It's time for you libs to apologize for calling Pres Bush a liar

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

I find it interesting that al-Zarqawi is conducting attacks in Iraq, has links to Al Qaeda, yet he is not an Iraqi citizen. It has me questioning how long he has been there, or what his ties to the former regime were, if there even were any. What I do know is that he has an agenda to kill American?s and is hellbent on following it through. He will also be moving ahead of OBL for the number one most want terrorist spot if things keep up the way they are.

Begginning in 2001 or 2002, al-Zarqawi was operating in Kurdish controlled Iraq with the support of Ansar al-Islam, a small group of Kurds who wanted to secede.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

I find it interesting that al-Zarqawi is conducting attacks in Iraq, has links to Al Qaeda, yet he is not an Iraqi citizen. It has me questioning how long he has been there, or what his ties to the former regime were, if there even were any. What I do know is that he has an agenda to kill American?s and is hellbent on following it through. He will also be moving ahead of OBL for the number one most want terrorist spot if things keep up the way they are.

Begginning in 2001 or 2002, al-Zarqawi was operating in Kurdish controlled Iraq with the support of Ansar al-Islam, a small group of Kurds who wanted to secede.

Do you have any idea if al-Zarqawi went into Iraq before or after our invasion?

 

[burnedout]

**Breaking News**Senate Report Offers Backing for Claim Iraq Sought Uranium in Africa**Film at 11**

or "Joe Wilson lied, reputations died" [Hat tip: The Sage of Knoxville]

WASHINGTON - A Senate report criticizing false CIA claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction at the same time provides support for an assertion the White House repudiated: that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa.

A Friday report from the Senate Intelligence Committee offers new details supporting the claim.

French and British intelligence separately told the United States about possible Iraqi attempts to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger, the report said. The report from France is significant not only because Paris opposed the Iraq war but also because Niger is a former French colony and French companies control uranium production there.

Joseph Wilson, a retired U.S. diplomat the CIA sent to investigate the Niger story, also found evidence of Iraqi contacts with Nigerien officials, the report said.

But wait, there's more:

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

EDIT: Paging Josh Marshall, paging Josh Marshall. Some of us think it's high time you answer Greg Djerejian's challenge.

 

[brxndxn]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Bush isn't just a liar, he's a cheat, con artist, con man, deceiver, deluder, dissimulator, equivocator, fabler, fabricator, fabulist, false witness, falsifier, fibber, jive turkey, maligner, misleader, perjurer, phony, prevaricator, promoter, storyteller, trickster, bastard, beggar, black sheep, blackguard, bully, bum, cad, cardsharp, charlatan, cheat, delinquent, devil, disgrace, felon, fraud, good-for-nothing, grafter, hooligan, hypocrite, idler, imp, knave, liar, loafer, miscreant, mountebank, ne'er-do-well, opportunist, pretender, prodigal, profligate, rake, rapscallion, recreant, reprobate, robber, rogue, rowdy, ruffian, scalawag, scamp, scoundrel, shyster, sinner, skunk, sneak, swindler, tough, tramp, trickster, varmint, villain, wastrel, and wretch, especially a wretch.

And if you can't see that you are blind, sightless, dark, eyeless, groping, in darkness, purblind, undiscerning, unseeing, unsighted, visionless, indifferent, careless, heedless, ignorant, imperceptive, inattentive, inconsiderate, indiscriminate, injudicious, insensitive, myopic, nearsighted, neglectful, oblivious, thoughtless, unaware, unconscious, undiscerning, unmindful, unobservant, unreasoning, unseeing, heedless, impetuous, inconsiderate, irrational, mindless, rash, reckless, senseless, shortsighted, thoughtless, unseeing, unthinking, especially unthinking.

You make the real liberals look stupid and misinformed. You are a horrible liberal. You piss people off while strengthening them in their own conservative beliefs. A real liberal would at least be able to convince me to open my mind enough to have a discussion. However, you merely show that I would have no say if I attempted to discuss anything with you. You are lost in a world of rhetoric that makes no sense. Just like many real conservatives are embarassed to have certain people arguing for them, any liberal most likely feels the same about your petty quibbles and liberal marketing jingles.

In those two paragraphs, the only real communication I got out of it was, "I am a biased and misinformed liberal. Do not argue with me or I will spout useless verbiage and cut you off before you say anything."

Also, your entire second paragraph is an Ad hominem. You attack me merely because I don't instantly believe you after your first paragraph. However, your first paragraph is an error in reasoning (if it is referring to the war), since it has yet to be proven whether or not he lied. Seriously, Moonbeam, you would be more beneficial to liberals everywhere if you stuck your foot in your mouth while intelligent, informed liberals made real points.

 

[Gaard]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

No?I wasn?t implying anything really. I was just curious as to what the DNC talking points were on this Al-Zaraqawi guy. So I thought I would ask you (seeing that you have a Kerry/Edwards thing in your sig).

Hmmm, it's probably just my cynical nature, but didn't you post your reply about al-Zaqawi before Kerry announced Edwards as his running mate. Do you remember, conjur, when you added Kerry/Edwards to your sig?

 

[GrGr]

brxndxn,

Do you want to have a serious discussion on the topic of Bush's lies.

Then start with defending these statements by Bush and his regime:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
December 2, 2002


We know for a fact that there are weapons there.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003


We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
February 5, 2003


We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003


If Iraq had disarmed itself, gotten rid of its weapons of mass destruction over the past 12 years, or over the last several months since (UN Resolution) 1441 was enacted, we would not be facing the crisis that we now have before us . . . But the suggestion that we are doing this because we want to go to every country in the Middle East and rearrange all of its pieces is not correct.

Colin Powell
Interview with Radio France International
February 28, 2003


So has the strategic decision been made to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction by the leadership in Baghdad? . . . I think our judgment has to be clearly not.

Colin Powell
Remarks to UN Security Council
March 7, 2003


Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes.

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them.

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of weapons of mass destruction.

Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


Obviously the administration intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find -- and there will be plenty.

Neocon scholar Robert Kagan
Washington Post op-ed
April 9, 2003


But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction. That is what this war was about and it is about. And we have high confidence it will be found.

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003


We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure, that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some. And so we will find them.

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003


There are people who in large measure have information that we need . . . so that we can track down the weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Press Briefing
April 25, 2003


We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 3, 2003


I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now.

Colin Powell
Remarks to Reporters
May 4, 2003


We never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.

Donald Rumsfeld
Fox News Interview
May 4, 2003


I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.

George W. Bush
Remarks to Reporters
May 6, 2003


U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleeza Rice
Reuters Interview
May 12, 2003


I just don't know whether it was all destroyed years ago -- I mean, there's no question that there were chemical weapons years ago -- whether they were destroyed right before the war, (or) whether they're still hidden.

Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, Commander 101st Airborne
Press Briefing
May 13, 2003


Before the war, there's no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical. I expected them to be found. I still expect them to be found.

Gen. Michael Hagee, Commandant of the Marine Corps
Interview with Reporters
May 21, 2003


Given time, given the number of prisoners now that we're interrogating, I'm confident that we're going to find weapons of mass destruction.

Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff
NBC Today Show interview
May 26, 2003


They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.

Donald Rumsfeld
Remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations
May 27, 2003


For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.

Paul Wolfowitz
Vanity Fair interview
May 28, 2003

It was a surprise to me then ? it remains a surprise to me now ? that we have not uncovered weapons, as you say, in some of the forward dispersal sites. Believe me, it's not for lack of trying. We've been to virtually every ammunition supply point between the Kuwaiti border and Baghdad, but they're simply not there.

Lt. Gen. James Conway, 1st Marine Expeditionary Force
Press Interview
May 30, 2003

Do I think we're going to find something? Yeah, I kind of do, because I think there's a lot of information out there."

Maj. Gen. Keith Dayton, Defense Intelligence Agency
Press Conference


link

Contrast that with this video of Powell and Rice telling the truth

Moreover: The Bush regime has used at least 27 rationales for the Iraqi war - link

The Bush regime has used 237 misleading statements on Iraq - Iraq on the record

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: brxndxnYou make the real liberals look stupid and misinformed. You are a horrible liberal. You piss people off while strengthening them in their own conservative beliefs. A real liberal would at least be able to convince me to open my mind enough to have a discussion.

Interesting tactic this. You've given yourself the power to define the opposition as well as the tactics it can legitimately employ.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

I find it interesting that al-Zarqawi is conducting attacks in Iraq, has links to Al Qaeda, yet he is not an Iraqi citizen. It has me questioning how long he has been there, or what his ties to the former regime were, if there even were any. What I do know is that he has an agenda to kill American?s and is hellbent on following it through. He will also be moving ahead of OBL for the number one most want terrorist spot if things keep up the way they are.

Begginning in 2001 or 2002, al-Zarqawi was operating in Kurdish controlled Iraq with the support of Ansar al-Islam, a small group of Kurds who wanted to secede.

Do you have any idea if al-Zarqawi went into Iraq before or after our invasion?

Before. Colin Powell even used him as reason Iraq and A-Queda were working together, saying he got his leg amputated in Baghdad. Of course now we don't even know if that's true. We're not sure how many legs al-Zarqawi actually has, it's believed to be two.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
The same as any other person's. al-Zarqawi is an evil bastard and needs to be eliminated.

But, I think your lame implication is that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq and planning attacks with Saddam against the U.S.

Is that what you are trying to imply?

I was wondering what thread I posted this in?.I have a while to go until I?ll be receving my MA in whoring anytime soon, as you can see.

No?I wasn?t implying anything really. I was just curious as to what the DNC talking points were on this Al-Zaraqawi guy. So I thought I would ask you (seeing that you have a Kerry/Edwards thing in your sig).

I wouldn't know what any DNC talking points are being as I'm not a Democrat and don't typically frequent Democratic forums.

Also, I find it curious you would ask because I have Kerry/Edwards in my sig when I didn't have that in my sig until AFTER you asked me my opinion about al-Zarqawi. You see, your post was timestamped about 3:30am on 7/6. Kerry didn't make his announcement about Edwards until later that morning, after your post.

So, have any other rationalizations you'd like to try on?

I find it interesting that al-Zarqawi is conducting attacks in Iraq, has links to Al Qaeda, yet he is not an Iraqi citizen. It has me questioning how long he has been there, or what his ties to the former regime were, if there even were any. What I do know is that he has an agenda to kill American?s and is hellbent on following it through. He will also be moving ahead of OBL for the number one most want terrorist spot if things keep up the way they are.

So whether or not this war in Iraq was originally one against Terror, it has turned into one now. Many of the enemy insurgents we are fighting over there have links and goals similar to Al Qaeda (if not directly part of it). So while the question of whether these people were directly connected to Saddam pre-invasion, or not, is a subjective one (and will forver be), we know that there are numerous terrorists conducting operations in that country today.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back that baseless-claim truck up! The insurgents in no way have the same goals. Al Qaeda wants all Americans dead, no matter where they are. They also want more than Americans dead (as evidenced by attacks in Spain, Bali, and attempted attacks in Jordan.) The insurgents are simply fighting against an occupying force. Quite the difference there.

As for al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq. There's no telling how long he's been there, where he's been while there, and what he was doing. My guess is he was in Syria most of the time and got into Iraq during or right after the U.S. invasion.

BTW: What is the DNC?s stance on Salman Pak? Just out of curiousity.

I don't know. You'll have to ask someone who's a member of the DNC.

But, the official intelligence world stance on Salman Pak is that it was not a terrorist training facility. The only word that it was a terrorist training facility has come from defectors and others associated with the INC. We all know how reliable the INC was[n't].

Oh, more on Salman Pak:
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

Almost immediately after September 11th, the I.N.C. began to publicize the stories of defectors who claimed that they had information connecting Iraq to the attacks. In an interview on October 14, 2001, conducted jointly by the Times and ?Frontline,? the public-television program, Sabah Khodada, an Iraqi Army captain, said that the September 11th operation ?was conducted by people who were trained by Saddam,? and that Iraq had a program to instruct terrorists in the art of hijacking. Another defector, who was identified only as a retired lieutenant general in the Iraqi intelligence service, said that in 2000 he witnessed Arab students being given lessons in hijacking on a Boeing 707 parked at an Iraqi training camp near the town of Salman Pak, south of Baghdad.

In separate interviews with me, however, a former C.I.A. station chief and a former military intelligence analyst said that the camp near Salman Pak had been built not for terrorism training but for counter-terrorism training. In the mid-eighties, Islamic terrorists were routinely hijacking aircraft. In 1986, an Iraqi airliner was seized by pro-Iranian extremists and crashed, after a hand grenade was triggered, killing at least sixty-five people. (At the time, Iran and Iraq were at war, and America favored Iraq.) Iraq then sought assistance from the West, and got what it wanted from Britain?s MI6. The C.I.A. offered similar training in counter-terrorism throughout the Middle East. ?We were helping our allies everywhere we had a liaison,? the former station chief told me. Inspectors recalled seeing the body of an airplane?which appeared to be used for counter-terrorism training?when they visited a biological-weapons facility near Salman Pak in 1991, ten years before September 11th. It is, of course, possible for such a camp to be converted from one purpose to another. The former C.I.A. official noted, however, that terrorists would not practice on airplanes in the open. ?That?s Hollywood rinky-dink stuff,? the former agent said. ?They train in basements. You don?t need a real airplane to practice hijacking. The 9/11 terrorists went to gyms. But to take one back you have to practice on the real thing.?

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.

 

[Shuxclams]

BUSH and his administration are liars.
















SHUX

 

[alchemize]

GrGr: You forgot these quotes:

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It?s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability ? a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

We must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq?s weapons of mass destruction once and for all.

Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations? credibility.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: burnedout
But wait, there's more:

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

First, who was this Iraqi official who was supposedly the one in Niger to discuss the yellowcake purchase?

Baghdad Bob!!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4907409

"The infamous Minister of Mis-Information, Muhammad Said al-Sahaf."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4880116/

there was a meeting on the margins of an OAU summit between a senior Niger official and an Iraqi official who turns out to be the former minister of information, Baghdad Bob. At that meeting, uranium was not discussed.

Second, I don't believe Mr. Wilson has publicly stated he was not recommended for the trip by his wife. In fact, it seems I recall him actually mentioning that on one of the news shows he was on a couple of months ago. Cannot yet find the transcript, though. But, here's an article from Oct. 2003 that mentions Novak's article states his wife recommended him for the trip: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3156166.stm



Meet The Press transcript
http://www.johnkerry.com/honesty/Meet_The_Press.html

DR. CONDOLEEZZA RICE: The president quoted a British paper. We did not know at the time, no one knew at the time in our circles, maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.

(End videotape)

MS. MITCHELL: ?The bowels of the agency?? You?ve just said that, in fact, it was passed along to the vice president?s office.

AMB. WILSON: Andrea, when I was in the National Security Council, I was senior director for African affairs, and subsequent to that, when I wrote this article, I checked with members of the then-vice president?s staff, senior members, as well as other senior members of the NSC staff, to refresh my own memory. And standard operating procedure has always been if you are senior enough to ask the question, you will get a very specific response. And if you are in the vice president?s office, or you?re a senior director at the National Security Council, you are senior enough to ask the question, you will get a specific response, unless the operating procedures have changed, which would be a shame.

Also, a transcript of Wilson on NOW with Bill Moyers
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_wilson.html

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
Also, I find it curious you would ask because I have Kerry/Edwards in my sig when I didn't have that in my sig until AFTER you asked me my opinion about al-Zarqawi. You see, your post was timestamped about 3:30am on 7/6. Kerry didn't make his announcement about Edwards until later that morning, after your post.

So, have any other rationalizations you'd like to try on?

Hmmm?.Something made me assume that you were of a similar political perspective or I wouldn?t have singled your post out from the others in here. Did you have some other over the top partisan comment in your sig during that that time? Bush/Cheney '04 - Four More Years (of TERROR) <-Perhaps it was this I was responding to. How long that been there?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back that baseless-claim truck up! The insurgents in no way have the same goals. Al Qaeda wants all Americans dead, no matter where they are. They also want more than Americans dead (as evidenced by attacks in Spain, Bali, and attempted attacks in Jordan.) The insurgents are simply fighting against an occupying force. Quite the difference there.

Yeah?..In that case why did that bombing against the U.N. happen? Was that truck bombing, which killed twenty U.N. members last year in Iraq, an attack against an occupying force also? Is this what Al-Zarqawi, who has been responsible for attacks against America long before the Iraq war started, is there to do?

I don?t understand how the people we are fighting over there, which a proportion have been confirmed as foreign insurgents trying to kill Americans, can be classified as freedom fighters against an occupying force. Especially, when they, being non-Iraqi?s themselves, are every bit as much of an occupying force as we are.

As for al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq. There's no telling how long he's been there, where he's been while there, and what he was doing. My guess is he was in Syria most of the time and got into Iraq during or right after the U.S. invasion.

Colin Powel?s pre-war security report illustrated otherwise, as did the poster above. Have any links?

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.

[/quote]

Well, I suppose either side can be argued onthis. America has one of the most sophisticated training facilities on earth and even we don?t have commercial jetliner skins sitting around for training purposes. This reeks with similarities of Iran?s nuclear reactors being for ?electrical? purposes.? I guess any argument can be made with anything??who really knows what the real intentions were for this stuff besides the people who ran these things.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
Also, I find it curious you would ask because I have Kerry/Edwards in my sig when I didn't have that in my sig until AFTER you asked me my opinion about al-Zarqawi. You see, your post was timestamped about 3:30am on 7/6. Kerry didn't make his announcement about Edwards until later that morning, after your post.

So, have any other rationalizations you'd like to try on?

Hmmm?.Something made me assume that you were of a similar political perspective or I wouldn?t have singled your post out from the others in here. Did you have some other over the top partisan comment in your sig during that that time? Bush/Cheney '04 - Four More Years (of TERROR) <-Perhaps it was this I was responding to. How long that been there?

I knew you wouldn't disappoint!

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Back that baseless-claim truck up! The insurgents in no way have the same goals. Al Qaeda wants all Americans dead, no matter where they are. They also want more than Americans dead (as evidenced by attacks in Spain, Bali, and attempted attacks in Jordan.) The insurgents are simply fighting against an occupying force. Quite the difference there.

Yeah?..In that case why did that bombing against the U.N. happen? Was that truck bombing, which killed twenty U.N. members last year in Iraq, an attack against an occupying force also? Is this what Al-Zarqawi, who has been responsible for attacks against America long before the Iraq war started, is there to do?

One, it was a group affiliated with Al Qaeda that was responsible for the attack:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/safety-security-un-personnel-iraq.pdf

Responsibility for the attack was claimed, among others, by Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group affiliated with the Al-Qaeda organization. The message was published on the Internet and in Arabic newspapers.

Also, they might have opened themselves up to attack:

The fact is that the UN senior management in Baghdad asked on several occasions for the removal of positions and equipment of the Coalition Forces from the vicinity of the Canal Hotel. This created a critical security vacuum that armed elements could easily take advantage of.

I don?t understand how the people we are fighting over there, which a proportion have been confirmed as foreign insurgents trying to kill Americans, can be classified as freedom fighters against an occupying force. Especially, when they, being non-Iraqi?s themselves, are every bit as much of an occupying force as we are.

Uhh...the majority of the insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners.

Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&amp;slug=Iraq%20Insurgency

As for al-Zarqawi's presence in Iraq. There's no telling how long he's been there, where he's been while there, and what he was doing. My guess is he was in Syria most of the time and got into Iraq during or right after the U.S. invasion.

Colin Powel?s pre-war security report illustrated otherwise, as did the poster above. Have any links?

Sorry, I put no faith in any pre-war report from this administration. This administration has proven to be completely unreliable in that respect.

Salman Pak was overrun by American troops on April 6th. Apparently, neither the camp nor the former biological facility has yielded evidence to substantiate the claims made before the war.

Well, I suppose either side can be argued onthis. America has one of the most sophisticated training facilities on earth and even we don?t have commercial jetliner skins sitting around for training purposes. This reeks with similarities of Iran?s nuclear reactors being for ?electrical? purposes.? I guess any argument can be made with anything??who really knows what the real intentions were for this stuff besides the people who ran these things.

So, you admit to "your side" exaggerating the claims, eh?

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
One, it was a group affiliated with Al Qaeda that was responsible for the attack:

Wait?In Iraq? Al Qaeda is responsible for attacks against the U.N. inside Iraq?
Bwah!!

How about American targets, have they attempted any of these yet?
I?d imagine this has been my initial point all along.

Uhh...the majority of the insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners.

Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought

Perhaps in Fallujah and surrounding areas, besides this it?s hard to confirm they make up the majority IMO. I?d welcome good articles on this.

Sorry, I put no faith in any pre-war report from this administration. This administration has proven to be completely unreliable in that respect.

Links proving your statement then??.

So, you admit to "your side" exaggerating the claims, eh?

Yeah?exaggerated?. Lol

There?s always going to be someone justifying their need for a nuclear reactor to serve power purposes, even though they are sitting on one of the worlds largest oil supplies (IRAN). Regimes meeding terrorist camps that were once WMD facilities, which possessed civilian passenger plain shells, to help save their own civilians, because we all know Saddam was a utopianist.

You don?t see anything wrong with this? You really believe this fulheartedly, without question? While in no way do I imply this justified an attack?I am not believing everything these people tell me. This reminds me of the individuals who purchase bongs for ?tobacco? purposes.

If you really buy into that you should check out my assault riffle collection that I have for ?hunting.?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
One, it was a group affiliated with Al Qaeda that was responsible for the attack:

Wait?In Iraq? Al Qaeda is responsible for attacks against the U.N. inside Iraq?
Bwah!!

You don't read very well, do you? Let me repeat the summary from the U.N.:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/safety-security-un-personnel-iraq.pdf

Responsibility for the attack was claimed, among others, by Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group affiliated with the Al-Qaeda organization. The message was published on the Internet and in Arabic newspapers.

How about American targets, have they attempted any of these yet?
I?d imagine this has been my initial point all along.

Uh, no. This group likely came into Iraq right before or right after the invasion. Al Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq prior to this war. Bush's decision to go to war drew Al Qaeda and terror attacks to Iraq where there were none before.

Uhh...the majority of the insurgents are Iraqis, not foreigners.

Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought

Perhaps in Fallujah and surrounding areas, besides this it?s hard to confirm they make up the majority IMO. I?d welcome good articles on this.

Again, I question your reading comprehension:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&amp;slug=Iraq%20Insurgency

Contrary to U.S. government claims, the insurgency in Iraq is led by well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power, not foreign fighters, and is far larger than previously thought, American military officials say .

The officials told The Associated Press the guerrillas can call on loyalists to boost their forces to as high as 20,000 and have enough popular support among nationalist Iraqis angered by the presence of U.S. troops that they cannot be militarily defeated.

That number is far larger than the 5,000 guerrillas previously thought to be at the insurgency's core. And some insurgents are highly specialized - one Baghdad cell, for instance, has two leaders, one assassin, and two groups of bomb-makers.

Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size, the insurgency is believed to include dozens of regional cells, often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams.

The developing intelligence picture of the insurgency contrasts with the commonly stated view in the Bush administration that the fighting is fueled by foreign warriors intent on creating an Islamic state.

Hmmm...no mention of it being only in Falluja. You're wrong, AGAIN!

Sorry, I put no faith in any pre-war report from this administration. This administration has proven to be completely unreliable in that respect.

Links proving your statement then??.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=52&amp;threadid=1271254

So, you admit to "your side" exaggerating the claims, eh?

Yeah?exaggerated?. Lol

There?s always going to be someone justifying their need for nuclear reactor to serve power purposes, even though they are sitting on one of the worlds largest oil supplies (IRAN). Needing terrorist camps that were once WMD facilities, which possessed civilian passenger plain shells, to help save their own people, because we all know Saddam was a utopianist. You don?t see anything wrong with this? You really believe this fulheartedly? While I in no way imply this justified an attack?I don?t believe everything these people tell me. This reminds me of people who purchase bongs for ?tobacco? purposes.

If you really like that you should check out my assault riffle collection that I have for ?hunting.?

I believe the reports that came back from our military after it overran Salman Pak and found NOTHING to substantiate pre-war claims.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
You don't read very well, do you? Let me repeat the summary from the U.N.:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/safety-security-un-personnel-iraq.pdf

Responsibility for the attack was claimed, among others, by Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group affiliated with the Al-Qaeda organization. The message was published on the Internet and in Arabic newspapers.

Actually, it would appear that I can read just fine and that you are further reinforcing my point. I said enemy insurgents are causing attacks in Iraq and have a nagenda similar to Al Qaeda. You just proved that they are indeed "affiliated with the Al-Qaeda organization."

Originally posted by: Mockery
Many of the enemy insurgents we are fighting over there have links and goals similar to Al Qaeda (if not directly part of it).

Originally posted by: conjur
Back that baseless-claim truck up! The insurgents in no way have the same goals.

Thanks........

Uh, no. This group likely came into Iraq right before or right after the invasion. Al Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq prior to this war. Bush's decision to go to war drew Al Qaeda and terror attacks to Iraq where there were none before.

Ahhh? So Al Qaeda hit the U.N. in Iraq, left completely, single file, causing no further problems to the Coalition efforts? That sounds like Al Qaeda alright. Their new Jihad must be against the U.N. and not America then.

Edit:

Originally posted by: Mockery
How about American targets, have they attempted any of these yet?

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, no.

So wait?.Al Qaeda related activities haven?t happened inside of Iraq against American?s yet?

I sincerely hope you aren't saying that.

 

[Mockery]

Again, I question your reading comprehension:
Hmmm...no mention of it being only in Falluja. You're wrong, AGAIN!

Lol?

Two things?One, this is a nice debate we have going on. Two, there is no need to be derogatory and insulting towards each other. I don't want an e-penis measuring contest, just an intellectual discussion.

I said ?Fallujah and surrounding areas ?

?well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power,
Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size
often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams.?

Fullujah is in the heart of the Sunni triangle, which is basically what this article is talking about. Fullujah and surrounding areas, while not entirely precise, is hardly ?WRONG? either.

http://www.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/faculty/khall/IraqSitesArts/IraqNew802/IraqPSFAQs2/PSAmericansBeingKilled.htm#Fallujah%20Four

 

[conjur]

You are making a mockery of yourself. Good job on twisting and distorting not only what I said, but what you said, as well!

Originally posted by: Mockery

Originally posted by: conjur
You don't read very well, do you? Let me repeat the summary from the U.N.:
http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/safety-security-un-personnel-iraq.pdf

Responsibility for the attack was claimed, among others, by Abu-Hafs al-Masri Brigades, a group affiliated with the Al-Qaeda organization. The message was published on the Internet and in Arabic newspapers.

Actually, it would appear that I can read just fine and that you are further reinforcing my point. I said enemy insurgents are causing attacks in Iraq and have a nagenda similar to Al Qaeda. You just proved that they are indeed "affiliated with the Al-Qaeda organization."

Originally posted by: Mockery
Many of the enemy insurgents we are fighting over there have links and goals similar to Al Qaeda (if not directly part of it).

Originally posted by: conjur
Back that baseless-claim truck up! The insurgents in no way have the same goals.

Thanks........

How about adding in the rest of my quote, there, skippy?
Al Qaeda wants all Americans dead, no matter where they are. They also want more than Americans dead (as evidenced by attacks in Spain, Bali, and attempted attacks in Jordan.) The insurgents are simply fighting against an occupying force. Quite the difference there.

And, they have similar goals? Then how do you explain the rising rift between the insurgents and the foreign fighters?
Iraq's Rebellion Develops Signs of Internal Rift
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/international/middleeast/11INSU.html

Also, where in this do you equate the enemy insurgents being Al Qaeda? I don't think you've even clicked on this link:
Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&amp;slug=Iraq%20Insurgency

Uh, no. This group likely came into Iraq right before or right after the invasion. Al Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq prior to this war. Bush's decision to go to war drew Al Qaeda and terror attacks to Iraq where there were none before.

Ahhh? So Al Qaeda hit the U.N. in Iraq, left completely, single file, causing no further problems to the Coalition efforts? That sounds like Al Qaeda alright. Their new Jihad must be against the U.N. and not America then.

Edit:

Originally posted by: Mockery
How about American targets, have they attempted any of these yet?

Originally posted by: conjur
Uh, no.

So wait?.Al Qaeda related activities haven?t happened inside of Iraq against American?s yet?

I sincerely hope you aren't saying that.

First, let's look at your original comment, instead of your selective quote of your own post above:

Wait?In Iraq? Al Qaeda is responsible for attacks against the U.N. inside Iraq?
Bwah!!

How about American targets, have they attempted any of these yet?
I?d imagine this has been my initial point all along.

See, what you're implying there is that because there was an attack on the UN offices in Baghdad that was perpetrated by a group affiliated with Al Qaeda that Al Qaeda has had a presence in Iraq since well before the war. We all know that's what you were getting at.

Now, let's look at how you have again selectively quoted my response. Here is my full response:

Uh, no. This group likely came into Iraq right before or right after the invasion. Al Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq prior to this war. Bush's decision to go to war drew Al Qaeda and terror attacks to Iraq where there were none before.

There we see me replying to your implication ("I?d imagine this has been my initial point all along") that Al Qaeda had a presence in Iraq since well before the war, not the question in the 1st sentence.

So, Mockery, either stick to proper debate or take your selective quoting over Limbaugh's or Hannity's forums where that childish activity is probably encouraged.


P.S. Learn how to properly quote.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Again, I question your reading comprehension:
Hmmm...no mention of it being only in Falluja. You're wrong, AGAIN!

Lol?

Two things?One, this is a nice debate we have going on. Two, there is no need to be derogatory and insulting towards each other. I don't want an e-penis measuring contest, just an intellectual discussion.

I said ?Fallujah and surrounding areas ?

?well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power,
Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size
often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams.?

Fullujah is in the heart of the Sunni triangle, which is basically what this article is talking about. Fullujah and surrounding areas, while not entirely precise, is hardly ?WRONG? either.
[/L]

Intellectual discussion? I think not. As near as I can tell, Mockery, all you want to do is be sarcastic and judgmental about issues you don't seem to have much grasp of. No offense. The facts on the ground, away from the American propaganda\patriotism machine, indicates that Iraq is swarming with MANY groups and individuals who hate the US. Who they are is only germane to the Think Tank crowd and overly-funded military types. Their goals are revenge, wanting our troops out of there and a complete stop to Washinton's manipulation of their lives an political structures.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Mockery

Again, I question your reading comprehension:
Hmmm...no mention of it being only in Falluja. You're wrong, AGAIN!

Lol?

Two things?One, this is a nice debate we have going on. Two, there is no need to be derogatory and insulting towards each other. I don't want an e-penis measuring contest, just an intellectual discussion.

I said ?Fallujah and surrounding areas ?

?well-armed Sunnis angry about losing power,
Although U.S. military analysts disagree over the exact size
often led by tribal sheiks and inspired by Sunni Muslim imams.?

Fullujah is in the heart of the Sunni triangle, which is basically what this article is talking about. Fullujah and surrounding areas, while not entirely precise, is hardly ?WRONG? either.

http://www.newtrier.k12.il.us/academics/faculty/khall/IraqSitesArts/IraqNew802/IraqPSFAQs2/PSAmericansBeingKilled.htm#Fallujah%20Four

You are really grasping at straws now.

Since when would any sane person take "Fallujah and surrounding areas" as meaning all of Iraq?

Go back and read this again:

Iraq Insurgency Far Larger Than Thought
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&amp;slug=Iraq Insurgency


And,
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/11/international/middleeast/11INSU.html?pagewanted=2

At the most basic level, the insurgency has been divided into the three parts that sometimes overlap: Sunni Arabs, in many cases led by former Baath Party members and former soldiers; Shiite Arabs led by Moktada al-Sadr; and foreigners from other Arab and Muslim countries.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Shuxclams
BUSH and his administration are liars.

Arrogant, cynical, inane, thuggish, patronizing liars.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur
Al Qaeda wants all Americans dead, no matter where they are. They also want more than Americans dead (as evidenced by attacks in Spain, Bali, and attempted attacks in Jordan.) The insurgents are simply fighting against an occupying force. Quite the difference there.

And, they have similar goals? Then how do you explain the rising rift between the insurgents and the foreign fighters?

Also, where in this do you equate the enemy insurgents being Al Qaeda? I don't think you've even clicked on this link:

Seriously?this is getting old fast. I said that a preportion of the people we are fighting against in Iraq have agendas similar to Al Qaeda. You proved that through the U.N. bombing that took place there. There are many other examples that go along with this. What?s happening in the Sunni Triangle, where most of the fatalities have occurred, can very well be associated with a fight against ?an occupying force.?

None the less, Al Qaeda related attacks inside of Iraq have indeed been confirmed since the war has started. Thus, some of the enemy insurgents we are fighting against have goals and agenda similar to Al Qaeda. Regardless of how many times you post the same tired articles, this is a fact that you simply can not deny.

Al Qaeda, or its closely related groups, has attacked inside of Iraq against both the U.N. and the Coalitions efforts.

This is what I have been referring to ???..I know it?s very simplistic idea, but you are so fond of arguing it seems that this is about as much progress as anyone can make with a person who has a set goal of being correct all the time.

Uh, no. This group likely came into Iraq right before or right after the invasion. Al Qaeda had no real presence in Iraq prior to this war. Bush's decision to go to war drew Al Qaeda and terror attacks to Iraq where there were none before.

Great?so you also admit that an Al Qaeda presence inside of Iraq has been established.
First step complete. I agree that Al Qaeda related activities were minimal if not non-existent before the war took place??..moving along now?????..

See, what you're implying there is that because there was an attack on the UN offices in Baghdad that was perpetrated by a group affiliated with Al Qaeda that Al Qaeda has had a presence in Iraq since well before the war.

Where the hell did you misinterpret that from? I have made no such argument, you are reading into something that simply does not exist. I have been trying to get you to concede that some of the people we are fighting in Iraq have goals and agendas similar to Iraq. As I said way back in my first post on this subject, ?this has turned into a war against terrorism, regardless of whether it was one to begin with.? Thus, I am not trying to say that Al Qaeda had any such presence in Iraq prior to the war happening. The only exception to this is in regards to Al-Zarqawi, where there have been some seriously mixed reports on exactly where he was prior to our occupation beginning.

We all know that's what you were getting at.

No, apparently you don?t, since that wasn?t where I was trying to go (at all).
I am now finding your reading comprehension comments to be a bit ironic.

P.S. Learn how to properly quote.

Learn how to stop misinterpreting what I am writing and I promise it will stop happening.

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Intellectual discussion? I think not. As near as I can tell, Mockery, all you want to do is be sarcastic and judgmental about issues you don't seem to have much grasp of. No offense.

Of course not, why would anyone take offense to such belittling commentary from the peanut gallery. I think I am fully capable of making my own decisions on what I do and what I don?t feel comfortable with responding to, but thanks for the fine words of encouragement.

I am amazed at how up tight people get when a guy tries to get people to think about why they feel the way they do on subjects. It?s like Barbara Streisand interrupting a massive left handed circle jerk or something in here. I am constantly molding my outlook on this topic everyday, which is mainly why I come in here to debate these topics. This seems to be leaps and bounds different from ?The Earth Is Flat? crowd that already has their minds made up and are not willing to move one iota in either direction. I see that being intellectually enlightened isn?t the goal of many people in this forum, it?s apparently a place to measure egos, be insulting, and brag about how 100% correct they are all the time.

Fun Stuff??..

 

[Mockery]

Originally posted by: conjur

You are really grasping at straws now.

Since when would any sane person take "Fallujah and surrounding areas" as meaning all of Iraq?

Sorry to burst your bubble?.but Fullujah is the heart of the Sunni Triangle?The Sunni Triangle is where the majority of the killings have taken place in the Iraq War. Go pick up a map?