No Al-quida in Iraq eh?

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Well damn...and here i thought the $100+billion was a waste!...

Thanks for the link, im sure many americans will sleep well tonight knowing their tax dollars were spent well!
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
There's Al Qaeda members in the United States- let's invade 'em and topple the Bush regime !
 

shiner

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
17,116
1
0
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

And you know this with 100% certainty how?
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

And you know this with 100% certainty how?

and you know that al qaeda was in Iraq before the war how?
 

Stunt

Diamond Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,717
2
0
Why the hell would they be in iraq...if they wanted to terrorize the US...that would be the worst place to find them pre-war!.

100+billion pays for a lot of investigating and much more productive results....
LIKE i dunno...finding the terrorists currently in your country...or the funders of the campaign?...:S

Just a thought...
You believe the money was well spent with the news of this article then?
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,709
8
81
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

conjur-

I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

conjur-

I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...


Well, there was that camp in the northern part of Iraq but that was under Kurdish control and was protected from Saddam by the U.S. no-fly zones. Ah...the ignominy.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

conjur-

I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...


Well, there was that camp in the northern part of Iraq but that was under Kurdish control and was protected from Saddam by the U.S. no-fly zones. Ah...the ignominy.

Which is exactly where al-Zarqawi was, because we knew it. Powell used that intel at his infamous UN speech (one of the few things that was factual). When presented with this intelligence, the President decided not to act because he felt it would undermine his case for war against Saddam (going after actual terrorists tied to the group that attacked us made just too much sense apparently)...

So to the OP, how's THAT food for thought?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

And you know this with 100% certainty how?

and you know that al qaeda was in Iraq before the war how?
Wasn't there a group in Kurd Contolled Northern Iraq prior to the war?

Do redundancy at it's best;)
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

conjur-

I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...


Well, there was that camp in the northern part of Iraq but that was under Kurdish control and was protected from Saddam by the U.S. no-fly zones. Ah...the ignominy.

Which is exactly where al-Zarqawi was, because we knew it. Powell used that intel at his infamous UN speech (one of the few things that was factual). When presented with this intelligence, the President decided not to act because he felt it would undermine his case for war against Saddam (going after actual terrorists tied to the group that attacked us made just too much sense apparently)...

So to the OP, how's THAT food for thought?

Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: lozina
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

conjur-

I wouldn't say there were NO Al Aqeda presence in Iraq prior to March 2003, I'm sure they've gone in and out of Iraq many times. The trick is- does Saddam have any ties with them? Afterall, no one can keep their borders 100% secure and be sure not to let any terrorists in- just ask the victims of 9/11...


Well, there was that camp in the northern part of Iraq but that was under Kurdish control and was protected from Saddam by the U.S. no-fly zones. Ah...the ignominy.

Which is exactly where al-Zarqawi was, because we knew it. Powell used that intel at his infamous UN speech (one of the few things that was factual). When presented with this intelligence, the President decided not to act because he felt it would undermine his case for war against Saddam (going after actual terrorists tied to the group that attacked us made just too much sense apparently)...

So to the OP, how's THAT food for thought?

Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.
To bad for your argument that's not what the so called Liberals said. What they stated was that there were no direct links between Al Qaeda and Hussien.
 

Infohawk

Lifer
Jan 12, 2002
17,844
1
0
Originally posted by: shinerburke
Originally posted by: conjur
<sigh>

When will they learn???


Let's go over this VERY simply.


1) Pre-March 2003 invasion - NO Al Qaeda presence in Iraq

2) Post-March 2003 invasion - Al Qaeda members begin entering Iraq to fight the U.S. (as we made ourselves easy targets)

And you know this with 100% certainty how?


When people argued for the war, they said there were terrorist links in Iraq. Were they 100% certain? I hope not. Did they start a war on that premise anyway? Yes.

Showing that there is terrorist links in Iraq right now does nothing to show that there were terrorist links before the war. In fact, it seems more likely that terrorists would be drawn to Iraq because of the US presence. In this regards, the war caused the terrorism links instead of ending them as it had hoped.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus

Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.

As Red Dawn said, that wasn't the anti-war argument at all.

The fact is Zarqawi and his gang were hiding out in the Kurdish (read: non-Saddam) controlled northern border with Iran. In that sense, there were terrorists in Saddam's Iraq just as there are terrorists in the US, or Germany, or Canada. They are there, but the government does not sanction them. Should we wage war against those countries as well?

In fact, the CIA controlled more of that area than Saddam did. Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. He was not an Islamic fundamentalist and he didn't like them in his country. There has never been an official administration explanation as to why Bush decided to just ignore the terrorists we knew about in that region and go after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.
 

rahvin

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,475
1
0
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Acanthus

Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.

As Red Dawn said, that wasn't the anti-war argument at all.

The fact is Zarqawi and his gang were hiding out in the Kurdish (read: non-Saddam) controlled northern border with Iran. In that sense, there were terrorists in Saddam's Iraq just as there are terrorists in the US, or Germany, or Canada. They are there, but the government does not sanction them. Should we wage war against those countries as well?

In fact, the CIA controlled more of that area than Saddam did. Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. He was not an Islamic fundamentalist and he didn't like them in his country. There has never been an official administration explanation as to why Bush decided to just ignore the terrorists we knew about in that region and go after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.

Stop perpetuating the myth that CIA is involved in everything and anything and is responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world. The CIA has never controlled anything during their entire existence. If the CIA was as capable as you imply the bay of pigs and hundereds of other interventions by the CIA wouldn't have been the misserable failure they were.
 

MonstaThrilla

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2000
1,652
0
0
Originally posted by: rahvin
Originally posted by: MonstaThrilla
Originally posted by: Acanthus

Right, so the whole "there are/were no terrorists in iraq" liberal bs is just that, bs.

As Red Dawn said, that wasn't the anti-war argument at all.

The fact is Zarqawi and his gang were hiding out in the Kurdish (read: non-Saddam) controlled northern border with Iran. In that sense, there were terrorists in Saddam's Iraq just as there are terrorists in the US, or Germany, or Canada. They are there, but the government does not sanction them. Should we wage war against those countries as well?

In fact, the CIA controlled more of that area than Saddam did. Saddam ran a secular dictatorship. He was not an Islamic fundamentalist and he didn't like them in his country. There has never been an official administration explanation as to why Bush decided to just ignore the terrorists we knew about in that region and go after Saddam, who had nothing to do with 9/11 or Al Qaeda.

Stop perpetuating the myth that CIA is involved in everything and anything and is responsible for every bad thing that happens in the world. The CIA has never controlled anything during their entire existence. If the CIA was as capable as you imply the bay of pigs and hundereds of other interventions by the CIA wouldn't have been the misserable failure they were.

LOL. I suggested nothing of the sort. It is very true that the CIA controlled more of the Kurdish north than Saddam, because Saddam had no control of it whatsoever. He had no presence there at all. None.

The CIA of course had some presence there, and were able to get intel on Zarqawi's cell of terrorists and coordinate the limited invasion from the North. Did they have much control? Of course not. The Kurds pretty much governed themselves, and still do.