Saddam's Philippines Terror Connection

[Jhhnn]

Pure agitprop from Genx87-

"You cant find anybody in their right mind who truely believed Saddam didnt have WMD in 2002 early 2003. Not even the beloved democrats."

That's not true at all, and reflects only the effectiveness of the agitprop campaign of the time, not the known reality. Reference Hans Blix, and his reports to the UN. Questions, yes, a "belief", no, not at all...

The accusations against the Iraqis were based on their inability to prove a negative, to provide documentation for weapons that hadn't been accounted for by UN reckoning, not on the basis of any actual evidence that such weapons still existed...

Even if these documents are genuine, which I doubt, there was no evidence at the time to support the allegations made wrt Saddam and Al Qaeda- merely innuendo and highly suspect testimony from INC sources...

9/11, WMD's, Links to Al Qaeda, Uranium from Africa and all the rest were merely convenient excuses to execute an existing Neocon wet dream- Invade Iraq. Wolfowitz as much as said so, but few seem to comprehend his remarks on the subject...

 

[dahunan]

Didn't we sponsor terrorism in Colombia and Latin America?

Didn't Reagan sponsor Terrorism?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Todd33

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Look at the sheep lol, never ceases to amaze me.


Was Powell wrong about Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi being in Iraq and his alleged ties to OBL?

Why yes he was. Who's the sheep? Do some research (not right wing blogs) before you post dribble.

In Colin Powell's notorious February 2003 speech to the United Nations urging war against Iraq, Zarqawi was cited as an example of Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism. In his speech, Powell mistakenly referred to Zarqawi as a Palestinian but Powell and the Bush administration continued to stand by statements that Zarqawi linked Saddam Hussein to al-Qaeda. At the time, Zarqawi's group was a rival of bin Laden's. A CIA report in late 2004 concluded that it had no evidence Saddam's government was involved or aware of this medical treatment, and that "There?s no conclusive evidence the Saddam Hussein regime had harbored Zarqawi."[9][10] One U.S. official summarized the report: "The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything."[11] However, Jordan's King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, "But our demands that the former regime [of Saddam Hussein] hand him over were in vain," King Abdullah said[12].

According to MSNBC, the Pentagon had pushed to "take out" Zarqawi's operation at least three times prior to the invasion of Iraq, but had been vetoed by the National Security Council. The council's decision was made because they thought it would make it harder to convince other countries to join the US in a coalition against Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi

OWNED!

Using CIA intel, thought our intel wasn't believable? Zarqawi got medical treatment at one of Iraqs best military hospitals, all withoiut attracting govt attention I guess.


However, Jordan's King Abdullah stated in an interview that Jordan had detailed information of where in Iraq Zarqawi lived. Jordan attempted to have Zarqawi extradited, "But our demands that the former regime [of Saddam Hussein] hand him over were in vain," King Abdullah said[12].


You missed the important part sheep. Another recognized leader placed him there as well, and Saddam's lack of interest in capturing and extraditing the terrorist can be construed as passive support at the very least.


Most of you are sheep, blinded by your fanaticism to a politcal party, oblivous to facts unless they are spun to your advantage, highly comical. Let me guess, Saddam fully complied with the UN, nobody died from neglect during sanctions, and we have killed 150,000+.....

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Pure agitprop from Genx87-

"You cant find anybody in their right mind who truely believed Saddam didnt have WMD in 2002 early 2003. Not even the beloved democrats."

That's not true at all, and reflects only the effectiveness of the agitprop campaign of the time, not the known reality. Reference Hans Blix, and his reports to the UN. Questions, yes, a "belief", no, not at all...

The accusations against the Iraqis were based on their inability to prove a negative, to provide documentation for weapons that hadn't been accounted for by UN reckoning, not on the basis of any actual evidence that such weapons still existed...

Even if these documents are genuine, which I doubt, there was no evidence at the time to support the allegations made wrt Saddam and Al Qaeda- merely innuendo and highly suspect testimony from INC sources...

9/11, WMD's, Links to Al Qaeda, Uranium from Africa and all the rest were merely convenient excuses to execute an existing Neocon wet dream- Invade Iraq. Wolfowitz as much as said so, but few seem to comprehend his remarks on the subject...

Would you like the quotes from Blix that state there are still substantial amounts of WMD that were never secured or tracked down? Probably not, they would only make your sheep eyes burn.

Please stop trying to pigeonhole me as a neo-con, right winger, conservative, it's a joke. I did not vote for Bush either time and consider the man an immoral intellectual lightweight. Of either party the policies I would support the most come from the left.


"The accusations against the Iraqis were based on their inability to prove a negative, to provide documentation for weapons that hadn't been accounted for by UN reckoning, not on the basis of any actual evidence that such weapons still existed..."

No the burden of proof was solely their responsibility and they had full control over their ability to comply. First declare ALL WMD, which was never honestly fulfilled (game over), then the UN could begin the disarmament. Are you on crack? Do you even know the facts? Didn't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be posting such complete BS....

 

[Todd33]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
You missed the important part sheep. Another recognized leader placed him there as well, and Saddam's lack of interest in capturing and extraditing the terrorist can be construed as passive support at the very least.


Most of you are sheep, blinded by your fanaticism to a politcal party, oblivous to facts unless they are spun to your advantage, highly comical. Let me guess, Saddam fully complied with the UN, nobody died from neglect during sanctions, and we have killed 150,000+.....

And we had an FBI informant living with two of the 911 hijackers who had terrorist ties. I guess the US government had "passive support" for terrorism? You sound like a regurgitator of right wing talking points, use some critical thinking and stop letting pundits think for you.

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh.

"No the burden of proof was solely their responsibility and they had full control over their ability to comply. First declare ALL WMD, which was never honestly fulfilled (game over), then the UN could begin the disarmament. Are you on crack? Do you even know the facts? Didn't think so, otherwise you wouldn't be posting such complete BS.... "

Now stooping to personal attack- the last refuge of those in denial.

This is Blix' final statement to the UN prior to pulling out ahead of the invasion-

http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/SC7asdelivered.htm

Obviously, the invasion had to take place prior to the months he asked for to complete his job, otherwise the rationale would have been removed... as it turns out, the Iraqis were merely guilty of lousy bookkeeping.... no wmd's, no wmd program, no wmd program related activities, whatever that lame bit of sloganeering is supposed to mean...

The truth remains immutable. No Iraqi wmd's existed at the time of the invasion, nor did any proof in support of that contention- only lack of proof, which was exploited into establishing a pattern of belief. Another Faith based initiative, as it were...

Even when shown that such faith was misplaced, it's amazing that there are still those who contend they were right to have believed in the first place... and to claim that this misguided invasion adventure was the fault of the victims, the Iraqis, rather than of the perpetrators, the Bush Admin... a variant on the "She was asking for it!" defense....

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

If they are proven false after the fact, yes.

You cant find anybody in their right mind who truely believed Saddam didnt have WMD in 2002 early 2003. Not even the beloved democrats.

has any of it been proven true?

Well the inspectors in Iraq thought Saddam didnt have any, or were they not in the know?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

If they are proven false after the fact, yes.

You cant find anybody in their right mind who truely believed Saddam didnt have WMD in 2002 early 2003. Not even the beloved democrats.

has any of it been proven true?

Well the inspectors in Iraq thought Saddam didnt have any, or were they not in the know?

The problem there was the Saddam was trying to play both ends against the middle.
They could not find anything, but Saddam kept acting like he had something to hide.

After the fact, we are finding out that he may have been hiding the truth.

"What a tangle web we weave, when first we practice to deceive".

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

But when you look at Saddam's gun and realize it is made of candy... Well would you still be afraid of it?

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

But when you look at Saddam's gun and realize it is made of candy... Well would you still be afraid of it?

I realize Saddam is the liberal hero, and I dont mean to offend you by putting him down, but if he implied that he had something that could harm millions of people, then buh-bye. I wouldnt be trying him, I would be peeing on his rotting carcass.

He played the game and he got burned, so what? Our reasons for war were justified, as far as I am concerned. How we implemented it, was not.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

hmmm.. Saddam was robbing a bank?

I fail to see the analogy here

 

[outriding]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: outriding

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

But when you look at Saddam's gun and realize it is made of candy... Well would you still be afraid of it?

I realize Saddam is the liberal hero, and I dont mean to offend you by putting him down, but if he implied that he had something that could harm millions of people, then buh-bye. I wouldnt be trying him, I would be peeing on his rotting carcass.

He played the game and he got burned, so what? Our reasons for war were justified, as far as I am concerned. How we implemented it, was not.

I forgot... who was the last one to kick the inspectors in Iraq?

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

hmmm.. Saddam was robbing a bank?

I fail to see the analogy here

Damn public schools...

He led people to believe he had WMD. That alone is enough reason to bring down the liberal hero we call a terrorist.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

hmmm.. Saddam was robbing a bank?

I fail to see the analogy here

try opening your eyes for once.

 

[Jhhnn]

"I realize Saddam is the liberal hero,"

Nice strawman, excellent bit of false attribution...

Rather stunning denial of the facts, as well- Iraqi cooperation with the inspectors having been achieved, it suddenly wasn't good enough, and invasion was required...

For anybody thinking the invasion hasn't been a success, I'd suggest that you examine the results a little more carefully- there are those who have benefitted tremendously. Not the American consumer or taxpayer, however, and obviously not the Iraqis, either-

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12424.htm

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I realize Saddam is the liberal hero,"

Nice strawman, excellent bit of false attribution...

Rather stunning denial of the facts, as well- Iraqi cooperation with the inspectors having been achieved, it suddenly wasn't good enough, and invasion was required...

For anybody thinking the invasion hasn't been a success, I'd suggest that you examine the results a little more carefully- there are those who have benefitted tremendously. Not the American consumer or taxpayer, however, and obviously not the Iraqis, either-

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12424.htm

Coming from a rag that considers CNN right-wing extremist, Im really going to take ANYthing they say seriously. :| And arent liberals upset about the fact that a known terrorist is out of commission?

Dont they say that they would rather have not gone to war and Saddam still in power? A KNOWN genocidal maniac who can wreak havoc wherever he chooses? Isnt THAT who they want in power?

Now lets put on the tinfoil hat and ask why they would want such a monster in power....

Could it be.. because it's bad for the US? Are liberals only out for human rights and love and peace when it is near a Starbucks?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

hmmm.. Saddam was robbing a bank?

I fail to see the analogy here

try opening your eyes for once.

please please, explain it for me, I would love to know

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: Genx87
There are millions of documents we havent gone through yet. You can expect more of these types of findings as things get translated.

It will be one of those things where the link is credible but the time has passed so much before we finally get all of the documentation translated nobody will care.

doesnt change the fact that nothing stated as reasons for the war were true, thats the crux of the matter... can we go to war on false accusations?

Hello? If I walk into a bank with a fake gun in my pocket and say Ill shoot anyone who moves, is it armed robbery anymore? HELL YES.

If someone ACTS like they are going to stab my wife, am I going to kill him before he can? HELL YES. Even if he "wasnt going to".

hmmm.. Saddam was robbing a bank?

I fail to see the analogy here

try opening your eyes for once.

please please, explain it for me, I would love to know

I already did. Im not doing anymore homework for you. Just because you are the typically uninformed does not mean it is my job to educate you.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I realize Saddam is the liberal hero,"

Nice strawman, excellent bit of false attribution...

Rather stunning denial of the facts, as well- Iraqi cooperation with the inspectors having been achieved, it suddenly wasn't good enough, and invasion was required...

For anybody thinking the invasion hasn't been a success, I'd suggest that you examine the results a little more carefully- there are those who have benefitted tremendously. Not the American consumer or taxpayer, however, and obviously not the Iraqis, either-

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12424.htm

Coming from a rag that considers CNN right-wing extremist, Im really going to take ANYthing they say seriously. :| And arent liberals upset about the fact that a known terrorist is out of commission?

Dont they say that they would rather have not gone to war and Saddam still in power? A KNOWN genocidal maniac who can wreak havoc wherever he chooses? Isnt THAT who they want in power?

Now lets put on the tinfoil hat and ask why they would want such a monster in power....

Could it be.. because it's bad for the US? Are liberals only out for human rights and love and peace when it is near a Starbucks?

Terrorism comes with many faces, and saddam was just a pawn of bigger dogs.

And btw, starbucks? you do know that lefties are usually anti-corporate, I always see anti-starbucks shirts and stickers, and I know thats not from righties, you are so off track you dont even get it at all..sad.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Kappo

I realize Saddam is the liberal hero.

Are you sure about that? Wasn't it the Reagan Administration who cozied up to him? I also remember Clinton (so-called Liberal) ordering Air Strikes against Iraq when Saddam tried to off the real Bush.

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Kappo

I realize Saddam is the liberal hero.

Are you sure about that? Wasn't it the Reagan Administration who cozied up to him? I also remember Clinton (so-called Liberal) ordering Air Strikes against Iraq when Saddam tried to off the real Bush.

Who is complaining that we shouldnt have gone to war and ousted him? Im pretty sure it isnt conservatives.

 

[Steeplerot]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Kappo

I realize Saddam is the liberal hero.

Are you sure about that? Wasn't it the Reagan Administration who cozied up to him? I also remember Clinton (so-called Liberal) ordering Air Strikes against Iraq when Saddam tried to off the real Bush.

Who is complaining that we shouldnt have gone to war and ousted him? Im pretty sure it isnt conservatives.

Bush sr. isnt a conservative???

While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome.

more here from bush sr.

 

[Kappo]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
"I realize Saddam is the liberal hero,"

Nice strawman, excellent bit of false attribution...

Rather stunning denial of the facts, as well- Iraqi cooperation with the inspectors having been achieved, it suddenly wasn't good enough, and invasion was required...

For anybody thinking the invasion hasn't been a success, I'd suggest that you examine the results a little more carefully- there are those who have benefitted tremendously. Not the American consumer or taxpayer, however, and obviously not the Iraqis, either-

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article12424.htm

Coming from a rag that considers CNN right-wing extremist, Im really going to take ANYthing they say seriously. :| And arent liberals upset about the fact that a known terrorist is out of commission?

Dont they say that they would rather have not gone to war and Saddam still in power? A KNOWN genocidal maniac who can wreak havoc wherever he chooses? Isnt THAT who they want in power?

Now lets put on the tinfoil hat and ask why they would want such a monster in power....

Could it be.. because it's bad for the US? Are liberals only out for human rights and love and peace when it is near a Starbucks?

Terrorism comes with many faces, and saddam was just a pawn of bigger dogs.

And btw, starbucks? you do know that lefties are usually anti-corporate, I always see anti-starbucks shirts and stickers, and I know thats not from righties, you are so off track you dont even get it at all..sad.

Starbucks employees (and thier friends who hang out there for hours and hours on end) are typically Bachelor of Arts (English Majors) who cannot find a job. 😉 Want to take a wager on what political leaning most of those are?

The point was, as long as it is affecting thier cushy lifestyle, they care. If it isnt bothering them, then they say "leave it alone". I kind of agree with that sentiment, but not because I am selfish. Its because I believe in letting people live thier own lives.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Kappo

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Kappo

I realize Saddam is the liberal hero.

Are you sure about that? Wasn't it the Reagan Administration who cozied up to him? I also remember Clinton (so-called Liberal) ordering Air Strikes against Iraq when Saddam tried to off the real Bush.

Who is complaining that we shouldnt have gone to war and ousted him? Im pretty sure it isnt conservatives.

You probably mean Neocons. There are plenty of Conservatives who are now complaining along with Moderates and Liberals.