The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

page: 13
0
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Yeah, I know what you mean Edsinger, take care and give em the good fight!




posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Dont worry I will and they can not later plead ignorance.


dh

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
You are the one who said Isreali terrorism and yet you seem to forget who starte that $hit! It was not the Jews.....



I think, Ed, you forget all this started with the Irgun and the Stern Gang, terrorists all,murdering many to enstate the nation of Israel, modelled on Franco's Spanish fascist fallangists, financed by the Rothschilds



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by edsinger
You are the one who said Isreali terrorism and yet you seem to forget who starte that $hit! It was not the Jews.....



I think, Ed, you forget all this started with the Irgun and the Stern Gang, terrorists all,murdering many to enstate the nation of Israel, modelled on Franco's Spanish fascist fallangists, financed by the Rothschilds


I think not because before the Jews declared a state, the Brits handled both the arab and the Jewish insurguncy with equal brutality.

Buried with pigs! Both of them, VERY effective.


dh

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by edsinger
You are the one who said Isreali terrorism and yet you seem to forget who starte that $hit! It was not the Jews.....



I think, Ed, you forget all this started with the Irgun and the Stern Gang, terrorists all,murdering many to enstate the nation of Israel, modelled on Franco's Spanish fascist fallangists, financed by the Rothschilds


I think not because before the Jews declared a state, the Brits handled both the arab and the Jewish insurguncy with equal brutality.

Buried with pigs! Both of them, VERY effective.


Yup - the Brits, - we, - are to blame for this sorry state of affairs - right back to Balfour. The Brits are factually behind everything in a leftover empire controlling way - like the way we own the United States through the City of London and the Temple Bar - the Brits are responsible for the way things have turned out in Israel and Iraq - history repeats endlessly
Still, accepting Blair and Bush are equal puppets with equivalent agendas doesn't excuse any hoohaing of the behaviour of troops on the ground
Rather get them the hell out - an empty call I'll accept unless the peoples of the nations uprise against the Mob style ruling class corruption



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Hell no! I liked the way the brits handled it and terror was not that big of a problem as it is today because they did not play favorites, it was their empire and therefore their rules.

The Pig deal worked very well.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
As far as us Jews are concerned the so called "Palestinians" are the terrorists.


Depending on who you ask.


The Israelis have a right to live in their own damn land, which the Muslims never even came in contact with until a few dozen years after Muhammad died. While the Jews have had it as a home since at least 500 B.C.E. and that’s a conservative figure


It's funny you didn't bring up what happened to the Palestinians who just so happened to be living on that same piece of land at the time. Oh the Jews were there first so that makes it right huh? Maybe someday when the USA isn't all powerful, the #1 country at the time will decide that Native Americans deserve their land back...they were here first right? Lets move everyone else off their own land...it's only fair



... The fact remains that Israeli takes up 1% of the entire middle-eastern area and they are hell bent on keeping a small chunk of land that can't even support their population at the rate it’s growing.


That's not what it's about, you see they were moved off their own land...tell me you wouldn't be pissed off if that was you. I could see it now...you'd be screaming "Jihad" like a crazy maniac.



And for the "Israeli Terrorists" that’s a load of BS and it is anti-Semitic as far as Jews are concerned. We have been struggling as a people to stay alive for hundreds of years, and after the holocaust we finally got our homeland back...


Yes, I too feel that Jews have been wronged a great deal in history...
Ohhh! I know, I'm gonna move them right smack dab in the middle of a bunch of Muslims and move the Palestinians away...hey they won't mind! (Worst idea ever IMO- and yes I know the USA wasn't the only country behind this decision)

Like everyone else, I wish they would both just shut up and live in peace...

I just tried to show how the Palestinians may feel wronged...how can you argue with that?


so I don't have the time to argue with people that are both in the dark by definition and too damn stubborn to possibly look at the subject with a true objective point of view.


Hahaha...how are you showing a true objective point of view? You are looking at it by one side only...sorry pal.



I know it's possible because when I was in middle-school/early high school I used to think just like you people, but I grew up and realized that my thinking was severely flawed...


Gonna go out on the limb here and call Bullsh#t on that one...

Do you really think we will be able to solve this disaster with brute force? I'll meet you half way and say some of it may be worked out that way...for the short-term anyways. I'm not claiming to be the war expert here, just trying myself to figure out why all the hate. You can dismiss them as barbaric animals but I refuse to go there. Yes, I know there is evil in this world, but there is NOT an entire country where people are born that way...sorry.



And by the way, the “Palestinians” aren’t a people; they are a miscellaneous group of Arabs from various countries. The term “Palestinian” was only used in reference to Jews until the early 1950’s, the Arabs took on the name in order to further the misconception that they had any hereditary right to the land of Israel.


LOL...ok sorry I'll refer to them from now on as a miscellaneous group of Arabs...


And about the whole "moral equivalency" argument... You should seriously think again. Targeted killings of civilians isn't the same as an accidental bombing of civilians, so stop trying to compare the two... it's pathetic and wrong.


That's subjective, please don't tell me what my morals are...again, imagine you are an Iraqi mother and your children have just been accidently killed by US soldiers...please don't even start to pretend that you would shrug it off "hey...it's war, it sucks, oh well...wow USA is great"



Anyway, have fun people... I'm probably not going to be able to waste anymore time on this message board, have to prepare for some grown up, real world work..


Edsinger will miss you...



[edit on 11/21/2004 by Lecky]


dh

posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Hell no! I liked the way the brits handled it

Of course you would beccause you're on side



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecky



The Israelis have a right to live in their own damn land, which the Muslims never even came in contact with until a few dozen years after Muhammad died. While the Jews have had it as a home since at least 500 B.C.E. and that’s a conservative figure


It's funny you didn't bring up what happened to the Palestinians who just so happened to be living on that same piece of land at the time. Oh the Jews were there first so that makes it right huh? Maybe someday when the USA isn't all powerful, the #1 country at the time will decide that Native Americans deserve their land back...they were here first right? Lets move everyone else off their own land...it's only fair




Edsinger will miss you...



[edit on 11/21/2004 by Lecky]



Well the arabs living in the land of Israel today are voting citizens.


And I am not the one leaving...






Originally posted by dh

Originally posted by edsinger
Hell no! I liked the way the brits handled it

Of course you would beccause you're on side



Uh no, it is because the Brits handled it well and kept order.



[edit on 21-11-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Going a bit off topic, aren't we?

I still haven't seen any evidence of rational thought on your part as to the topic of this thread, edsinger. And now your new friend, DASUSARMY, left without addressing any of my points to argue his position, which is hardly surprising. Instead, he and you chose to rehash some pathetic propaganda-like rhetoric. Not an entierly unusual method for someone realizing their lack of actual arguments to support their views. And edsinger, I must say I find you to be hilarious. You still haven't managed to properly argue your opinion based on the issues of this case. You've frequently presented your complete ignorance here; even as to the content of your own links. But here you are, proud as ever, saluting this ignorance of yours. And your telling billybob to seek mental care? Gimme a break.



[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Look Durden you can believe what you wish, just as those in here claim that 911 was an inside job with no proof whatsoever, you claim that the proof has been made that Saddam had no ties to 911 (agreed so far), Al Qaeda (you havent proven it) and international terror (I did prove it).

As for our guest, I do not know him but am glad he showed up, although I thought he gave just a hair to much info, but nothing that will get him in trouble. He was a breath of fresh air.

Believe what you wish, you keep saying that I have shown nothing, yet you post UN sponsered documents that you claim as fact and we all know how reliable they have been.

My claim is that my sources have just as much a chance of beinig true as yours, and the one thing our guest said was that 90% of the information is NOT public. I agree with this assesment and I also think that some of this information being withheld would not make the US look any better, but some of it would.


Later.



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Look Durden you can believe what you wish, just as those in here claim that 911 was an inside job with no proof whatsoever, you claim that the proof has been made that Saddam had no ties to 911 (agreed so far), Al Qaeda (you havent proven it)

How can you possibly be this ignorant? Again, read my posts - properly, this time - and try to comprehend what is presented there. On a number of occasions, in this as well as other threads, I have thoroughly presented how the vast preponderance of credible evidence simply doesn't support the alleged collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda.


As for our guest, I do not know him but am glad he showed up, although I thought he gave just a hair to much info, but nothing that will get him in trouble.

That's what you call info? Man, edsinger.. you'd fit right in with the bad intelligence people utilized by the Bush Administration.



He was a breath of fresh air.

Personally, I've never thought the smell of BS would constitute as 'fresh air'. But to each his own, I guess.



Believe what you wish, you keep saying that I have shown nothing, yet you post UN sponsered documents that you claim as fact and we all know how reliable they have been.

Again. Present exactly which sources I've provided that in your opinion can't be considered credible as opposed to yours. And properly present why exactly you would claim this to be the case. Because it's quite tedious to read you constant BS. And how can you even say such things, edsinger? You evidently don't even comprehend the content of the nonsense which you claim to support your views.


My claim is that my sources have just as much a chance of beinig true as yours, and the one thing our guest said was that 90% of the information is NOT public. I agree with this assesment and I also think that some of this information being withheld would not make the US look any better, but some of it would.

This is laughable. Again, properly show which sources I've presented that in your opinion can't be considered credible as opposed to yours. Look at you. You even use the unsubstantiated claims of 'our guest' to support your views. Claims which he/she couldn't even properly argue. And you don't see the problem with your argument??


Later.

Yeah, really. Later.



[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]


IBM

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:18 AM
link   
We should rename this thread Debate Round 1: edsinger vs Durden



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 01:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by IBM
We should rename this thread Debate Round 1: edsinger vs Durden


I think this is round 2.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 22-11-2004 by SourGrapes]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
How can you possibly be this ignorant? Again, read my posts - properly, this time - and try to comprehend what is presented there. On a number of occasions, in this as well as other threads, I have thoroughly presented how the vast preponderance of credible evidence simply doesn't support the alleged collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda.



Well for starters, when I posted Newsmax source you automatically shot it down...so




Originally posted by Durden
The same can be said for the Bush family. The 911 report concluded that there was no evidence whatsoever of a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida; period. This didn't merely concern the 9/11-attacks.



The 911 report you read was a Declassified version was it not? You really think the United States will put some serious intel on something to be sold at Walmart?




Now lets read the next one very carefully shall we?


Originally posted by Durden


Originally posted by American Mad Man
It doesn't matter how clearly you show liberals that Saddam was in fact in violation of the treaty HE HIMSELF signed after his invasion of Kuwait. It doesn't matter how clear the reasons are for this action.


What is interesting here is what is and what isn't supported by the evidence at hand. However, evidently it doesn't matter how many times these claims presented by edsinger are refuted by this evidence. He'd rather go with his bs assumptions. Truly troubling.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Durden]



Now here Durden refutes a post that clearly states Saddam was in violation of a treaty he cleary DID sign, and yet Durden rebukes it. The eveidence at hand is he did violate the truce at the end of Gulf War 1 many of times and that is one reason we kept bombing him for a damn decade.
How can you even attempt to refute this? Saddam did not even allow unfettered inspections.




Originally posted by Durden


Ah the ol collabaration, well as for 911 we will leave that to the side a minute. So all these CONTACTS that are in the 911 report, we they just meeting about about the upcomming Saddam's birthday party? The contacts were not about the electric bill and it is kinda hard to get concrete infor froma humanINT group that was gutted in the mid 90's.


Yeah. It's 'hard' to find actual evidence to support these bs claims of Al-Qaida's cooperation with Saddam, so let's not bother with what's credible at all. Simply stick to that which fits your opinion, huh? Gimme a break




But yet you find this mysterious "actual" evidence that there was NO collabaration between the two right?




Originally posted by Durden
This particular issue was thoroughly investigated by the 9/11 Commission. They came to the following conclusion:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda - save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraq Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.*

Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance to producing weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.*

The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.*

Furthermore, evidently there were no written strategies or plans by Saddam's regime to pursue the banned weapons in case the UN sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings on Duelfer's interviews with Saddam after his capture. These interviews left Duelfer's team with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States.


So Saddam hated Bin Ladin so bad that he wouldnt have rendered aid to Osama? Just suppose for a minute he did, would he be stupid enough to advertise this? Bin Ladin did ask for help, how do YOU kow he didnt get it?



Originally posted by Durden
The available credible information contradicts


You keep claiming this, so my answer is what you consider credible I might not, the UN for one is about as credible as the the New York Times IMHO.




Originally posted by Durden

The Missing Link is based on the January 2003 SSCI Report Iraqi Support for Terrorism and the material presented by Thomas Owens in your second link is based on The Missing Link. Aside from the fact that this information has carefully been scrutinized in the more recent 9/11 Report, the authors of these particular links have read this report much like the devil reads the Bible and their conclusions are - yet again - assumptions - not supported by the vast preponderance of credible information. Here is what was actually concluded in the SSCI Report and the 9/11 Commission Report:

The IC did not find a substantial link between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to the 9/11 Commission report, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Richard Clarke’s office sent a memo to the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, at the President’s direction, concluding that “only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda...Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime.” (1)

The January 2003 report Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the final major IC report prior to the war, acknowledged that its conclusions “especially regarding the difficult and elusive question of the exact nature of Iraq’s relations with al Qaida are based on currently available information that is at times contradictory and derived from sources with varying degrees of reliability.” It stated that the relationship “appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other,” and that “al Qaida, including bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation.” Relative to the 9/11 attacks, the report said that the “Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike.” (2)

Moreover, the SSCI, after reviewing all available intelligence, concluded in its report that the CIA “reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.” (3)



So if the SSCI says it then it has to be 100% correct? I read this same report and I see that the contacts between the two parties are more than just passing. The thing is that the words "appears", "difficult and elusive question", and based on currently available information " are the keys I think. Seems to me they just dont know and can not find a smoking gun EITHER way.


So these facts that you say are credible evidence, are that and I will agree, but I would also think that the information could be considered incomplete at best. I think this is on purpose and the Intel community might be hiding some pretty good sources, in which they should.


So you just keep slaming my links etc and you just rely on what you have that is PUBLICALLY released and you will continue to think you have it all figured out.

You claim I dont answer your questions, and yet you still havent answered one of my biggest. What the hell was Osama doing in Baghdad? Huh? think about it, enemies of Saddam just did not take vacations to Baghdad unless they wanted to disappear.....



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   


You seem to miss something , you fail to recognize the threat that the United States faces, when you get older you might understand.


As you've got older you seemed to have failed to recognize the threat the United States poses, when you turn off FOXNEWS you might understand.

Hey Ed, whats your color coded alert warning level @ today?



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 03:54 PM
link   
You're a broken record, edsinger. A broken record with awful music. We wouldn't have to rehash the same issues over and over if you actually took your time to carefully read the content of my posts. But here we are again. Hardly surprising.

For the life of me, I just can't figure out why you're even posting here. Clearly, all you're interested in is material supporting an opinion which you've already made up. Evidently, it really doesn't matter one bit to you what is and isn't supported by actual evidence. Also, you don't even take the time to properly research your own material; causing this annoying constant repeating of the exact same material.

Like I said earlier, this isn't even close to a discussion. This is you running around finding links that you want me to read and give you my take on. In light of what can only be seen as your complete unwillingness to take your time and research what you post (i.e. your own sources) and at least make a serious effort at considering the information presented on my part; this 'discussion' is quite pointless indeed.



Originally posted by edsinger
Well for starters, when I posted Newsmax source you automatically shot it down...so

I automatically shot it down, did I? Carefully read my response again.


The 911 report you read was a Declassified version was it not? You really think the United States will put some serious intel on something to be sold at Walmart?

You really believe you're using sound reasoning when you're arguing a view based on hearsay and unsubstantiated information - of which you have no real knowledge - when this 'information' isn't supported by actual credible evidence available? And you find this a laughing matter?



Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by American Mad Man
It doesn't matter how clearly you show liberals that Saddam was in fact in violation of the treaty HE HIMSELF signed after his invasion of Kuwait. It doesn't matter how clear the reasons are for this action.



Originally posted by durden
What is interesting here is what is and what isn't supported by the evidence at hand. However, evidently it doesn't matter how many times these claims presented by edsinger are refuted by this evidence. He'd rather go with his bs assumptions. Truly troubling.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by Durden]


Now here Durden refutes a post that clearly states Saddam was in violation of a treaty he cleary DID sign, and yet Durden rebukes it. The eveidence at hand is he did violate the truce at the end of Gulf War 1 many of times and that is one reason we kept bombing him for a damn decade.
How can you even attempt to refute this? Saddam did not even allow unfettered inspections.

Again, edsinger you show you're not comprehending the actual content of what is said on this issue. If you - yet again - go back to that particular thread and read it, you may just realize to what I was referring and what I had been addressing in my previous replies to your posts. A little clue to this is me referring to your name in this case, edsinger... Oh, wait. That's probably not going to do you any good - is it? Don't worry, I'll help you out - again. What I was referring to was the main arguments presented to support this invasion not being substantiated by credible information; i.e. Saddam harboring WMD's which coupled with his alleged collaboration with al Qaeda made him an imminent threat to the US and the rest of the free world. These were the major issues discussed in that thread. Heck, you only need to read my posts in this thread to realize I'm not disputing that Saddam was in violation of the signed treaty.

So you see I really wasn't refuting that particular post by American Mad Man. Any more fabrications you'd like to share?



Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by durden
Yeah. It's 'hard' to find actual evidence to support these bs claims of Al-Qaida's cooperation with Saddam, so let's not bother with what's credible at all. Simply stick to that which fits your opinion, huh? Gimme a break


But yet you find this mysterious "actual" evidence that there was NO collabaration between the two right?

Are you serious?? You really didn't notice my sarcasm towards your previous post?? The burden of proof lies on those who made the claim of the alleged collaboration between and Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. The vast preponderance of credible information available doesn't support such a collaboration. But still, you'd evidently rather stick to that which fits your opinion. What about this is so difficult for you to understand?? Tell me you're not serious...



So Saddam hated Bin Ladin so bad that he wouldnt have rendered aid to Osama? Just suppose for a minute he did, would he be stupid enough to advertise this? Bin Ladin did ask for help, how do YOU kow he didnt get it?

Again, this alleged collaboration is based on assumptions - not supported by the credible evidence available.


You keep claiming this, so my answer is what you consider credible I might not, the UN for one is about as credible as the the New York Times IMHO.

You make little sense here, edsinger. Are you comparing the the Weapons Inspectors with the New York Times?


So if the SSCI says it then it has to be 100% correct? I read this same report and I see that the contacts between the two parties are more than just passing. The thing is that the words "appears", "difficult and elusive question", and based on currently available information " are the keys I think. Seems to me they just dont know and can not find a smoking gun EITHER way.

You know, I seriously doubt you've read it. And again, the burden of proof lies on those claiming this alleged collaboration to be real. And yet again, the credible information presented doesn't support this alleged collaboration.


So these facts that you say are credible evidence, are that and I will agree, but I would also think that the information could be considered incomplete at best. I think this is on purpose and the Intel community might be hiding some pretty good sources, in which they should.

So you just keep slaming my links etc and you just rely on what you have that is PUBLICALLY released and you will continue to think you have it all figured out.

Again, this opinion of yours is based on unsubstantiated guesswork, hearsay, assumptions and 'information' - of which you have no real knowledge - that isn't there and/or haven't been presented; even when these assumptions have been shown to not be supported by the credible information available.

You really don't see the problem with this ridiculous reasoning of yours?



You claim I dont answer your questions, and yet you still havent answered one of my biggest. What the hell was Osama doing in Baghdad? Huh? think about it, enemies of Saddam just did not take vacations to Baghdad unless they wanted to disappear....

*sigh*. Again - where does the burden of proof lie to present evidence of the alleged collaboration between Saddam and al Qaeda? And what actually is and isn't supported by the credible information available on this issue?


[edit on 22-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Quit skirting the issue, WHY WAS OSAMA IN BAGHDAD? Why was he even allowed in Iraq? That one is a bit difficult to address is it not?

the others , I will have to wait till later...



posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Quit skirting the issue, WHY WAS OSAMA IN BAGHDAD? Why was he even allowed in Iraq? That one is a bit difficult to address is it not?

You really don't understand this, do you? This isn't difficult at all for me to address. I'm not the one trying to find evidence to support an opinion which is already made up. My opinion is based on that which can be considered credible. And I really don't need to prove anything in this case. All I need to do is make sure my opinion is an informed one and based on that which can actually be substantiated.

The matters concerning Osama and Saddam have been, and are being investigated. And believe me; there is a great need to find evidence of this collaboration.

Thus far though, despite this material about Osama being in Baghdad, the vast preponderance of credible information doesn't support the claim of a collaboration between Saddam and al Qaida. Period.


dh

posted on Nov, 22 2004 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Quit skirting the issue, WHY WAS OSAMA IN BAGHDAD? Why was he even allowed in Iraq? That one is a bit difficult to address is it not?

the others , I will have to wait till later...


Oh please Ed- if Osama was ever in Baghdad, which I doubt, it would be to make out with his playmate muppet puppet Saddam, both essentially tools of the NWO



new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join