Iraq news with the banner "War on Terror". "War on Iraq" isn't even accurate anymore. "Iraq Conflict" would be about right.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by rwriter
Prior to 9/11/01, Iraq did NOT have any links to AlQueda. The only possible link was Zarqawi, on the presumption that if he was treated in an Iraqi hospital (which he was, prior to 9/11/01), that it was with Saddam's permission, and therefore a link.
Weak link.
As we can see know, Zarqawi can move around Iraq nicely without Saddam to help him, and therefore it seems to me, just because Z. was in Iraq didn't mean Saddam knew or wanted him there. He's in Iraq now and we sure as hell don't want him there, do we?

I'm tired of the media starting off Iraq news with the banner "War on Terror". "War on Iraq" isn't even accurate anymore. "Iraq Conflict" would be about right.

That's not exactly true:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m.

One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.
We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.

It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.
As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, six days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.




One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.
The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.


Copyright © 2004 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by nycflasher

"Kerry is NOT likable-he can't win under present circumstances, which is aying quite alot about his unlikability."


[/B]

That makes absolute perfect sense. Things have not gone according to plan in Iraq what with the prison and the continued unstableness and still Kerry is such a fucking loser moron that he will still get his ass handed to him. LOL the Demos are in some serious trouble as a party.

I mean your candidate spends every morning explaining himself for the past day, come on! This guy is going to lose in a landslide!

 

[Zhukov]

I've been looking for that article Kathianne. You should make that it's own thread.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Zhukov
I've been looking for that article Kathianne. You should make that it's own thread.

OK, I will.