The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info, page 4


Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 9-11-2004 @ 06:56 PM by edsinger
Originally posted by LostSailor

Check out the link in my signature ed..... its some interesting stuff.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by LostSailor]


I will when the low bandwidth mode puts it back


Originally posted by Aelita
Indeed. Based in heaps of lies (read above, Saddam could NOT have provided weapons to anyone), illegal and immoral war.
[edit on 9-11-2004 by Aelita]


So you would be willing to bet he absolutley had none? Would you bet your life on it? What if the documents show that he did purchase some anthrax in 2000? Did you read the Dalfur report? It stated that saddam could have restarted production in weeks from his ok to do so. I guess you would have some excuse for that one also? Even Durden
knows this to be the case....we still know he had them, he did not declare all that he had, some think he destroyed them so as to not have to admitt he had biological weapons........funny turns of events wouldnt you say?



Originally posted by apw100
Yet another classic thread from Edsinger. Im tired of responding to his idiocy since he obviously has no capability for free-thought. At least normal Bush supporters will admit that he, like every other president, has made some mistakes. Edsingers infatuation with the President borders on romantic. The only explanation for his blind support is that he has a crush on Bush."Edsinger and George, sittin in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g..."

[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]


Puberty must be hell m8, I hope the acne is not that bad.


Originally posted by KrazyIvan
wrong, the people control the nation, the president controls the military!

[edit on 11-9-2004 by KrazyIvan]



Good point and who controls the President? The people do.

Look I have never said this president is perfect, I think Ronnie Raygun was a much better one, but I will say this, Bush doesnt back down and he says what he means and means what he says. You know what you have with him, unlike the POS the demo's through out for fodder this year.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]


reply posted on 9-11-2004 @ 07:10 PM by edsinger
Originally posted by devilwasp
what weapons eh? a few used sarin shells?a ton of radioactive ore?



Well what happened to the 7800 tons of it? When he only declared 680 tons? Look he had Bioweapons, where are they? Do you trust him when he says he destroyed them? Could they be in Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Do you REALLY know? Does anyone REALLY know?

Originally posted by devilwasp
the only thing he broke was genocide which is worth invadeing i agree but one thing i must say is that the militants we fight are fighting the same evil that hurt them before its just a diffrent name and face.


No, as we do not kill for sport and fun and bury in mass graves. That comment was complete #.



Originally posted by devilwasp
the UN wanted to wait, they're policy is peace through disscusion , you know sittng and actually stopping a war not rushing head long into one?
they believe in peace through talking and then if that doesnt work then by action.


And 12 years of this got us where? Did he EVER cooperate with the inspectors? We didnt rush headlong into it, we waited for over 5 months for the UN and France to get off their asses. They didnt and we ot tired of waiting. Plus as we now know, they never would have allowed the UN to act anyway, miracle of the French, Russian, and Chinese VETO.



Originally posted by devilwaspnow the US policy now is attack first ask questions and discuss later.name me one threat that iraq, no wait i'll make it simpler , how many WMD did they have ?the UK came in because blair values our atlantic treaty over everything else.



If you would look into it, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that he sent some to Syria and/or hid them in the Western desserts. I would not be so quick to believe the lies that you hear.


EDIT Added some information I was not aware of...



The Link Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Posted Sept. 29, 2003

Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States - confirming news reports that until now have emerged only in bits and pieces. A senior government official responsible for investigating terrorism tells Insight that while Saddam Hussein may not have had details of the Sept. 11 attacks in advance, he "gave assistance for whatever al-Qaeda came up with." That assistance, confirmed independently, came in a variety of ways, including financial support spun out through a complex web of financial institutions in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy and elsewhere. Long suspected of having terrorist ties to al-Qaeda, they now have been linked to Iraq as well.


plus



Also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit is the Arab TV network al-Jazeera. "Defendant Mohammed Jaseem al-Ali and two other employees of al-Jazeera are identified in documents captured in the April 2003 U.S. military action in Iraq as having received substantial funding from the Iraqi regime in exchange for acting as liaisons between Iraq and al-Qaeda. One document reveals that al-Jazeera passed letters from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein," the complaint alleges. According to the Barcelona-based La Vanaguardia, the FBI is holding Tayssir Alouni, an al-Jazeera reporter suspected of being an al-Qaeda operative. The reports say he has been jailed in Spain based on the belief of the FBI and Spanish police that he was "in charge of al-Qaeda propaganda for Europe and the United States." A spokesman for al-Jazeera, Jihad Ballout, tells Insight he cannot comment because it is part of an ongoing legal matter.


www.insightmag.com...



I do not know if it is real, but I would not be surprised...




[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]


reply posted on 9-11-2004 @ 08:25 PM by edsinger
Originally posted by apw100
Well Hitler said what he meant and meant what he said. Being resolute is not the same as being right. I believe that Bush means well, but I also think that he is taking the US in the wrong direction. If 9/11 taught us anything, it is that small groups of determined terrorists are our enemy, not entire nations. Sure N.Korea, Iran and Iraq rattled their sabre's occasionally, but they never posed a clear and present danger to the US. Why not? Because they knew that if they attacked, or were complicit in an attack against the US, that they would be completely and utterly destroyed. All they care about is keeping power in their respective nations, and attacking America would be a guaranteed way to lose that power. If 9/11 has taught us anything, it is that sovereign nations arent the enemy, its small groups of determined terrorists who have nothing to lose.[edit on 9-11-2004 by apw100]


And what you say is very good, and for the most part I agree. The Mean what you say comment was more directed to not following the polls, Hitler didnt give a hoot what the polls said.


As for your recognition that nation states are not the enemy, I could agree but what about nation states that support terror? There are quite a few, but Iraq was the most "logical" target. The others now know that the US will no longer tolerate these types of acts. Libya seemed to get the message.


A link for you, to show that Saddam was not as "clean" from Al Qada as some would have you believe.


** Mods, I need them to read this, and it is not that big of an article **



SUBJECT: 9-11 Commission Confirms Iraq-al Qaeda Ties





According to the September 11 report:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

That the Iraqi regime ‘certainly’ had knowledge that Abu Musab al Zarqawi – described in Iraqi Support for Terrorism as “a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner” – was operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq.

www.newamericancentury.org...

Well I got nailed, please follow the link and read it as they will not let me post it all...



[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]


reply posted on 9-11-2004 @ 09:51 PM by IBM
You peaceniks will not understand that a country that is not aggressive will cease to exist. War although ugly is necessary. This war was to make sure that no one threatens the US. It was absolutely necessary and justifiable. I may not me a military strategist, but here is what some of the more famous strategists have to say, you dont see John Kerry's name up there:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), British statesman and philosopher

"Veni, vidi, vici."
(I came, I saw, I conquered)
- Julius Caesar, Roman emperor (100BC-44BC)

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George Patton Jr

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum".
("If you wan't peace, prepare for war")
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Roman Military strategist. c. 390. A.D

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
- Thomas Jefferson

"The nation which forgets its defenders will be itself forgotten."
Calvin Coolidge, US

"In war there is no substitute for victory"
General Douglas MacArthur, US

"There is no avoiding war, it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
Niccolo Machiavelli, IT

"Get action. Seize the moment. Man was never intended to become a oyster."
Theodore Roosevelt, US

I ask for you to think about what these wise men have said and not let history repeat itself.

[edit on 9-11-2004 by IBM]


reply posted on 10-11-2004 @ 06:07 AM by devilwasp
Originally posted by edsinger



Well what happened to the 7800 tons of it? When he only declared 680 tons? Look he had Bioweapons, where are they? Do you trust him when he says he destroyed them? Could they be in Syria? Iran? Lebanon? Do you REALLY know? Does anyone REALLY know?

how should i know?
he used the bioweapons years ago, if you dont remember. no but i trust the UN weapon inspectors when they said there was none. well if they are not in iraq then we should not be in iraq. i dont REALLY know.



No, as we do not kill for sport and fun and bury in mass graves. That comment was complete #.

oh really? what about the body count in vietnam? eh?





And 12 years of this got us where? Did he EVER cooperate with the inspectors? We didnt rush headlong into it, we waited for over 5 months for the UN and France to get off their asses. They didnt and we ot tired of waiting. Plus as we now know, they never would have allowed the UN to act anyway, miracle of the French, Russian, and Chinese VETO.


doesnt that show you that 3 world powers say wait that you should wait.
your leader has made an ass out of both the US and the UK. we are the laughing stock of the world thanks to that man. the UN is not there to go into countries and blows stuff up , they are there to work things out by discussion.
well he only stopped a year before the war , now when they say he has none now doesnt that mean the , he was right in saying , "there are no WMD here"




If you would look into it, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that he sent some to Syria and/or hid them in the Western desserts. I would not be so quick to believe the lies that you hear.

circumstancial! that is about as useful or believeable as hitlers reason for killing jews.
for your information i supported the war and thought he had weapons BUT now i find out the info the government had i wouldnt even of sent a reacon team in never mind the whole army.

this information by US government officials only proves that he supported people hurting his old enemy. now the US has done this many a time, hell they helped create terror groups.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^