The Iraq / war on terror thread

[SLCPUNK]

I wasnt sure what thread to post this is, so I thought I would revive this one.

Funny...he left out the part about Saddam not attacking us on 9-11. How in the hell did he forget that?!?

Must have slipped his mind.

[GnRNightrain]

I wasnt sure what thread to post this is, so I thought I would revive this one.

Funny...he left out the part about Saddam not attacking us on 9-11. How in the hell did he forget that?!?

Must have slipped his mind.

Yah, I forgot:
Al Qaeda is the only islamic terrorist group out there
The only ones that are trying to kill us are the highjackers from the 911 flights
Therefore, if you werent part of the plot of 911 we have no right to go after you.

[SLCPUNK]

I wasnt sure what thread to post this is, so I thought I would revive this one.

Funny...he left out the part about Saddam not attacking us on 9-11. How in the hell did he forget that?!?

Must have slipped his mind.

Yah, I forgot:
Al Qaeda is the only islamic terrorist group out there
The only ones that are trying to kill us are the highjackers from the 911 flights
Therefore, if you werent part of the plot of 911 we have no right to go after you.

Saddam did not threaten us, and was not an islamic terrorist. He was a dictator, not a terrorist.

Right...we should go after those who pulled off 9-11. I know you were being smart ass, but that is the only group of people who need to take down right now.

[GnRNightrain]

I wasnt sure what thread to post this is, so I thought I would revive this one.

Funny...he left out the part about Saddam not attacking us on 9-11. How in the hell did he forget that?!?

Must have slipped his mind.

Yah, I forgot:
Al Qaeda is the only islamic terrorist group out there
The only ones that are trying to kill us are the highjackers from the 911 flights
Therefore, if you werent part of the plot of 911 we have no right to go after you.

Saddam did not threaten us, and was not an islamic terrorist. He was a dictator, not a terrorist.

Yes, but he funded terrorists and had ties to terrorists.  Was he a suicide bomber?  No.  Did he give money and support to groups that committed such atrocities?  Yes.

Right...we should go after those who pulled off 9-11. I know you were being smart ass, but that is the only group of people who need to take down right now.

Well in that case I guess the war on terror is over, because they died when they crashed the planes.

I dont see how you can sit there and say that it is not important to make sure that a country that has ties to terrorism and is thought to be producing weapons illegally is not a threat.  The war on terror is bigger than going after Osama in the mountains.  In fact most just think he is a figure head now.  I dont know what it is going to take for you to start realizing this.

[Jessica]

Thing is, we forget one main thing about terrorism :

Ben Laden is NOT an iraki, nor is he pakistanese or anything else, he is SAOUDI.
He has a huge family and the Bush Family and the Ben Laden family have had financial interests in common for the past 30 years.

The SAOUDIS have a habit to lend money to countries who want to lower their national debts or who need some to finance a huge project.
Under president Mitterand, France was lent millions to contruct our TGV lines and trains ( very fast trains). It could not have been done without the Saoudi money and France is paying them back, still, as we speak.

The Saoudis have interests everywhere, and in everything, including arm dealings everywhere in the world. Of course, they are big bankers for terrorists and that's where i think lies a huge problem no one has ever tackled.

Now, my question is :

All experts know Saoudis, including the Ben Laden family, happen to be extremely " interested" people and very dangerous on the grounds that they don't care about morals or right and wrong, but about how much money they'll lend and  the benefits they'll get out of doing so. Their only God is Money.

So, everyone knows, why don't they do anything ?

[GnRNightrain]

Thing is, we forget one main thing about terrorism :

Ben Laden is NOT an iraki, nor is he pakistanese or anything else, he is SAOUDI.
He has a huge family and the Bush Family and the Ben Laden family have had financial interests in common for the past 30 years.

The SAOUDIS have a habit to lend money to countries who want to lower their national debts or who need some to finance a huge project.
Under president Mitterand, France was lent millions to contruct our TGV lines and trains ( very fast trains). It could not have been done without the Saoudi money and France is paying them back, still, as we speak.

The Saoudis have interests everywhere, and in everything, including arm dealings everywhere in the world. Of course, they are big bankers for terrorists and that's where i think lies a huge problem no one has ever tackled.

Now, my question is :

All experts know Saoudis, including the Ben Laden family, happen to be extremely " interested" people and very dangerous on the grounds that they don't care about morals or right and wrong, but about how much money they'll lend and? the benefits they'll get out of doing so. Their only God is Money.

So, everyone knows, why don't they do anything ?

I posted an article awhile back to how the saudis cant be treated like suddam in regards to trying to stop terrorism and in forcing them to stop it. 
In regards to their financial interests, all I can say is that we have to try and stop them when they use their money for elicit means, such as weapons and funding terrorism.  If they have other motives, such as just getting rich, then we cant do much about that.
Right now we are getting a little support from the royal family.  They gave al qaeda an ultimatum.  The fact that al qaeda is trying to kill and attack the royal family must speak something of the fact they are doing something.  However, the situation there is a little different than other countries such as Iraq. 

[Jessica]

Fact is, al quaida doesn't exist anymore. This comes from experts at the CIA.

Instead, in the past few years, terrorist groups have emerged and act upon the name of Ben Laden, Martyr Saint of the muslims.

The threat doesn't come from Al Quaida. Al Qaida was singular. Al Quaida is dead. Now, the threat has no name and it is multiple.

[GnRNightrain]

Fact is, al quaida doesn't exist anymore. This comes from experts at the CIA.

Instead, in the past few years, terrorist groups have emerged and act upon the name of Ben Laden, Martyr Saint of the muslims.

The threat doesn't come from Al Quaida. Al Qaida was singular. Al Quaida is dead. Now, the threat has no name and it is multiple.

Thank you for acknowledging that.  Tell that to SLC and some others on the board.  However, I do disagree that Al Qaeda is dead.  It is just not as organized as it once was.

[Will]

Right now we are getting a little support from the royal family.  They gave al qaeda an ultimatum.

Don't tell me you believe in their ultimatum...! And what happens if "Al Qaeda" doesn't give up or whatever? If they gave them an ultimatum, it means they have very strong ties with them and probably give them shelter as we speak. If they were not close to them or had no link with them, how could they gave them an ultimatum? Al Qaeda would just say: "well, screw you then, we're gonna move to Azerbaidjan or whatever."

Thank you for acknowledging that.  Tell that to SLC and some others on the board.

I believe you're turning what jessica said to fit your point of view. Jessica may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she meant "Al Qaeda" is now spread all over the world, INCLUDING in Western countries (Germany, UK, Spain, to name a few). What she implied I believe is that we can't just invade every country where terrorists are present. What are u gonna do when you find out terrorists have infiltrated the US population?? Just blow your own country up?

[SLCPUNK]

Did he give money and support to groups that committed such atrocities?  Yes



No connection was every proven.

[SLCPUNK]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132287,00.html


Here is our money going down the toilet...

Marines admitted they have lost control over large parts of Iraq also lately. This is a complete disaster over there.

[jarmo]

Yes, but he funded terrorists and had ties to terrorists.? Was he a suicide bomber?? No.? Did he give money and support to groups that committed such atrocities?? Yes.

So it would be ok for Tony Blair to send troops to invade USA since some people there have given money to the IRA? 


I don't think Iraq was the worst country in supporting terrorists. There are other that I suspect might be more involved in that than Iraq was.

What's your opinion on, for example, a country like Syria?



/jarmo

[Will]

What's your opinion on, for example, a country like Syria?

I guess we could add Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

[GnRNightrain]

Right now we are getting a little support from the royal family.? They gave al qaeda an ultimatum.

Don't tell me you believe in their ultimatum...! And what happens if "Al Qaeda" doesn't give up or whatever? If they gave them an ultimatum, it means they have very strong ties with them and probably give them shelter as we speak. If they were not close to them or had no link with them, how could they gave them an ultimatum? Al Qaeda would just say: "well, screw you then, we're gonna move to Azerbaidjan or whatever."

Thank you for acknowledging that.? Tell that to SLC and some others on the board.

I believe you're turning what jessica said to fit your point of view. Jessica may correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she meant "Al Qaeda" is now spread all over the world, INCLUDING in Western countries (Germany, UK, Spain, to name a few). What she implied I believe is that we can't just invade every country where terrorists are present. What are u gonna do when you find out terrorists have infiltrated the US population?? Just blow your own country up?

I understand that.  That is not what we are doing.  Iraq was a unique situation where the "Government" had ties to terrorism and was supposedly creating wmds.  We couldnt let such wmds get in the hands of terrorists.  Its a lot different than countries where terrorists are just present.

[GnRNightrain]

Yes, but he funded terrorists and had ties to terrorists.? Was he a suicide bomber?? No.? Did he give money and support to groups that committed such atrocities?? Yes.

So it would be ok for Tony Blair to send troops to invade USA since some people there have given money to the IRA??

I think you read my post.  There is a difference with a government supporting terrorism, and a few people sponsoring it with their own money "illegally."  I think you can figure out the difference.

I don't think Iraq was the worst country in supporting terrorists. There are other that I suspect might be more involved in that than Iraq was.

That may be true.  However, some of these other countries deserve different approaches.  Also many of these countries werent thought to have the elaborate wmds that Iraq was thought to have.  But Im glad that you are acknowldging there is more to be done with these other countries.  Maybe the EU will step up this time when we have to go up against Iran.

What's your opinion on, for example, a country like Syria?

/jarmo

I dont know tons about the makeup of Syria, despite the fact that one of my old roomates was actually syrian.  So Im not sure what approach works best for that region.  I do know that the US isnt going to invade all of these countries.  We also made a big mistake, IMO, thinking that we might be able to democratize middle eastern countries.  Iraq or maybe Iran was our best shot at this.  That is one of the reasons why I think we went in there first.  But Syria is another one of the countries that is going to have to be dealt with sooner or later.

[SLCPUNK]

"Iraq has never threatened nor been implicated in any attack against U.S. territory and the CIA has reported no Iraqi-sponsored attacks against American interests since 1991." Stephen Zunes, "

An Annotated Overview of the Foreign Policy Segments of President George W. Bush?s State of the Union Address

[SLCPUNK]

By DOUGLAS JEHL

Published: September 16, 2004

WASHINGTON, Sept. 15 - A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday.

The estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of 2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political, economic and security terms.

"There's a significant amount of pessimism," said one government official who has read the document, which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence analysts' conclusions - included in the document.

The intelligence estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials said.

As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was being made.

[SLCPUNK]

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

And he feared elections planned for January would not go ahead in Iraq unless security considerably improved.

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."

"From our point of view and the [UN] charter point of view it was illegal," he added. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

[St.heathen]

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.

And he feared elections planned for January would not go ahead in Iraq unless security considerably improved.

"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community."

"From our point of view and the [UN] charter point of view it was illegal," he added.?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

Yeh i saw this today too.  It's all fucked up man.  If Bush had just had the sense of a little patience and waited for UN backing then none of this mess would exist.  He obviously thought he could go guns blazing, win the war and find WMD. Then go back and get Bin Laden ....but guess what? That didn't happen.  Now the whole world is in a mess, fighting shadows basically.  Noone knows the next target and its a scary situation. 

Blair isn't totally off the hook either. Although you could see he was working hard to keep talks between the Alllies and the UN.  He imo he would have waited for the process to go through.  Nothing has been mentioned of any legal prosecution will go ahead though or has there?  Would they have the balls to take on the U.S and the UK? could be very awkward.

[Will]

The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.

I think we all now it was illegal from a UN point of view, but Bush and his fans don't give a fuck.