|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 05:57 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx | The assertion from the start has always been that AL Qaeda's presence in Iraq served more purpose then just being a presence. I think our government does have better evidence to go on, but their priority is protecting the Saudi's who we all know deserve and investigation or two. | |
| Jan 26th, 2004 04:17 PM | ||
| kellychaos |
Is the presence in-country enough to verify anything? They've have telephonic transcriptions as well as monetary paper trails leading from Al Qaeda operative straight to Saudi royal family members and we never put a probe up their ass about it. Politics. "If the check doesn't fit, you cannot convict." |
|
| Jan 26th, 2004 11:53 AM | ||
| The_Rorschach |
And soon we'll have those pesky Weapons of Mass Destruction too! Thank goodness we have patriots like Bush to enforce UN resolutions, like 1446. THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN THIS JUST IN Sources within the White House have confirmed that Al Quaeda was responsible for the Riechstang fire. . .More to come as this exciting story unfolds |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 07:14 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
|
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 07:10 PM | ||
| Ant10708 | If you name an humanitarian cuase it will most likely be found in Afghanistan pre-911 | |
| Jan 25th, 2004 05:52 PM | ||
| ranxer |
well re: bush giving taleban millions i took the headlines for what they said. .. i can't argue the point except that if its the case that the UN gave the money to the taleban i'm quite surprised and beg to differ for i read that the money was given to them for declaring poppy growing outlawed at the time. oh well, so much for honesty in reporting.. no surprise there. really though.. if it wasnt for the poppy crackdown farce what humanitarian causes was it for?? regarding saddam after fundamentalists, ive heard it from many middle eastern and western sources though i am not very familiar with any of them so i really don't know thier bent.. to give you the benefit of the doubt, they could be allied with saddam and making a case against western culture i don't know for sure but the sources are varied enough that i think its a credible statement for the most part. |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 05:24 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
We already know Saddam wasn't innocent of working along side terrorists. The question is if he mingled with Osama's people and to what extent. If you're going to make claims that he "drove fundamentalists out" the way Ranxer has, shouldn't you be able to point towards certain events that prove this? If you walked around bragging you had cigarettes in your pocket, it wouldn't be too far off for us to assume you smoked the things sometime, unless proven otherwise. They caught operatives in Buffallo, but the circumstances weren't the same at all. It's no comparison. Catching a terrorist operative in Tel Aviv isn't the same as catching him in Syria is it? You're suckers if you want to believe the Taliban were at the top of the food chain. Blanco's right about the UN being them middle man for money distribution to the Taliban. The UN have stocky fingers when it comes to providing aid, and somehow a good chunk always ends up in the hands of those oppressing the people they money is meant to help. You understand my point here though? Nothing should be conclusive just yet. I wouldn' conclude Bush's innocence any more then I would exhonorate Saddam. There is too much we don't know, and you sound just as stupid repeating the medias theories no matter what side of this you stand. |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 04:38 PM | ||
| El Blanco |
Quote:
|
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 04:24 PM | ||
| ranxer |
i been stepping back chainsaw.. i even argue with bush haters when they get the bloodlust and go into things bush isnt doing.. sure i push that limit myself, but just because we're looking at a criminal doesnt mean he's guilty of every damn criminal act. what's yer point anyway? that we shouldn't worry about our facts or guilt if we're talking about a criminal? oh and btw that buffalo 'cell' was a hoax from what i've read.. those folks checked out al qaeda more than a decade ago, determined that osama and friends were fundamentalist whackos, came back to america and forgot the whole thing, um till 9-11 where i'm sure they got a bit nervous about thier experience. personally i think all those oil men that met with the taliban(including bush) should be locked up and investigated for a few months just in case they still had financial ties with some of the fundamentalists. oh yea and what about the bush administration giving 20million or so to the taliban in his first months of office? what was that money used for? hmm, weapons? maybe new security or an alternative to poppies? nah, lol just look at the increase in poppies since gw took office.. oops :/ |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 03:20 PM | ||
| AChimp |
I stared across the Niagara River at Buffalo once, and I knew even then that it was a cesspool of terrorist shit. I gave thanks that my sorry patookis was on the Canadian side. 
|
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 03:06 PM | ||
| mburbank | They caught them a whole bunch of Al Quaeda fellers in Buffalo. | |
| Jan 25th, 2004 02:39 PM | ||
| ItalianStereotype |
Quote:
|
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 02:03 PM | ||
| GAsux |
I don't understand the legal process Perhaps I missed something. Since when is the burden of proof on the accussed? How do you propose that Iraq, in any way shape or form proof that they didn't harbor terrorists? I have never smoked a cigarette in my life. Ever. How do you suppose I could go about proving that? It would also seem "rational" to assume that Iraq had vital, working WMD programs and not one single shred of worthwhile evidence has been found to support it. Why should the terrorism link be any different. |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 10:52 AM | ||
| ranxer |
ga, i totally agree from what i've seen. abc, you wish. (and the whole bush regime with you) the evidence confirms the case that Saddam was a secular dictator who only wanted followers in his country and drove out the fundamentalists that resisted his views. al qaeda was one of his enemies, get over it! just because he was a murderous dictator didn't mean he had every sin in the book going over there, sheesh. i really don't understand why people can't stick to the facts.. they are enough. um, not enough to bomb the hell out of 6k civilians but to put international pressure certainly. |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 04:27 AM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
The key words to your post are "so far". Despite the lack of paper work to coroborate it, common sense should tell us it was likely that an Iraq who harbored and supported other terrorists would also be open to Al Qaeda, and that any activity within their borders would have been under the participation of the strict dictatorship in place at the time. We know Bin Laden would work with heathens like the United States, surely an actual Muslim, even a weak minded infidel one would make a perfect candidate for a false partnership. After all Iraq wasn't just another hot bed for terrorist hideouts, it was the only true safe haven they had. Again, what conclusively proves Iraq's innocence so far? |
|
| Jan 25th, 2004 03:35 AM | ||
| GAsux |
I'm not a smart man, Jenny.... Excuse me for failing to see the signifigance or shock value in this story. They caught a big fish in Al Qaeda. Super. They caught him in Iraq. Super. So what? Is this supposed to serve as some kind of proof that Al Qaeda was doing anything significant in Iraq PRIOR to the war? Or anytime in the last decade for that matter? Not so much. The fact of the matter is, Iraq has become the battle ground from muslim fundementalists and mercenaries of the world, much like Afghanistan in the 80s. There is no doubt Al Qaeda or at least Al Qaeda supporters are active in Iraq. If Iraq is the new frontlines in the jihad battle, where better for it's premier fighters to be? bin Laden has in Iraq a nation where his orgainzition can operate with popular public support. Targets of opportunity are great. There is instability and the opportunity to militarily and strategically embarrass the U.S. a la Beruit and Somalia. It would be silly to think there AREN'T al Qaeda operatives there. But regardless, the presence of al Qaeda members in Iraq now proves nothing. There is still not once piece of documented evidence in the mounds and mounds of paperwork uncovered, nor in the thousands upon thousands of hours of interrogations of caputred insurgents to indicate that any such terrorist activity was going on BEFORE the war started. I'm not some kind of screaming liberal butt hurt about going to war. But facts are facts, and so far, the al Qaeda-Iraq link is horribly empty of any. |
|
| Jan 24th, 2004 05:47 PM | ||
| Abcdxxxx |
This wasn't the first Al Qaeda guy we caught out there. Unless this is the same guy and they realized nobody was aware of he got caught, and they want to pretend they just did it. I haven't seen this latest story. I'd just like to know how people have come to such a conclusive opinion on this matter? What's that based on? Some false leads, an article exposing some faked information...and that means it's 100% certain Al Qaeda have zero connection? HUh? |
|
| Jan 24th, 2004 04:14 PM | ||
| The One and Only... | I don't recall the name, but we caught him yesterday. | |
| Jan 24th, 2004 02:24 PM | ||
| ranxer |
there's alqaeda cells in several american states, i think we should impose sanctions for thier support of terrorists or just nuke em. i don't like a few of those states anyway.  seriously though.. i missed it.. who and when were they captured? |
|
| Jan 24th, 2004 02:21 PM | ||
| The Unseen | He's an actor to make Bush look good. | |
| Jan 24th, 2004 02:20 PM | ||
| theapportioner |
VICTORY!!!
|
|
| Jan 24th, 2004 01:09 PM | ||
| The One and Only... |
Al Queda/Iraq connection So, what about that Al Queda guy we caught in Iraq? Pretty big dude... |
|
