Why there were no terrorists in Iraq

[Pericles]

Why did George Bush really invade Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction were never found
There is no evidence of any planned invasions on Israel or the U.S.
There is no evidence of any terrorists in the nation of Iraq either.
so WHY?

The reason no terrorists were found, is really quite simple. There were none. There never were any terrorists either, because Saddam Hussein would not have allowed it. The allowance of terrorists in Iraq would have offered a challenge to Hussein's power. Saddam is like Stalin. No matter how much he brutalized his people, or hated another country, or anything for that matter, no matter what, he would not allow a challenge to his power. That is what you have to understand. I'm not saying that having Hussein out of power is a bad thing, or that there was no good reason to invade Iraq. I am just telling the absolute truth. The reasons that our government gave us for invading Iraq, for lack of a better term, were lies. They were simply lies. Some people may say that we invaded Iraq for oil. That's possible, but that is not what this message is about. That is another message for another time.

 

[Annie]

Why did George Bush really invade Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction were never found

Actually WMD and the means of making them were found. What was not found were stockpiles, which perhaps never existed, but wait they did, because he used them. It's possible they were destroyed, but that seems unlikely, as if rational, which he shows every evidence of being, he would have proved that. The most likely scenarios are that they are in the desert or in Syria.

There is no evidence of any planned invasions on Israel or the U.S.

There was ample evidence, videotaped of Saddam paying suicide bombers in Palestine. Also of his funding of Hamas and Hizbollah. Also of threats he made against the US, no reason to believe he would not have shared his generosity with terrorists to do us harm.

There is no evidence of any terrorists in the nation of Iraq either.
so WHY?

There was ample evidence of al Queda training camps in the North. Kneejerk liberals standard reply is, 'That's the Kurds.' Yeah, whatever.

The reason no terrorists were found, is really quite simple. There were none. There never were any terrorists either, because Saddam Hussein would not have allowed it. The allowance of terrorists in Iraq would have offered a challenge to Hussein's power. Saddam is like Stalin. No matter how much he brutalized his people, or hated another country, or anything for that matter, no matter what, he would not allow a challenge to his power. That is what you have to understand. I'm not saying that having Hussein out of power is a bad thing, or that there was no good reason to invade Iraq. I am just telling the absolute truth. The reasons that our government gave us for invading Iraq, for lack of a better term, were lies. They were simply lies. Some people may say that we invaded Iraq for oil. That's possible, but that is not what this message is about. That is another message for another time.

Since you were wrong above, this last bit is moot.

 

[Comrade]

Why did George Bush really invade Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction were never found
There is no evidence of any planned invasions on Israel or the U.S.
There is no evidence of any terrorists in the nation of Iraq either.
so WHY?


The reason no terrorists were found, is really quite simple. There were none. There never were any terrorists either, because Saddam Hussein would not have allowed it. The allowance of terrorists in Iraq would have offered a challenge to Hussein's power. Saddam is like Stalin. No matter how much he brutalized his people, or hated another country, or anything for that matter, no matter what, he would not allow a challenge to his power. That is what you have to understand. I'm not saying that having Hussein out of power is a bad thing, or that there was no good reason to invade Iraq. I am just telling the absolute truth. The reasons that our government gave us for invading Iraq, for lack of a better term, were lies. They were simply lies. Some people may say that we invaded Iraq for oil. That's possible, but that is not what this message is about. That is another message for another time.

ABU NIDAL.

Here's a clicky:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Abu+Nidal+Baghdad


So there you go. Now are you happy?

 

[gaffer]

Why did George Bush really invade Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction were never found

They were buried and/or moved to syria


There is no evidence of any planned invasions on Israel or the U.S.

He couldn't invade, he was paying terrorist groups to attack Isreal and supporting others to attack in the US.


There is no evidence of any terrorists in the nation of Iraq either.
so WHY?

There were groups training in the north and he actually had old passenger planes for terrorists to train in on how to take over an aircraft



The reason no terrorists were found, is really quite simple. There were none. There never were any terrorists either, because Saddam Hussein would not have allowed it. The allowance of terrorists in Iraq would have offered a challenge to Hussein's power. Saddam is like Stalin. No matter how much he brutalized his people, or hated another country, or anything for that matter, no matter what, he would not allow a challenge to his power. That is what you have to understand. I'm not saying that having Hussein out of power is a bad thing, or that there was no good reason to invade Iraq. I am just telling the absolute truth. The reasons that our government gave us for invading Iraq, for lack of a better term, were lies. They were simply lies. Some people may say that we invaded Iraq for oil. That's possible, but that is not what this message is about. That is another message for another time.

In the world you live in there are no terrorists, like all liberals you live in a fantasy world and 9/11 never happened. saddam did deal with the terrorist and with al queada they have the documents. Go bury your head back in the sand and maybe the real world will go away.

 

[Fmr jarhead]

Terrorists in Iraq.....

Check Salman Pak

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Regarding your hypothesis of WMD:

Absence Of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence

More than likely the WMD is in Syria (still) in the Bekaa Valley.....if any more transports move in to Iran from Syria, there is gong to be another cna of "whoop-ass" opened if not the whole six pack!

 

[budboomer]

It sounds like someone watched Fahrenheit 911 too many times. It never ceases to amaze me that as long as someone sees something on a screen they take it as the truth.
Hey Pericles, I have a bridge I want to sell you.

 

[drac]

Why did George Bush really invade Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction were never found
There is no evidence of any planned invasions on Israel or the U.S.
There is no evidence of any terrorists in the nation of Iraq either.
so WHY?

The reason no terrorists were found, is really quite simple. There were none. There never were any terrorists either, because Saddam Hussein would not have allowed it. The allowance of terrorists in Iraq would have offered a challenge to Hussein's power. Saddam is like Stalin. No matter how much he brutalized his people, or hated another country, or anything for that matter, no matter what, he would not allow a challenge to his power. That is what you have to understand. I'm not saying that having Hussein out of power is a bad thing, or that there was no good reason to invade Iraq. I am just telling the absolute truth. The reasons that our government gave us for invading Iraq, for lack of a better term, were lies. They were simply lies. Some people may say that we invaded Iraq for oil. That's possible, but that is not what this message is about. That is another message for another time.

Are you saying we should not have invaded iraq? The point was made through UN, let inspectors in and stop playing your games with them or else. Guy wented with the door number 2. So what is your point? Should we just had another cup of tea with him? (i mean we were talking for 12 years, practically giving and supporting an independent kurdistan, how much longer would you talk to him?)

 

[Comrade]

Are you saying we should not have invaded iraq? The point was made through UN, let inspectors in and stop playing your games with them or else. Guy wented with the door number 2. So what is your point? Should we just had another cup of tea with him? (i mean we were talking for 12 years, practically giving and supporting an independent kurdistan, how much longer would you talk to him?)

I think he's a one post wonder.

 

[Avatar4321]

So what your saying is there are terrorists that hate the US in every nation of the world, including the United states, but there are no terrorists in Iraq despite the fact that Saddam hated us, offered Osama refuge, funded terrorism, etc?

 

[Comrade]

So what your saying is there are terrorists that hate the US in every nation of the world, including the United states, but there are no terrorists in Iraq despite the fact that Saddam hated us, offered Osama refuge, funded terrorism, etc?

And Abu Nidal.

I still remember how he killed the American in his wheelchair and dumped him overboard.

I think he ran off to Syria by now. Does anyone know where he can be found and killed yet?

 

[drac]

And Abu Nidal.

I still remember how he killed the American in his wheelchair and dumped him overboard.

I think he ran off to Syria by now. Does anyone know where he can be found and killed yet?

at the end of sadam regime, before the current war, he was found dead in his home, i believe. he lived in iraq

 

[Annie]

And Abu Nidal.

I still remember how he killed the American in his wheelchair and dumped him overboard.

I think he ran off to Syria by now. Does anyone know where he can be found and killed yet?

I think this may be to whom you are referring:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...9/international1602EST0706.DTL&type=printable

 

[drac]

I think this may be to whom you are referring:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...9/international1602EST0706.DTL&type=printable

Yep you right, the one i mentioned was
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,60933,00.html

 

[nakedemperor]

Actually WMD and the means of making them were found. What was not found were stockpiles, which perhaps never existed, but wait they did, because he used them. It's possible they were destroyed, but that seems unlikely, as if rational, which he shows every evidence of being, he would have proved that. The most likely scenarios are that they are in the desert or in Syria.
There was ample evidence, videotaped of Saddam paying suicide bombers in Palestine. Also of his funding of Hamas and Hizbollah. Also of threats he made against the US, no reason to believe he would not have shared his generosity with terrorists to do us harm.
There was ample evidence of al Queda training camps in the North. Kneejerk liberals standard reply is, 'That's the Kurds.' Yeah, whatever.


Since you were wrong above, this last bit is moot.

Kathianne, what were found in Iraq were tactical battlefield chemical weapons, no weapons of mass destruction were found. At all. And these shells we found with tactical battlefield chemical weapons, there very few of them. And they were YEARS old. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND.

Also, I'd like the see the ample evidence of al Qaeda training camps in the North. Even if they were there, that's not the point. We were told, point blank, that Saddam had connections to al Qaeda. That he had contact with them. "We have no idea what they were cooking up" -Condi Rice, 2003. Saddam didn't control the North. The terrorists there (the Islamic fundamentalist anarchists) were NOT AT ALL connected with Saddam. The leader of the group said that "truly Saddam is our enemy too". Osama bin Laden himself called Saddam "the socialist infidel". Yeah. they were in cahoots. The implication that they told us was that Saddam HAD WMD weapons (they "knew it", the "knew" he had MASSIVE AMOUNTS of WMD). WRONG. The other implication was that his connection to al Qaeda (non-existant, SECULAR CONTROL-FREAK) and that he could have GIVEN them these weapons of mass destruction. If what was given to us were not overt lies, they were VAST misrepresentations of the truth.

 

[Hobbit]

what were found in Iraq were tactical battlefield chemical weapons, no weapons of mass destruction were found

Ever hear of a small, tactical nuke? Small and tactical just means it isn't capable of wiping out a whole city. Anything that falls into the nuclear/biological/chemical (NBC) catagory is considered a weapon of mass destruction. The types of chemicals found in those things are really nasty. Most of the missile is just fuel and casings. Most airborne toxins take less than 12 oz. (a soda can) detonated a few hundred feet up to wipe out several city blocks. Just one of those "small, tactical" chemical rounds could wipe out a college campus, national convention, or football crowd. They're still against Iraq's terms of surrender and they're still WMD's.

There were terrorists all over Iraq and even if Saddam didn't support them, he still looked the other way and let them do their own thing. The only man we never caught after the 1993 WTC attack, we traced to Iraq, where Saddam basically gave him sanctuary.

Why did George Bush really invade Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction were never found
There is no evidence of any planned invasions on Israel or the U.S.
There is no evidence of any terrorists in the nation of Iraq either.
so WHY?

Why? Because Bush got so tied up trying to convince Congress and our allies to go to war (with full coverage on C-SPAN) that Saddam had a month to hide his dirty laundry.

 

[5stringJeff]

Is somebody spamming a link to the board on moveon.org or the DU? How many of these wack-jobs are we going to have to deal with?

 

[drac]

Kathianne, what were found in Iraq were tactical battlefield chemical weapons, no weapons of mass destruction were found. At all. And these shells we found with tactical battlefield chemical weapons, there very few of them. And they were YEARS old. THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND.

Also, I'd like the see the ample evidence of al Qaeda training camps in the North. Even if they were there, that's not the point. We were told, point blank, that Saddam had connections to al Qaeda. That he had contact with them. "We have no idea what they were cooking up" -Condi Rice, 2003. Saddam didn't control the North. The terrorists there (the Islamic fundamentalist anarchists) were NOT AT ALL connected with Saddam. The leader of the group said that "truly Saddam is our enemy too". Osama bin Laden himself called Saddam "the socialist infidel". Yeah. they were in cahoots. The implication that they told us was that Saddam HAD WMD weapons (they "knew it", the "knew" he had MASSIVE AMOUNTS of WMD). WRONG. The other implication was that his connection to al Qaeda (non-existant, SECULAR CONTROL-FREAK) and that he could have GIVEN them these weapons of mass destruction. If what was given to us were not overt lies, they were VAST misrepresentations of the truth.

I agree with you, but how does it matter now?

 

[gaffer]

And Abu Nidal.

I still remember how he killed the American in his wheelchair and dumped him overboard.

I think he ran off to Syria by now. Does anyone know where he can be found and killed yet?

He was living in bagdahd under saddams protection. Then for some strange reason killed himself by shooting himself in the head...3 times.

 

[Annie]

Is somebody spamming a link to the board on moveon.org or the DU? How many of these wack-jobs are we going to have to deal with?

I don't know, but I'm trying to think how I might re-direct them to religion or israel board. :teeth:

 

[wade]

Is somebody spamming a link to the board on moveon.org or the DU? How many of these wack-jobs are we going to have to deal with?

The more I read this board, the more convinced it is just a place for ultra conservatives to agree with each other. Not a place for actual discussion and debate.

Wade.