It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 18 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   
OK Durden, lets try this:

Seems that in 1998, the belief was there by the federal government...

Back on Feb. 17, 1998, Hayes notes, Clinton – speaking at the Pentagon – warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." He said these "predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

And later the same spring, Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."



But it seems that the Left gets amnesia when needed, on June 24 , 2004 Clinton sung a different tune

On June 24, "Today" show co-host Katie Couric, not known for her tenacity of questioning regarding Democrats and liberals, interviewed Clinton and asked, "What do you think about this connection that Cheney, that Vice President Cheney continues to assert between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida?"

Clinton, of course, didn't know. "All I can tell you is I never saw it, I never believed it based on the evidence I had."



And yet again, in 1998, the previous administration sung to a different tune

On Aug. 24, 1998, a "senior intelligence official" was made available by the administration and cited "strong ties between the plant and Iraq" as the basis for the attack.

A day later Thomas Pickering, undersecretary of state for political affairs and one of only a few officials involved in planning the al Shifa strike, confirmed an Iraq-Sudan (and, by proxy, al-Qaida) connection: "We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program."

Five days later, Hayes notes, U.N. Ambassador Bill Richardson (now the governor of New Mexico) made an appearance on CNN, where he talked of "direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden" and Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation.

"You combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear-cut case."



That is, unless you're a Bush supporter trying to make the same points.



Lets see, did it end there? Nope , you guessed it.

Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, penned an op-ed for the Washington Times on Oct. 16, 1998. In it he asserted that the administration "had physical evidence indicating that al Shifa was the site of chemical weapons activity."

"Other products were made at al Shifa," he continued. "But we have seen such dual-use plants before – in Iraq. And, indeed, we have information that Iraq has assisted chemical weapons activity in Sudan."


How about the previous SOD?Yes you guessed it

Even Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, confirmed the association between Iraq and Sudan in testimony before the 9/11 Commission, Hayes writes. But many of these officials now disclaim any prior knowledge of any Baghdad-Khartoum-bin Laden connection.


But what about non Clinton Sources?

According to the New York Times, which has never editorialized its belief in an al Qaida-Iraq connection, has disclosed details of an Iraqi intelligence paper that discusses the Baghdad-bin Laden "relationship," as well as plans for bin Laden to work with Iraq against the ruling family in Saudi Arabia, the latter nation the birthplace of bin Laden

The enemy of your enemy is your friend, remember


The Iraqi-al-Qaida plan to disrupt the House of Saud did not end when bin Laden left the oil-rich kingdom in 1996. Hayes notes a top-secret CIA report summarized in a Pentagon memo sent to the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2003: "The Saudi Arabian National Guard went on a kingdom-wide heightened state of alert in late December 2000 after learning that Saddam agreed to assist al-Qaeda in attacking U.S. and U.K. interests in Saudi Arabia."


So Durden Debink away, dismiss the source...have fun.



Saddam and Al Qaeda




posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
edsinger: You're severely delusional.


tvnewslies.org...

There's a TON of articles there, from the newswires like Reuters and the Associated Press.

The Washington Post, the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CNN, all have said that there were no links between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Based on information they READ in the 9-11 Report.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
And durden, your sources are nothing more than information just as what I post. Just because you dont like the sources I post does not make them invalid.

I can only say I find it quite amusing that you actually consider the sources you use (in this example; Newsmax) to be as credible as the ones I present. Over and over, I've not completely dismissed your information, but instead thoroughly presented why the information you subscribe to simply doesn't bare scrutiny. And thus far, all that you've managed to do is to quickly jump to the next link; while not managing to comprehend the content of what is said in your own sources. What is the actual problem here? Are you really this ignorant to this issue or are you just plain lazy?



OK Durden, lets try this:

Seems that in 1998, the belief was there by the federal government...

Back on Feb. 17, 1998, Hayes notes, Clinton – speaking at the Pentagon – warned of the "reckless acts of outlaw nations and an unholy axis of terrorists, drug traffickers and organized international criminals." He said these "predators of the twenty-first century," who are America's enemies, "will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq."

And later the same spring, Clinton's Justice Department prepared an indictment of al-Qaida's leader, Osama bin Laden, in which a prominent passage located in the fourth paragraph reads:

"Al-Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al-Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al-Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."

......
(snip)

Yet again you show your ignorance to this issue, edsinger, as well as your complete unwillingness to even research your own sources before you post them. This is getting ridiculous beyond words. Please tell me you're part of a new ATS-game, edsinger.
This is no discussion; this is you running around finding loads of BS that you want me to read and then present my opinion on. That's just incredibly pointless. And there is clearly no point in me educating you on the matters of this issue either; because you're simply not interested in actually attempting rational thought. I guess you serve a purpose here though. You're a beautiful example how not to go about denying ignorance. Good for you.


And why do you even share this article which main objective seems to be to take shots at the Democratic party by presenting this material about how the Clinton Administration made some similar claims as the current Administration, and that Clinton later admitted that these assumptions weren't based on actual evidence? Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that I'm not discussing this through political preference but rather through what can be supported and substantiated by credible information?

The fact that you also choose to use material largely based on Stephen Hayes' dated information also shows that you still haven't managed to take in the information available on this issue. Also, evidently you're not aware of the main source of Mr Hayes' articles, so let me shed some light on that particular issue; Douglas Feith. Mr Feith was a non-Intelligence Community source of intelligence analysis, largely utilized by the Bush Administration as opposed to the analyses produced by the Intelligence Community (IC) in matters concerning the alleged relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Information that later have shown to not be supported by the evidence presented by the IC as well as the 9/11 Commission and have also been labeled as 'bad intelligence'.

Evidently, the intelligence primarily presented by the Feith policy office, in its ambition to find support for the alleged Iraq - al-Qaeda collaboration, was exaggerated to support Administration policy aims and wasn't supported by IC intelligence. And despite the IC being highly dubious of this alleged connection, the Bush Administration chose to subscribe to the intelligence presented by Feith as opposed to the analysis of the IC. And while Administration officials at the time cited 'classified intelligence' supporting this alleged collaboration between al-Qaeda and Iraq, those claims didn't reflect information provided by the IC. Again; bad information by Mr Douglas Feith that isn't supported by the more recent information by the 9/11 Commission and the IC.

Now why would the Bush Administration prefer this 'alternative' source of intelligence as opposed to intelligence by the IC? In light of what could be viewed as the Bush Administration's ambition to invade Iraq, it would probably not be a huge leap to assess the reason for this being the more 'fitting' analysis presented by Mr Feith; supporting this alleged collaboration.

Some more information on this subject.

"According to Bob Woodward, on the day of the 9/11 attacks, Secretary Rumsfeld wondered whether the U.S. should “hit” Saddam Hussein, “not only” Osama bin Laden, and on the next day “in the inner circle of Bush’s war cabinet, Rumsfeld asked if the terrorist attacks did not present an ‘opportunity’ to launch against Iraq." (1)

"According to Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism chief, President Bush told him three times on September 12 to go back and look for evidence that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks, including “any shred” of evidence." (2)

"The 9/11 Commission reported that, on September 15, at the first Camp David strategy session on responding to the 9/11 attacks, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz “made the case for striking Iraq during ‘this round’ of the war on terrorism.” According to the Commission, two days later, he wrote a memo to Secretary Rumsfeld in which he argued that if there was “even a 10 percent chance that Saddam Hussein was behind the 9/11 attack, maximum priority should be placed on eliminating that threat. Wolfowitz contended that the odds were ‘far more’ than 1 in 10.” (3)

"In a September 20, 2001 memo apparently from Under Secretary Feith to Rumsfeld, “the author expressed disappointment at the limited options immediately available in Afghanistan and the lack of ground options. The author suggested ...perhaps deliberately selecting a non-al Qaeda target like Iraq.”" (4)

As we now know, according to the IC there was now substantial Irag-al-Qaeda-link to be found. Also, the final major report presented by the IC stated 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." (5)

Remember what I asked you a few pages ago in this very thread?


Originally posted by Durden
Will you grant me with some thought out replies in the future, or will you keep posting various links containing material which you haven't carefully reviewed?

Evidently, that request will not be granted any time soon. Too bad.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward (Simon & Schuster, 2004). Also; 9/11 Commission Report, p. 335
(2) Against All Enemies: Inside the White House’s War on Terror, Richard A. Clarke (Free Press, 2004)
(3),(4) Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (“The 9/11 Commission Report”)
(5) SSCI Report, pages 322 and 339

Additional sources:
www.9-11commission.gov...
wid.ap.org...
Report of an Inquiry into the Alternative Analysis of the Issue of an Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)


[edit on 19-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Ed is right when it comes to most of his arguments.
I just found this site and stumbled upon some of the most common civilian misconceptions that are out there.
First and foremost I find it hilarious that some fo you people think that your in any way experts on this subject at all. As a Special Forces soldier (known as the Green Berets to you simpltons) in the US army I personally, along with my team conduct clandestine military operations. Some of which are direct-action operations in which we have found substantial evidence against Saddam. No we havent found any evidence that he helped with 9/11 in anyway (YET). However, he was a known person for funding terrorist operations worldwide, he gave 25.000 dollars to whome ever commited homicide bombings the Israel as well as other areas. He used 21.5 billion dollars for pay offs from the "Oil for food program". The french/germans/chinese/russians were all on the take and personally guaranteed Saddam that the resolution would never pass to attack him in the UN. Among other things he also promised the respective countries oil-fields and 10$ barrels of oil as soon as sanctions were lifted. So no matter what these countries would never be on our side, PERIOD.
But no credible intelligence or military source will say he had no relations with Al-Qaeda, thats just not true, he allowed Abu Musab Al Zarqawi to recover from wounds sustained in Afghanistan in Baghdad. I know most of you (if any) have experiance in intelligence and how these brutal totalitarian regimes work. Let me be the first to tell you that when a figure like Zarqawi shows up in Baghdad the iraqi intelligence service WILL know about it. We have credible intelligence that indicates Saddam had running negotiations with Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden though surrogates, and yes Bin laden probably didn't like Saddam very much due to his inherent lack of islamic fundamentalism. However Bin Laden knows how to keep an organization alive and for him making relations with a "lesser evil" (to him) against the US is in his best interest, so to the guy who said that Bin Laden considers Saddam an infidel and wouldnt have relations with him, my answer is this. You truely have no idea of the Islamist train of thought and you fundamentally don't understand how unconventional forces maintain and operate in unfavorable global situations.
I have also noticed some geniuses claiming that they are against the war in the name of "human peice" and compassion for human beings. Are you
F-ing kidding me? I've seen the mass graves/rape rooms/child prisons/torture chambers/videos of his abuses against his people, not to mention his 1988 on Halabja which killed apox, 5 thousand men, woman, and children. I have personally seen the video of Halabja and mothers with their infants litter the streets. The current death rate among civilians under Saddam Hussein is around 1 million now. 300,000 have been found in mass graves already. And for somone who has bleed in this conflict and knows the people who suffer the most, anyone who claims this war in some way was anti-humanitarian is a complete and utter fool.
Yeah... ok "war is hell" but you don't have to do it so why the hell are you guys complaining aparently on our behalf? You don't see us doing it... So leave us out of your arguments, we don't want your voice nor need it. And you don't have to do it or see the horrible resaults war somtimes brings, so who the hell are you to complain? I didn't see any one of you complaining when civilians were being tortured of executed under Saddam.
Another common ignorance of this situation is the WMD mess. Yes we havent found them and we might never find them. However if he didnt have them he could have easily proved it and we would have gone our way, this is the truth of the matter whether you want to accept it or not. He had a histroy of using them on his own people (primarily the kurds) as well as his use of them to win the Iran-Iraq war, which is still effecting the genetic makeup of some Iranian people (not to mention the millions that died in that war.) Saddam is a mad man that is notorious for mass-murder and torture as a way of keeping his totalitarian regime in power (or at least WAS thanks to the US.) This war was a morally right thing to do wheather he had WMD's or not. He had the know how and will to start up his weapons programs once the sanctions were lifted as we have found in some of our intelligence gathering direct-action missions in Iraq.
Above all this there is still credible intelligence that the WMD's have been transported to Syria. Unfortunatly for you all you don't have Secret Security clearences and arnt in the "need to know" so I can't go into further detail the current situation concerning Syria and Iran.
Never the less anyone who thinks that this war was for oil or self profit is not living in the same world as I and those who truely know whats going on first hand. Over all you cowards who claim that we shouldnt act against Saddam for the sake of humans is a complete hypocrit that seriously needs to reconsider his position on the matter.
BTW, most of you have no idea what you are talking about and the news agencies are tainted with BS and bias views which don't reflect the actual situation in the world today. And stop acting like your experts on very complex global islamist situations. As Socrates states in his defense "I then went to the artisans (common folk) and realized that they were no wiser than the rest, they spoke of issues and subjects that they knew nothing of"

As an end note, for all of us in the Military we ask that some of you stop your arguments about "our poor soldiers being stuck over there" We are proud of what we are doing and determined to stay untill the job is done, we don't want your pity nor need it. And once again we have out own voice and don't need idealistic cowards speaking on our behlaf. In war people die, we know that, but as a student of history we also know that 1,200 troops in retrospect is almost nothing compared to what war used to cost in mens lives. I.E. D-day aprox 2,500 people died, IN ONE DAY, and that was considered an overwhelming victory. Its horrible that people die and I see it often, I've accepted the possibility personally years ago... And now I say to you, just be glad it is so few and stop trying to be sunday-morning quarter backs and mock-experts. You know nothing of which you speak and your constant babble confirms this to the true experts of this global problem.

DAS, U.S. Army SF



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
Ed is right when it comes to most of his arguments.
I just found this site and stumbled upon some of the most common civilian misconceptions that are out there.
First and foremost I find it hilarious that some fo you people think that your in any way experts on this subject at all. As a Special Forces soldier (known as the Green Berets to you simpltons) in the US army I personally, along with my team conduct clandestine military operations. Some of which are direct-action operations in which we have found substantial evidence against Saddam.

As an end note, for all of us in the Military we ask that some of you stop your arguments about "our poor soldiers being stuck over there" We are proud of what we are doing and determined to stay untill the job is done, we don't want your pity nor need it. And once again we have out own voice and don't need idealistic cowards speaking on our behlaf. I

You know nothing of which you speak and your constant babble confirms this to the true experts of this global problem.

DAS, U.S. Army SF


Well, it would help your case if you actually spelled simpleton right, but that's merely for my own personal preference. What I find remarkably amusing is the constant use of the YETS.

We haven't found biological weapons, yet.
We haven't found a link with Bin Laden, yet.
We haven't stopped those insurgents, yet.

How long do you need? I mean it seems as though you've done a phenomenal job of bungling the entire operation. I mean, you went in to get those WMDs, so either they never existed and Bush lied, or they did exist and you failed.

Failed miserably.

But, that's just from me. And speaking of idealistic cowards, how goes all the flower throwing in the streets you've seen so far? You see, it's not as bad the country thinks, it's actually ten times worse. We've done exactly what our enemy wanted. Iraq was a giant trap and we walked into it, blissfully ignorant. Whistling through the graveyard. If you really are Special Forces and not some Freeper in disguise, then you really are a war mongering maniac.

You took advantage of a grieving nation and terrified them into a ten year old agenda. You've successfully managed to ruin the world and debase America's standing in it. Through blunt, brute ignorant force you've bullied your way into an unneeded and unwinnable war that will bolster our allies against us and produce a generation of suicide bombers. You've exasperated an already bad situation and made it ten times worse, and all in the name of a political ideology that's failed at best, and treasonous at worst.

You don't want my pity? You never had it.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by brimstone735]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
Ed is right when it comes to most of his arguments.

Welcome to ATS, DASUSARMY and thank you for your input. It's very much appreciated and do understand that no one here is claiming Saddam to be a saint; quite the contrary. And you know, in the end, the former claims by presented by the Bush Admin may be proven right. Thus far though, the credible evidence available simply doesn't support that notion. And as long as that's the case; I'll tell you I'll stick to that which can be substantiated. Another important factor in this case is that the prupose of IC absolutely isn't to shape intelligence in the attempt to find support of administration policy. Now, I'm not calling you a liar, here. But forgive me if I don't just take your word for it in this case. Thus far there have been too many damning examples of how previous claims of 'overwhelming evidence' have been shown to not bare careful scrutiny.


[edit on 19-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
First of all, I didn't say we haven't found a link between bin laden and saddam, we haven't found a link between Saddam and 9/11, I don't think he was involved but you never know in this world. According to the Dalfur report he didn't have weapons. The fact remains he played chicken with the wrong leader. And I never mentioned anything about insurgents either. And I am par from blissful ignorance. I have a masters and speak multiple languages, before insertion we do phd level work to prepare ourselves so we didn't mess up our mission and bush didn't lie. The entire world thought he had them, even Middle-eastern countries warned us of their imminent use in the upcoming war. Anyway, I don't pay attention to spelling a message board (for the most part). I have more experiance then you could possibly imagine. Blissful ignorance is you thinking that you assertain the situation better then I. After all I do this stuff for a living. You on the other hand are just a typical sheltered civilian with little to no in field experiance or knowledge. But I have better things to do then respond to your pathetic attacks on myself. I have posted fact and if you can't handle that then join a Spec Ops unit or the CIA and learn it first hand then come back and bitch at me. I will not get into this with you, I have more important things to busy myself with, I just thought I would bless some people with actual information from somone who has been there and done that.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Durden, I am in general agreement with some of the points he has made in his posts. But to be quite honest I'm just replying primarily to random rants from various posts that I say... The world today is so tainted and biased that most people couldn't get object information if they wanted too, for various reasons. If you take anything I say to be fact remember this. 90% of the intel we get will never be shown to the public, even the "leaks" are usually small time info that is common knowledge among the people in my field. How-ever the link is there, its just not prudent to let all the info out due to the operations currently being conducted. And more to the point can't be released due to the fact most of the population can't handle some of the intel which has been discovered. It's a good thing to be wary of informaton but remember which side it represents... I cannot speak of most of the things which we know of due to security reasons and not wanting to be locked up in a federal prison for the next 25 years.. But all I can say is be skeptical of everything but not so skeptical that you stand for nothing and fall for everything... there is a lot of politicized propaganda out there and its almost impossible to know whats really going on... There are two worlds, the civilian world and the none-civilian world, you guys get a good picture of whats going on, but sadly we can't share most of it...

[edit on 19-11-2004 by DASUSARMY]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
After all I do this stuff for a living. You on the other hand are just a typical sheltered civilian with little to no in field experiance or knowledge. But I have better things to do then respond to your pathetic attacks on myself. I have posted fact and if you can't handle that then join a Spec Ops unit or the CIA and learn it first hand then come back and bitch at me. I


Are you talking to me, or the other guy?

And, I have learned it first hand. What do you have a masters in? What languages do you speak? Please, busy yourself, don't waste any more of your valuable time on me. Even though I'm completely right and you're competely wrong on so many different levels.

After all, I exploit people like you for a living.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Brimstone, Political science, arabic, persian, mandarin, hebrew, a little russian, a little french, and a little spanish. AA in Arabic, persian, mandarin. lol, exploit? who do you work for? CIA? NSA? I refuse to go into detail about my unit. Don't assume you'll make an arse out of yourself, but I'm done with this jeuvenille dick-measuring contest... Leave an intelligent response, and I may get back to you kid.


[edit on 19-11-2004 by DASUSARMY]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
Durden, I am in general agreement with some of the points he has made in his posts. But to be quite honest I'm just replying primarily to random rants from various posts that I say...

Fair enough, DASUSARMY. If you're interested in exactly which points I disagree with as far as edsingers claims; please feel free to read through my posts in this thread and share your thoughts on them as well. And as to what you claim you're privy of as to evidence not released to the public; again forgive me if I simply don't take your word for what that evidence may point to.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
Brimstone, Political science, arabic, persian, mandarin, hebrew, a little russian, a little french, and a little spanish. AA in Arabic, persian, mandarin. lol, exploit? who do you work for? CIA? NSA? I refuse to go into detail about my unit. Don't assume you'll make an arse out of yourself, but I'm done with this jeuvenille dick-measuring contest... Leave an intelligence response, and I may get back to you kid.

[edit on 19-11-2004 by DASUSARMY]


You don't have to be mean about it.
As for measurements, don't ask, don't tell.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:53 PM
link   
Brimstone, lol... I don't like to get into debates with emotions, and as far as I'm concerned you started the "mean" aspect when you asserted that you "exploited" people like me.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Durden, yeah I understand your side and not being able to take my word for it. But at least you can argue with class and not get emotional and insultive like some people... To everyone: If you have a good point and present it with out emotion and in a logical manner I'll respond. I refuse to get into little arguments with insults.. It's pathetic, if you can't handle this then take a logic class at the nearest community college and get back to me.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
Brimstone, lol... I don't like to get into debates with emotions, and as far as I'm concerned you started the "mean" aspect when you asserted that you "exploited" people like me.


But, you're so easily exploitable. You turned on the one group of people most on your side and you happily support the one group who've casually sacrificed you in the name of their greater good. You're defensive because you see people attacking the chain of command, and by attacking the administration, they are there by attacking you.

Pakistan should have been secured after Afghanistan was liberated, you know that. You simply cannot allow an insurgent by proxy war to be fought in the one country that fundementalism had not taken root.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Brimstone, as for the "unwinnable war" that is just leftist propagada, unwinnable? we are taking those people out left in right. Recent intelligence reports tell us that there is between 20-25 thousand Iranian insurgents in Iraq along... Thats just IRAN! And your concept of our stanind in the world is also false. We are hated because we are the most succesful. We have been around for 200 years and we are the greatest and most powerful nation in the history of the world. The french and some other european countries are pissed at us cause they are jelous quite frankly. No one really cares about what they believe anymore and they hate us for that. The Arab world was the most advanced part of the world for hundreds of years and now the are Shhit holes... Thats why are standing is bad in the world, not to mention the fact that we have such an open society and the arabs hate that about us.. But on the whole we are just solving a problem and opening up an area for substantial influence. We will win this war, it may take a few years, Japan and Germany were occupied for numerous years (the exact number eludes me at the present time) and they turned out fine. But over all you should realize that because we are killing them there, they arnt over here. And thats the simple truth. Yes some of them are Iraqis, but sheep beget sheep... But for the most part it is all being coordinated and lead by a Jordanian Al-Qaeda lieutenant names Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and is being funded by Iranian money and Bin Laden financial assets. We will get the election underway, they will have a more legitamized government, they will continue to get more troops. Just like the commando unit we set up and trained over there. We will continue to do this till they have a strong and deciplined fighting and police force, as well as a substantial intelligence base. There is work to be done, but their body count is rising and we have but a dent in our forces. We will not cut and run, and we will make a safer and better Iraq. Henceforth all of these Islamist radicals are getting into Iraq and fighting us. From an Iraqi town leader of Fallujah "At first we thought they (the radicals) were here to help us, but over the last we months we realized what the truth was." There was also a few incidents when townsfolk chased down insurgent leaders in pickup trucks and killed them, this infact happened to one of Zarqawi's top lieutenants.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   
We were in pakistan. We were in Tora Bora. And we think that Bin Laden probably got out before we even began bombings, some say hes in iran, others jordan, others pakistan. But I would like to know what you think we should have done with Pakistan... ? And no we arnt upset because you are attacking the chain of command, we are upset because you don't understand whats going on the real world, and this isolationist out look is similar to that of what was going on prior to worldwar2.



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:29 PM
link   
""But, you're so easily exploitable. You turned on the one group of people most on your side and you happily support the one group who've casually sacrificed you in the name of their greater good. You're defensive because you see people attacking the chain of command, and by attacking the administration, they are there by attacking you.""


We all have accepted the part about death... It doen't phase us too much, and we were not exploited we were sent to do a just action against truely evil people. For some reason I would bet that I have a hell of a lot better education than you, but you always make belittling suggestions towards my ability to comprehend whats really going on, as if I live in a fog of ignorance. I'm a no-bull shhit soldier and I don't believe in screwing around with fickle feelings towards supperiors. If I felt my life or my friends lives were being exploited I'd be the first to complain. We live and operate in a lethal world, no time for politics (for the most part) and personal preferences.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke

[edit on 19-11-2004 by DASUSARMY]



posted on Nov, 19 2004 @ 04:44 PM
link   
It's unwinnable, because we're dealing with an enemy that takes orders directly from God and has no problem dying for their cause in extravagent ways. They have no problem slaughtering innocents. They're prone to the worst forms of propaganda. A rag tag army that uses hospitals as shields and women and children as suicide bombers. For every one you kill, 5 more take their place. The more you kill, the more moderates hate you. The more the every day citizen hates you, the less likely a provisional government will be supported. We never learned our lesson from the Shaw of Iran.
We never learned our lesson from the Russians, and we can never be as brutal as they were.

You're fighting a belief system, and no matter how much porn and American Idol we give them, it will never compare to their fear of the fires of Allah's hell. It's hamster in a cage logic. If you go faster, you might go in a different direction.

Funded by Jordan, supported religiously by Iran, coordinated by Syria, created by Pakistan...who do you attack first? And we're not even talking about Saudi Arabia, which is hanging on by its fingernails. And Africa? While we were playing around in the Middle East, Bin laden was building hospitals and paving roads in Somalia and across eastern Africa. He's a folk hero to them. Now that AIDS is ravaging across that continent, what do they have to lose?

Diplomacy is compromise, but it keeps the world spinning and the wolves at bay for five more minutes in the hopes that we will survive the passage of time better than our enemies.



posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DASUSARMY
And no we arnt upset because you are attacking the chain of command, we are upset because you don't understand whats going on the real world, and this isolationist out look is similar to that of what was going on prior to worldwar2.



Wow! Welcome DASUSARMY. I am so glad that someone other than me is this ultra-liberal board will speak out against these folks who havent the first clue. Be very careful what you reveal here m8, there are VERY unfriendly people here. I also have to watch this at times. Make sure you post 'ideas' from publically available sources only......even if you know something, search it on the net and some site will have something similar, then link it.........


Durden is a smart guy, just misled and to keen to believe the "mainline" press. I do not fault him for it and he makes a damn good argument on the information he does use. He just lacks certain pieces is all.


As I have been saying, just as Cheney did "Because there ARE links between Saddam and Alqaeda and not just passing ones".


Again welcome aboard........as you can probably tell, I am damn ner hated here, but I do have fun!




top topics



 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join