Why isn't Bin Laden wanted for 9-11?

[CMike]

you got no Bin Laden, you got no operational connections between Al Qaeda and you got no WMD's ....time for you guys to spin another excuse.

Al Qaida and Hussein had ties that went back a decade.

The WMD were either moved to Syria or looted.

Just because they weren't found, doesn't meant that they didn't exist.

Hussein had plenty of time to get rid of them. In fact, he would have been a fool not to destroy the evidence.

Yes, at one time the US did support Iraq, because Iran was considered the greater evil. That was a mistake IMO.

And NO the US never gave Iraq WMD.

And yes deposing a mad dicator who tried to assassinate a US president, was a consistent supporter of terrorists, had acquired WMD, and was working toward nukes was well worth it, especially in the aftermath of 911.

Iraq War apologists are sooooooo fucking blinded by their agenda that even when they have proven WMD was not a major reason for invading Iraq they don't realize it. How can you dumbasses be that fucking stoopid? I'm guessing you need it explained.

Crazed paranoic left wing fantasies are not proof.

I know, I know, for liberals to simply state their sordid opinions is supposed to be considered proof by them

Syria has been on the list of State Sponsored Terrorism since that list was created in 1979. If the WMD were moved to syria then why didn't we invaded an officially recognized sponsor of terrorism? By your own argument it means one of two things: the WMD farce was always bullshit, or the Bush admin wants the US to get hit by WMD. So which one is it einstein?

Good point. I think a 2,000 pound bomb dropped on Syria's ministry of defense building would be a great idea

 

[CMike]

So now you want to compare the No Fly Zones, which were not part of the Cease Fire agreements, to the period of the US withdrawing all of it's forces from Iraq in March 1991? Rotfl! You are too fucking stoopid!

i am comparing iraqi forces agreeing to not fire on american forces in iraq with them firing on american forces in iraq.

is that too confusing for you? would you like me to type it slower for you?

You are an unbelievably dishonest fuck. I feel sorry for you so that is why I try to help you, sort of a community service for the mentally challenged. But then I'm reminded of how you actually rewrote words spoken by Bush to ignore what he said. Any divedick that does that is hopelessly lost.

 

[slackjawed]

How about the ties between Al qeda and the CIA, or the bin ladens and the Bushs, or the USA and Saddam when we sold him weapons etc.. I'm finding lots of disturbing ties. BTW, its well documented that Sadaam would never have associated with Al qeda, which seems to be the name given to the list containing CIA associates, including the Mujahadeen.

Really? Let's see all this documentation.

Look it up yourself, lots of information out there. Somehow though, folks are not wanting to except the inconsistencies in the official governments version, and Ive been reading through threads on here, and seen where people post links to videos, and articles etc. and certain people like yourself seem to either not give a shit, or deny the information given.

Then why don't you post some of that information.
Wait, I can answer that.
Because you and the other treasonous fucks don't give a shit about truth. You just want attention to spread your treasonous propaganda.

If you have information, post it. If you don't go away.

Your no different than the rest of the so-called truthers, you don't want truth. That is made clear by your failure to present any information, and your affinity to simp0ly resort to insults and name-calling.

twoofers are such treasonous scum..............

 

[CurveLight]

Al Qaida and Hussein had ties that went back a decade.

The WMD were either moved to Syria or looted.

Just because they weren't found, doesn't meant that they didn't exist.

Hussein had plenty of time to get rid of them. In fact, he would have been a fool not to destroy the evidence.

Yes, at one time the US did support Iraq, because Iran was considered the greater evil. That was a mistake IMO.

And NO the US never gave Iraq WMD.

And yes deposing a mad dicator who tried to assassinate a US president, was a consistent supporter of terrorists, had acquired WMD, and was working toward nukes was well worth it, especially in the aftermath of 911.

Crazed paranoic left wing fantasies are not proof.

I know, I know, for liberals to simply state their sordid opinions is supposed to be considered proof by them

Syria has been on the list of State Sponsored Terrorism since that list was created in 1979. If the WMD were moved to syria then why didn't we invaded an officially recognized sponsor of terrorism? By your own argument it means one of two things: the WMD farce was always bullshit, or the Bush admin wants the US to get hit by WMD. So which one is it einstein?

Good point. I think a 2,000 pound bomb dropped on Syria's ministry of defense building would be a great idea

Wow....you quoted the post but completely avoided the point. Great job!

 

[CurveLight]

Really? Let's see all this documentation.

Look it up yourself, lots of information out there. Somehow though, folks are not wanting to except the inconsistencies in the official governments version, and Ive been reading through threads on here, and seen where people post links to videos, and articles etc. and certain people like yourself seem to either not give a shit, or deny the information given.

Then why don't you post some of that information.
Wait, I can answer that.
Because you and the other treasonous fucks don't give a shit about truth. You just want attention to spread your treasonous propaganda.

If you have information, post it. If you don't go away.

Your no different than the rest of the so-called truthers, you don't want truth. That is made clear by your failure to present any information, and your affinity to simp0ly resort to insults and name-calling.

twoofers are such treasonous scum..............

Proof reincarnation happens. This post shows saddam came back from the dead and learned to write English to continue his romance with Fascism and condemn anyone who dares question the government.

 

[Fizz]

So now you want to compare the No Fly Zones, which were not part of the Cease Fire agreements, to the period of the US withdrawing all of it's forces from Iraq in March 1991? Rotfl! You are too fucking stoopid!

i am comparing iraqi forces agreeing to not fire on american forces in iraq with them firing on american forces in iraq.

is that too confusing for you? would you like me to type it slower for you?

You are an unbelievably dishonest fuck. I feel sorry for you so that is why I try to help you, sort of a community service for the mentally challenged. But then I'm reminded of how you actually rewrote words spoken by Bush to ignore what he said. Any divedick that does that is hopelessly lost.

sorry jackass, but you not being able to understand what i wrote doesnt make me dishonest. it makes you a dumbfuck.

 

[CurveLight]

Really? Let's see all this documentation.

Look it up yourself, lots of information out there. Somehow though, folks are not wanting to except the inconsistencies in the official governments version, and Ive been reading through threads on here, and seen where people post links to videos, and articles etc. and certain people like yourself seem to either not give a shit, or deny the information given.

Then why don't you post some of that information.
Wait, I can answer that.
Because you and the other treasonous fucks don't give a shit about truth. You just want attention to spread your treasonous propaganda.

If you have information, post it. If you don't go away.

Your no different than the rest of the so-called truthers, you don't want truth. That is made clear by your failure to present any information, and your affinity to simp0ly resort to insults and name-calling.

twoofers are such treasonous scum..............

Proof reincarnation happens. This post shows saddam came back from the dead and learned to write English to continue his romance with Fascism and condemn anyone who dares question the government.

 

[Jay Canuck]

you got no Bin Laden, you got no operational connections between Al Qaeda and you got no WMD's ....time for you guys to spin another excuse.

Al Qaida and Hussein had ties that went back a decade.

The WMD were either moved to Syria or looted.

Just because they weren't found, doesn't meant that they didn't exist.

Hussein had plenty of time to get rid of them. In fact, he would have been a fool not to destroy the evidence.

Yes, at one time the US did support Iraq, because Iran was considered the greater evil. That was a mistake IMO.

And NO the US never gave Iraq WMD.

And yes deposing a mad dicator who tried to assassinate a US president, was a consistent supporter of terrorists, had acquired WMD, and was working toward nukes was well worth it, especially in the aftermath of 911.

once again you thrill all of us here with your useless opinion and have no proof whatsoever to back up your claims - seriously dude.... give it up.

 

[CurveLight]

i am comparing iraqi forces agreeing to not fire on american forces in iraq with them firing on american forces in iraq.

is that too confusing for you? would you like me to type it slower for you?

You are an unbelievably dishonest fuck. I feel sorry for you so that is why I try to help you, sort of a community service for the mentally challenged. But then I'm reminded of how you actually rewrote words spoken by Bush to ignore what he said. Any divedick that does that is hopelessly lost.

sorry jackass, but you not being able to understand what i wrote doesnt make me dishonest. it makes you a dumbfuck.

I enjoy exposing you Nationalistic fucks so let's look at what you said to justify the invasion. You said iraq fired on our aircraft. Where were our aircraft when iraq fired on them?

 

[CMike]

you got no Bin Laden, you got no operational connections between Al Qaeda and you got no WMD's ....time for you guys to spin another excuse.

Al Qaida and Hussein had ties that went back a decade.

The WMD were either moved to Syria or looted.

Just because they weren't found, doesn't meant that they didn't exist.

Hussein had plenty of time to get rid of them. In fact, he would have been a fool not to destroy the evidence.

Yes, at one time the US did support Iraq, because Iran was considered the greater evil. That was a mistake IMO.

And NO the US never gave Iraq WMD.

And yes deposing a mad dicator who tried to assassinate a US president, was a consistent supporter of terrorists, had acquired WMD, and was working toward nukes was well worth it, especially in the aftermath of 911.

once again you thrill all of us here with your useless opinion and have no proof whatsoever to back up your claims - seriously dude.... give it up.

Which one of the facts do you feel that I have not backed up?

 

[CMike]

You are an unbelievably dishonest fuck. I feel sorry for you so that is why I try to help you, sort of a community service for the mentally challenged. But then I'm reminded of how you actually rewrote words spoken by Bush to ignore what he said. Any divedick that does that is hopelessly lost.

sorry jackass, but you not being able to understand what i wrote doesnt make me dishonest. it makes you a dumbfuck.

I enjoy exposing you Nationalistic fucks so let's look at what you said to justify the invasion. You said iraq fired on our aircraft. Where were our aircraft when iraq fired on them?

You just make yourself look more stupid every post.

 

[Liability]

sorry jackass, but you not being able to understand what i wrote doesnt make me dishonest. it makes you a dumbfuck.

I enjoy exposing you Nationalistic fucks so let's look at what you said to justify the invasion. You said iraq fired on our aircraft. Where were our aircraft when iraq fired on them?

You just make yourself look more stupid every post.

The truth WILL eventually come out!

 

[Jay Canuck]

Al Qaida and Hussein had ties that went back a decade.

The WMD were either moved to Syria or looted.

Just because they weren't found, doesn't meant that they didn't exist.

Hussein had plenty of time to get rid of them. In fact, he would have been a fool not to destroy the evidence.

Yes, at one time the US did support Iraq, because Iran was considered the greater evil. That was a mistake IMO.

And NO the US never gave Iraq WMD.

And yes deposing a mad dicator who tried to assassinate a US president, was a consistent supporter of terrorists, had acquired WMD, and was working toward nukes was well worth it, especially in the aftermath of 911.

once again you thrill all of us here with your useless opinion and have no proof whatsoever to back up your claims - seriously dude.... give it up.

Which one of the facts do you feel that I have not backed up?

I don't know why I'm going to bother to reply to you....but why don't I let you refute one of your own "facts" - first you say the US supported Iraq and then you say the US never sold them weapons. - which is it?

 

[DiveCon]

once again you thrill all of us here with your useless opinion and have no proof whatsoever to back up your claims - seriously dude.... give it up.

Which one of the facts do you feel that I have not backed up?

I don't know why I'm going to bother to reply to you....but why don't I let you refute one of your own "facts" - first you say the US supported Iraq and then you say the US never sold them weapons. - which is it?

because "support" doesnt mean "supplied WMD"
and only dipshits like YOU think it does

 

[HUGGY]

Which one of the facts do you feel that I have not backed up?

I don't know why I'm going to bother to reply to you....but why don't I let you refute one of your own "facts" - first you say the US supported Iraq and then you say the US never sold them weapons. - which is it?

because "support" doesnt mean "supplied WMD"
and only dipshits like YOU think it does

As usual ...stupidy and willfull ignorance ... See you next tuesday sucker.

Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein

 

[CMike]

I don't know why I'm going to bother to reply to you....but why don't I let you refute one of your own "facts" - first you say the US supported Iraq and then you say the US never sold them weapons. - which is it?

because "support" doesnt mean "supplied WMD"
and only dipshits like YOU think it does

As usual ...stupidy and willfull ignorance ... See you next tuesday sucker.

Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein

What does your left wing blogs have to do with reality douche bag?

 

[CMike]

once again you thrill all of us here with your useless opinion and have no proof whatsoever to back up your claims - seriously dude.... give it up.

Which one of the facts do you feel that I have not backed up?

I don't know why I'm going to bother to reply to you....but why don't I let you refute one of your own "facts" - first you say the US supported Iraq and then you say the US never sold them weapons. - which is it?

Is english a second language for you? I said that the US didn't sell them WMD.

 

[SFC Ollie]

I don't know why I'm going to bother to reply to you....but why don't I let you refute one of your own "facts" - first you say the US supported Iraq and then you say the US never sold them weapons. - which is it?

because "support" doesnt mean "supplied WMD"
and only dipshits like YOU think it does

As usual ...stupidy and willfull ignorance ... See you next tuesday sucker.

Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein

From your link (which isn't one bit biased ):

Iraq had ordered the samples, saying it needed them for legitimate medical research.

This already got beat to death 8 years ago. We sent the same samples to countries all over the world who were doing medical research.

 

[CMike]

This is a little lesson in sources for the left wing morons here.

There is a news source.

There then may even be an article.

The article may even have a headline.

An article may even have "internal documenation"

Anyone can say anything on the internet. Any news source can say anything. It doesn't mean it's true.

What matters is how it's backed up.

There could be a headline title "Obama is a coke dealer" that doesn't make it true.

Now let's say the article says

According to anonymous sources "Obama is a coke head".

That doesn't make it true either. Anonymours sources mean zero.

Then there can be a quote that says according to the people of american way "Obama is a coke head." However, they are not an official source, and there information has very little weight too.

Then there could be a quote from the police chief of Las Vegas that says according to a police report "Obama was caught dealing cocaine". Now we are running into credible sources.

This is what we run into from the liberals.

The liberals see some headline from the NYT saying "No ties between Hussein and Al Qaida" and they take that as proof, but it's not.

Those articles quote reports that never verify what the headline says.

Headlines are not proof.

You need authoritative sources. You need to quote them and you need to give the links to the actual sources.

 

[DiveCon]

I don't know why I'm going to bother to reply to you....but why don't I let you refute one of your own "facts" - first you say the US supported Iraq and then you say the US never sold them weapons. - which is it?

because "support" doesnt mean "supplied WMD"
and only dipshits like YOU think it does

As usual ...stupidy and willfull ignorance ... See you next tuesday sucker.

Reagan's WMD Connection to Saddam Hussein

what a lying piece of shit you are
what the Reafgan administration gave Iraq was REFERENCE strains, they CAN NOT be made into weapons and are used for the making of antidotes
you assholes just like to keep lying