Fucking Terrorists...

[richter915]

well, they finally hit my native country of Bangladesh and it really puts things into a new perspective...I wish we did more against the war on terror...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20051129/wl_sthasia_afp/bangladeshblast

[Cal Smith]

Simply shows you that terrorism doesnt automaticaly equate Al Qaeda. Many against the war would like to contain terrorism to just a fight against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden........and if we dont take him we don't succeed.

There are many extremist groups and there all a danger

[open mind]

Simply shows you that terrorism doesnt automaticaly equate Al Qaeda. Many against the war would like to contain terrorism to just a fight against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden........and if we dont take him we don't succeed.
There are many extremist groups and there all a danger
and how are we fighting those groups any more effectively because we're in iraq?

[dai the flu]

and how are we fighting those groups any more effectively because we're in iraq?

im sorry but i dont believe he mentioned that at all. quit trying to cause more trouble and turn this into another iraq debate.

[Cal Smith]

and how are we fighting those groups any more effectively because we're in iraq?

did we not take out a leader who has been recognized by the UN and the US for sponsoring terrorism? Did he not support such groups as Hamas?

A guy from Hamas who straps explosives to himself and blows up a bus or cafe with civilians in Israel is no different from the ones who did it in Jordan a couple weeks ago, Great Britian a couple months ago, or Madrid a couple years ago. In both cases we should take them out, and the people that seek to support there causes by harboring them or financing them.

You agree?

[open mind]

im sorry but i dont believe he mentioned that at all. quit trying to cause more trouble and turn this into another iraq debate.
he mentioned the war dummy.

[open mind]

did we not take out a leader who has been recognized by the UN and the US for sponsoring terrorism? Did he not support such groups as Hamas?
A guy from Hamas who straps explosives to himself and blows up a bus or cafe with civilians in Israel is no different from the ones who did it in Jordan a couple weeks ago, Great Britian a couple months ago, or Madrid a couple years ago. In both cases we should take them out, and the people that seek to support there causes by harboring them or financing them.
You agree?
how is being in iraq taking out hamas?

[Cal Smith]

how is being in iraq taking out hamas?

In both cases we should take them out, and the people that seek to support there causes by harboring them or financing them.
You agree?

[open mind]

sure i guess..........but if we're going to take out the funders of terror we should do it across the board and not play favorites.
also i've never seen anything about saddam giving terrorist's money though, just their families, i'd like to see something about him giving direct aid to terroist groups if you have a link.

[Cal Smith]

sure i guess..........but if we're going to take out the funders of terror we should do it across the board and not play favorites.

I don't have a problem with people who are against the war because they think someone like Iran or somewhere else might have been a better target. I have a problem with people who can't make the connection with Iraq and terrorism, and believe Al Qaeda is the end all be all of terrorism.

There's a number of people on the board who think that.

[open mind]

well they should probably be the first priority, since they're the ones who pulled all of the attacks in recent years, but there's different terrorist groups all over the place for sure.
and i'd like a link on that saddam thing if you got one, cause i'd really like to know more if there is any.

[Cal Smith]

well they should probably be the first priority, since they're the ones who pulled all of the attacks in recent years, but there's different terrorist groups all over the place for sure.
and i'd like a link on that saddam thing if you got one, cause i'd really like to know more if there is any.

I'm guessing you mean a link to his terrorist ties. I'll find a couple

[open mind]

I'm guessing you mean a link to his terrorist ties. I'll find a couple
yeah that's what i meant.

[Cal Smith]

This is a report (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_99/sponsor.html) from 1999........."Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the antiregime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups.

Press reports stated that, according to a defecting Iraqi intelligence agent, the Iraqi intelligence service had planned to bomb the offices of Radio Free Europe in Prague. Radio Free Europe offices include Radio Liberty, which began broadcasting news and information to Iraq in October 1998. The plot was foiled when it became public in early 1999.

The Iraqi opposition publicly stated its fears that the Baghdad regime was planning to assassinate those opposed to Saddam Hussein. A spokesman for the Iraqi National Accord in November said that the movement's security organs had obtained information about a plan to assassinate its secretary general, Dr. Iyad 'Allawi, and a member of the movement's political bureau, as well as another Iraqi opposition leader.

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. aircraft.

Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran's Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April."

Link 2 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html)

Link 3 (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_92/sponsored.html).................."Iraq has not yet fully recovered its ability to conduct international terrorist attacks since the mass expulsion of Iraqi agents from many countries during the Gulf war. Nevertheless, Baghdad conducted 39 terrorist attacks against a variety of targets in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687, which required Iraq to cease support for acts of international terrorism. Iraqi intelligence has resumed sending agents abroad to track opponents of Saddam Hussein. In addition, there have been persistent reports and at least one murder that strongly suggest Iraq is training hit squads to attack Hussein's enemies in other countries. In 1992, Iraqi-sponsored terrorism has focused on Kurdish targets and on UN and Western relief organization employees stationed in northern Iraq.

The most dramatic case of an assassination committed by the Iraqis during the year occurred in December, when two Iraqis shot and killed an Iraqi nuclear scientist in Amman, Jordan, as he was preparing to defect.

There have been many casualties in the dozens of attacks aimed at driving UN and aid workers out of northern Iraq. In November, magnetic time bombs placed under UN convoy trucks exploded in Irbil; all evidence points to Iraqi Government responsibility for the attacks. In December, Iraqi authorities placed eight time bombs under UN relief convoy trucks. The bombs were set to explode in Irbil but were discovered and defused. One week later, explosions destroyed or damaged 14 relief trucks that had just passed the Iraqi checkpoint at Faydah. The trucks had crossed Iraqi-controlled territory after returning from Suleyamaniya. The houses, offices, and vehicles of UN and relief workers have been repeatedly attacked by bombs, grenades, guns, and fires.

UN Security Council Resolution 687 also requires that Iraq not allow any terrorist organization to operate within its territory. Nevertheless, Baghdad continues to maintain contacts and in some cases provide sanctuary to several groups and individuals that have practiced terrorism. Iraq hosts and supports the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which carried out several violent attacks in Iran in 1992.

Saddam Hussein also supports extremist Palestinian groups including the Abu Nidal organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Abu Abbas's Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and Abu Ibrahim, leader and master bomb maker of the now defunct May 15 Organization. The 1992 conviction of Mohammed Rashid in a Greek court for bombing a Pan Am aircraft in 1982 provided clear proof of longstanding Iraqi state sponsorship of international terrorism. Baghdad is alleged to provide safehaven and support to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)."

[mogwaifearsatan]

I promise that I don't mean this sarcastically at all, but you seem to be the first conservative (I assume) that I have seen that actually is logical and uses facts to back up your opinion. Everyone in my town is either conservative because their wealthy parents are, or because liberals are "pussies" and "***gots". Kudos to you.

[Cal Smith]

I promise that I don't mean this sarcastically at all, but you seem to be the first conservative (I assume) that I have seen that actually is logical and uses facts to back up your opinion. Everyone in my town is either conservative because their wealthy parents are, or because liberals are "pussies" and "***gots". Kudos to you.

Well it's laughable for me to be conservative because my parents are rich, I sadly wish that were the case though. I am though because liberals are "pussies" and "***gots..............j/k, but thanks.

[open mind]

This is a report (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_99/sponsor.html) from 1999........."Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the antiregime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups.
Press reports stated that, according to a defecting Iraqi intelligence agent, the Iraqi intelligence service had planned to bomb the offices of Radio Free Europe in Prague. Radio Free Europe offices include Radio Liberty, which began broadcasting news and information to Iraq in October 1998. The plot was foiled when it became public in early 1999.
The Iraqi opposition publicly stated its fears that the Baghdad regime was planning to assassinate those opposed to Saddam Hussein. A spokesman for the Iraqi National Accord in November said that the movement's security organs had obtained information about a plan to assassinate its secretary general, Dr. Iyad 'Allawi, and a member of the movement's political bureau, as well as another Iraqi opposition leader.
Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. aircraft.
Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran's Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April."
Link 2 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html)
Link 3 (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_92/sponsored.html).................."Iraq has not yet fully recovered its ability to conduct international terrorist attacks since the mass expulsion of Iraqi agents from many countries during the Gulf war. Nevertheless, Baghdad conducted 39 terrorist attacks against a variety of targets in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687, which required Iraq to cease support for acts of international terrorism. Iraqi intelligence has resumed sending agents abroad to track opponents of Saddam Hussein. In addition, there have been persistent reports and at least one murder that strongly suggest Iraq is training hit squads to attack Hussein's enemies in other countries. In 1992, Iraqi-sponsored terrorism has focused on Kurdish targets and on UN and Western relief organization employees stationed in northern Iraq.
The most dramatic case of an assassination committed by the Iraqis during the year occurred in December, when two Iraqis shot and killed an Iraqi nuclear scientist in Amman, Jordan, as he was preparing to defect.
There have been many casualties in the dozens of attacks aimed at driving UN and aid workers out of northern Iraq. In November, magnetic time bombs placed under UN convoy trucks exploded in Irbil; all evidence points to Iraqi Government responsibility for the attacks. In December, Iraqi authorities placed eight time bombs under UN relief convoy trucks. The bombs were set to explode in Irbil but were discovered and defused. One week later, explosions destroyed or damaged 14 relief trucks that had just passed the Iraqi checkpoint at Faydah. The trucks had crossed Iraqi-controlled territory after returning from Suleyamaniya. The houses, offices, and vehicles of UN and relief workers have been repeatedly attacked by bombs, grenades, guns, and fires.
UN Security Council Resolution 687 also requires that Iraq not allow any terrorist organization to operate within its territory. Nevertheless, Baghdad continues to maintain contacts and in some cases provide sanctuary to several groups and individuals that have practiced terrorism. Iraq hosts and supports the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which carried out several violent attacks in Iran in 1992.
Saddam Hussein also supports extremist Palestinian groups including the Abu Nidal organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Abu Abbas's Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and Abu Ibrahim, leader and master bomb maker of the now defunct May 15 Organization. The 1992 conviction of Mohammed Rashid in a Greek court for bombing a Pan Am aircraft in 1982 provided clear proof of longstanding Iraqi state sponsorship of international terrorism. Baghdad is alleged to provide safehaven and support to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)."
i don't suppose there are links out there that go so far as to show proof of these things and aren't from american sources? i'm not going to totally discount this stuff, but i am a bit skeptical since it's coming from us and we don't really have a stellar record when it comes to intelligence on iraq.
something a bit more recent would be nice to, i mean reports from 92 and 99 can't say what's going on in 2002.

[Asterix]

did we not take out a leader who has been recognized by the UN and the US for sponsoring terrorism? Did he not support such groups as Hamas?
A guy from Hamas who straps explosives to himself and blows up a bus or cafe with civilians in Israel is no different from the ones who did it in Jordan a couple weeks ago, Great Britian a couple months ago, or Madrid a couple years ago. In both cases we should take them out, and the people that seek to support there causes by harboring them or financing them.
You agree?
But is it not then, theoretically, terrorism when Israeli tanks then roll into settlements and open fire? Is this not theoretically state committed terrorism.

[Cal Smith]

But is it not then, theoretically, terrorism when Israeli tanks then roll into settlements and open fire? Is this not theoretically state committed terrorism.

Depends upon how you look at it. As far as I know Israel doesnt specifically target civilians, rather they target leaders of hamas with strikes.

I dont want to make this Israel land debate though.

[Cal Smith]

i don't suppose there are links out there that go so far as to show proof of these things and aren't from american sources? i'm not going to totally discount this stuff, but i am a bit skeptical since it's coming from us and we don't really have a stellar record when it comes to intelligence on iraq.
something a bit more recent would be nice to, i mean reports from 92 and 99 can't say what's going on in 2002.

the only way i'd have 100% proof would be to have pictures, or actual documents or paper trails. Doubt I'd have much luck finding that.

Fact is Iraq has been on the state sponsored terrorist list for years. The UN recognized this as well. Doubt they werent would be doubting the overwhelming evidence and exmaples.

[ReFuSeD!]

The real war on terror is a war against fundamentalism, colonialism, and shitty foreign policy.

[a speedo model]

This is a report (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_99/sponsor.html) from 1999........."Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the antiregime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups.

Press reports stated that, according to a defecting Iraqi intelligence agent, the Iraqi intelligence service had planned to bomb the offices of Radio Free Europe in Prague. Radio Free Europe offices include Radio Liberty, which began broadcasting news and information to Iraq in October 1998. The plot was foiled when it became public in early 1999.

The Iraqi opposition publicly stated its fears that the Baghdad regime was planning to assassinate those opposed to Saddam Hussein. A spokesman for the Iraqi National Accord in November said that the movement's security organs had obtained information about a plan to assassinate its secretary general, Dr. Iyad 'Allawi, and a member of the movement's political bureau, as well as another Iraqi opposition leader.

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front (ALF), and the former head of the now-defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of U.S. aircraft.

Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran's Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April."

Link 2 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html)

Link 3 (http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terror_92/sponsored.html).................."Iraq has not yet fully recovered its ability to conduct international terrorist attacks since the mass expulsion of Iraqi agents from many countries during the Gulf war. Nevertheless, Baghdad conducted 39 terrorist attacks against a variety of targets in direct violation of UN Security Council Resolution 687, which required Iraq to cease support for acts of international terrorism. Iraqi intelligence has resumed sending agents abroad to track opponents of Saddam Hussein. In addition, there have been persistent reports and at least one murder that strongly suggest Iraq is training hit squads to attack Hussein's enemies in other countries. In 1992, Iraqi-sponsored terrorism has focused on Kurdish targets and on UN and Western relief organization employees stationed in northern Iraq.

The most dramatic case of an assassination committed by the Iraqis during the year occurred in December, when two Iraqis shot and killed an Iraqi nuclear scientist in Amman, Jordan, as he was preparing to defect.

There have been many casualties in the dozens of attacks aimed at driving UN and aid workers out of northern Iraq. In November, magnetic time bombs placed under UN convoy trucks exploded in Irbil; all evidence points to Iraqi Government responsibility for the attacks. In December, Iraqi authorities placed eight time bombs under UN relief convoy trucks. The bombs were set to explode in Irbil but were discovered and defused. One week later, explosions destroyed or damaged 14 relief trucks that had just passed the Iraqi checkpoint at Faydah. The trucks had crossed Iraqi-controlled territory after returning from Suleyamaniya. The houses, offices, and vehicles of UN and relief workers have been repeatedly attacked by bombs, grenades, guns, and fires.

UN Security Council Resolution 687 also requires that Iraq not allow any terrorist organization to operate within its territory. Nevertheless, Baghdad continues to maintain contacts and in some cases provide sanctuary to several groups and individuals that have practiced terrorism. Iraq hosts and supports the main Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK), which carried out several violent attacks in Iran in 1992.

Saddam Hussein also supports extremist Palestinian groups including the Abu Nidal organization (ANO), the Arab Liberation Front, Abu Abbas's Palestine Liberation Front (PLF), and Abu Ibrahim, leader and master bomb maker of the now defunct May 15 Organization. The 1992 conviction of Mohammed Rashid in a Greek court for bombing a Pan Am aircraft in 1982 provided clear proof of longstanding Iraqi state sponsorship of international terrorism. Baghdad is alleged to provide safehaven and support to the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK)."

you rock!!

[splitsecond]

how is being in iraq taking out hamas?

Your mind is far from open, you ignorant fuck. Seriously, before you post about government, national security, international security, or anything slightly related to politics, I suggest pulling your head out of your ass and learning something about how the real world works.

That is all.

[open mind]

Your mind is far from open, you ignorant fuck. Seriously, before you post about government, national security, international security, or anything slightly related to politics, I suggest pulling your head out of your ass and learning something about how the real world works.

That is all.
haha, listen you pompous prick i think i have a fine handle on how things really work, but i'll give you a shot here, teach me how the real really world works, enlighten this poor soul, o wise and benevolent one.

[open mind]

the only way i'd have 100% proof would be to have pictures, or actual documents or paper trails. Doubt I'd have much luck finding that.
Fact is Iraq has been on the state sponsored terrorist list for years. The UN recognized this as well. Doubt they werent would be doubting the overwhelming evidence and exmaples.
okay well can you at least get some u.n. links about this?
overwhelming evidence on iraq has a history of being fiction when the united states intelligence community puts it together, so a couple reports from around 2002 from somwhere would be nice.

[YouMadeTheScene]

Face the facts people. You want to root out terrorism? Great so do I so we should go into Saudia Arabia and root out terrorists. But guess what? You are gonna be paying $4 a gallon for gas. The American economy will go down the shit. Do you think that government is willing to do that? I wish it could be done, and I wish we could really root out the 'evil', but the government isn't willing to hurt our partnership with Saudia Arabia.

[dai the flu]

he mentioned the war dummy.
yeah you're right because iraq is the only place the united states is fighting terrorism. douche.

[Cal Smith]

okay well can you at least get some u.n. links about this?
overwhelming evidence on iraq has a history of being fiction when the united states intelligence community puts it together, so a couple reports from around 2002 from somwhere would be nice.

If you want actual reports from the UN stating "Iraq supports terrorism" (except in more ellaborate terms) I dont think you'd be able to find any.

If I'm not mistaken the UN doesnt have a defenition for "terrorism". So you won't see individuals named. On the other hand, you have the Iraq resolutions which call for Iraq to stop supporting terrorism, and denounce it.

That's your best evidence, from the UN anyway, that the realized the links between Iraq and terrorism.

[splitsecond]

okay well can you at least get some u.n. links about this?
overwhelming evidence on iraq has a history of being fiction when the united states intelligence community puts it together, so a couple reports from around 2002 from somwhere would be nice.

Have we forgotten how the UN was tainted by oil-for-food, and thus would not support any efforts in Iraq?

[splitsecond]

haha, listen you pompous prick i think i have a fine handle on how things really work, but i'll give you a shot here, teach me how the real really world works, enlighten this poor soul, o wise and benevolent one.

I am a pompous prick, thanks for the compliment.


However, if you did not know Saddam was offering rewards to suicide bombers, I could see how you would miss the connection to taking out Saddam and fighting Hammas.

[ReFuSeD!]

Whether you believe the Iraq war is justified or not, you have to be a complete fucking moron to believe it is an altruistic war. You need to get your head examined if you believe the US went to war with Iraq to "liberate" the people. While Iraq may have posed a small threat, there was no need for an invasion. Don't fool yourself and believe the war is to liberate a country that most American's can find on a map or know anything about. There is definitely alot of self-interest there.

Bah, this topic is so played out.

[open mind]

I am a pompous prick, thanks for the compliment.


However, if you did not know Saddam was offering rewards to suicide bombers, I could see how you would miss the connection to taking out Saddam and fighting Hammas.
i did know he gave money to the families of suicide bombers, if you have anything on him giving the suicide bombers help let me see please.

[open mind]

If you want actual reports from the UN stating "Iraq supports terrorism" (except in more ellaborate terms) I dont think you'd be able to find any.
If I'm not mistaken the UN doesnt have a defenition for "terrorism". So you won't see individuals named. On the other hand, you have the Iraq resolutions which call for Iraq to stop supporting terrorism, and denounce it.
That's your best evidence, from the UN anyway, that the realized the links between Iraq and terrorism.
okay how about a report from anywhere else in the world besides the u.s. and britian dated somewhere around the time we were preparing to invade iraq then?

[open mind]

Have we forgotten how the UN was tainted by oil-for-food, and thus would not support any efforts in Iraq?
i haven't forgotten but corrupt or not they at least turned out to be right, our big reason for going to war at the time was pure bullshit.

[Cal Smith]

okay how about a report from anywhere else in the world besides the u.s. and britian dated somewhere around the time we were preparing to invade iraq then?

What are you trying to get at? First you just wanted links..........I gave that. Then you wanted links from the UN........I pointed out the resolutions. Now you want links from anywhere but Britian and the US? What's next pictures of Saddam handing out money or a taped conversation with him on the phone with a terrorist group?

I'm guessing if I posted some Israel intelligence you wouldnt accept that either. Why don't you give me a list of the countries that you find "acceptable" and explain why they're acceptable? Then I don't have to go on a wild, internet, goose chase.

[Cal Smith]

i did know he gave money to the families of suicide bombers, if you have anything on him giving the suicide bombers help let me see please.

Give me a break. Splitting hairs arent we? Do you honestly not see paying the families of suicide bombers money for blowing up a bunch of civilians as supporting terrorism?

[Cal Smith]

i haven't forgotten but corrupt or not they at least turned out to be right, our big reason for going to war at the time was pure bullshit.

Actually the UN turned out to be wrong as well...........did you read those 18 resolutions?

[USAFDave]

hooah.

[Trainsaw]

Your mind is far from open, you ignorant fuck. Seriously, before you post about government, national security, international security, or anything slightly related to politics, I suggest pulling your head out of your ass and learning something about how the real world works.

That is all.
hahaha back to the name calling, that ironically you call others out on.

[Trainsaw]

Whether you believe the Iraq war is justified or not, you have to be a complete fucking moron to believe it is an altruistic war. You need to get your head examined if you believe the US went to war with Iraq to "liberate" the people. While Iraq may have posed a small threat, there was no need for an invasion. Don't fool yourself and believe the war is to liberate a country that most American's can find on a map or know anything about. There is definitely alot of self-interest there.

Bah, this topic is so played out.
Great Post.

[LeftWideOpen]

I don't have a problem with people who are against the war because they think someone like Iran or somewhere else might have been a better target. I have a problem with people who can't make the connection with Iraq and terrorism, and believe Al Qaeda is the end all be all of terrorism.
There's a number of people on the board who think that.

what about the people who believe in peace and don't think stooping to war and implementing the tactics of the enemy solves anything?

[dai the flu]

what about the people who believe in peace and don't think stooping to war and implementing the tactics of the enemy solves anything?
ideally, that'd be great. lets fed-ex some no-bake cookies to Al Qaeda and the world would be a better place. but we all know that wouldnt happen. nobody here DOESNT want or believe in peace. but you have to be realistic. sitting back peacefully and letting terrorists train, coordinate, and mobilize uncontested would be a much bigger mistake than anything thats been done so far in this regard.
there isnt a government in existence today that isnt corrupt. we all know that and obviously the U.S. is no different. but to blindly dismiss iraq or saddam as being benign and no threat to the world is just plain retarded im sorry.
the world in general, and the iraqi people specifically are much better off now than they were before. we're talking about a man so twisted that he would rape, torture, and kill olympic athletes and their families if they didnt come home victorious. and now you're saying he shouldnt have been removed? give me a break.
i dont care how much money dick cheney's making from this war, the ends justify the means. all this idealism and naivety is giving me a headache.

[LeftWideOpen]

ideally, that'd be great. lets fed-ex some no-bake cookies to Al Qaeda and the world would be a better place. but we all know that wouldnt happen. nobody here DOESNT want or believe in peace. but you have to be realistic. sitting back peacefully and letting terrorists train, coordinate, and mobilize uncontested would be a much bigger mistake than anything thats been done so far in this regard.
there isnt a government in existence today that isnt corrupt. we all know that and obviously the U.S. is no different. but to blindly dismiss iraq or saddam as being benign and no threat to the world is just plain retarded im sorry.
the world in general, and the iraqi people specifically are much better off now than they were before. we're talking about a man so twisted that he would rape, torture, and kill olympic athletes and their families if they didnt come home victorious. and now you're saying he shouldnt have been removed? give me a break.
i dont care how much money dick cheney's making from this war, the ends justify the means. all this idealism and naivety is giving me a headache.

i'll take idealism and naivety over power at all costs anyday.

[open mind]

Give me a break. Splitting hairs arent we? Do you honestly not see paying the families of suicide bombers money for blowing up a bunch of civilians as supporting terrorism?
there is a difference between giving money to terrorist groups and giving money to somebodies family.

[open mind]

Actually the UN turned out to be wrong as well...........did you read those 18 resolutions?
that were passed when?

[dai the flu]

there is a difference between giving money to terrorist groups and giving money to somebodies family.

ok now, think it out.
why do you think money was given to their families?
thats right, to encourage them to go through with their terroristic act.
this also encourages others to do the same, as their family will be taken care of.
1. how do you NOT see this as supporting terrorism?
2. what about this practice makes it ok in your mind?
3. will you ever admit your wrong, or will you continue to reply with this ridiculously stupid crap?

[open mind]

ok now, think it out.
why do you think money was given to their families?
thats right, to encourage them to go through with their terroristic act.
this also encourages others to do the same, as their family will be taken care of.
1. how do you NOT see this as supporting terrorism?
2. what about this practice makes it ok in your mind?
3. will you ever admit your wrong, or will you continue to reply with this ridiculously stupid crap?
1.i see training and or funding terrorist groups as supporting terror (for that see saudi arabia), while giving money to families of suicide bombers doesn't discourage terrorists, it doesn't fund them or train them or otherwise give them the means to commit terrorist acts.
2.the money didn't go to terrorists, is my point. i never said it was ok or right, don't put words in my mouth.
3.take note that i never said saddam didn't support terrorism anywhere in this thread, i just said i never saw any proof from a source that wasn't biased, and that i would like to see some if anybody had some, but i still haven't. quit putting words in my mouth.

[open mind]

yeah you're right because iraq is the only place the united states is fighting terrorism. douche.
it's the only place we have a real war going on. bitch. (this is fun isn't it?)

[wyverna]

it's the only place we have a real war going on. bitch. (this is fun isn't it?)

what exactly do you count as a 'real' war?

[open mind]

what exactly do you count as a 'real' war?
one where our soldiers are dieing on more or less daily basis.

[Cal Smith]

there is a difference between giving money to terrorist groups and giving money to somebodies family.

both are aiding and supporting what they are doing, are they not?

[Cal Smith]

that were passed when?

from the end of the gulf war till the start of the 2nd one

[gillianhsieh]

regardless, this is coming at an enormous cost to anericans. i don't really think other countries are taking hits like americans are. what is the point of arguing about this now though when it's clear that regardless of whether we were right or wrong to begin with, and whether our policy against terrorism is effective, we're essentially trapped in iraq and can't leave probably for the next 10 years? I am a flaming liberal but I would agree that americans should just try to work hard and support the effort to rebuild iraq so we can get out of there as soon as possible.

as per terrorist policy, i don't know... how are you supposed to tell who a terrorist is anyway? i mean...it's just someone w/ diff. political beliefs, who happens to use violence. any country with a political party of anti-american beliefs could be "harboring terrorists" it's not fair to them let them have their opinion.

[open mind]

both are aiding and supporting what they are doing, are they not?
not really.
aiding and supporting would be helping them to accomplish attacks through direct funding and training of terrorists, it doesn't discourage terrorism to give money to the families of sucide bombers yes, but it's not aiding or supporting terror.

[open mind]

from the end of the gulf war till the start of the 2nd one
they weren't passed everyday, they were still in effect though.
we aren't getting any closer to any reports dating around the start of the war from a source that hasn't been proven to get things entirely wrong.

[Cal Smith]

not really.
aiding and supporting would be helping them to accomplish attacks through direct funding and training of terrorists, it doesn't discourage terrorism to give money to the families of sucide bombers yes, but it's not aiding or supporting terror.

How? That's like saying this bill in Congress that would raise the money paid to families of US Soldiers that are lost is not a bill that supports the troops.

Come on..........? How is it not encouraging and supporting attacks against Israel?

Since you obviously have your own island of thought, skip this and look at the fact that he's funded the groups directly.

[Cal Smith]

they weren't passed everyday, they were still in effect though.
we aren't getting any closer to any reports dating around the start of the war from a source that hasn't been proven to get things entirely wrong.

It's not my responsiblity to provide evidence if you want to throw out every credible link. If you're not willing to look at evidence from the US, Britian, Israel, or the UN in regards to Iraq supporting terrorism you are the one who is putting a wall of stupidity in front of yourself.

Completely disregarding intelligience from 2 of the top intelligence agencies in the world (US and Israel) is pretty dumb. I've seen you quote US intelligence before in posts..............but magically now it doesnt work for you. It's amazing because a long, long while back you're argument was different.

[USAFDave]

i like how there was no response to that one :thumbsup:

[open mind]

How? That's like saying this bill in Congress that would raise the money paid to families of US Soldiers that are lost is not a bill that supports the troops.

Come on..........? How is it not encouraging and supporting attacks against Israel?

Since you obviously have your own island of thought, skip this and look at the fact that he's funded the groups directly.
i don't think it would be a bill that supports troops, as it would support the families of the troops.
why not show me some reports from a source that hasn't gotten intelligence on iraq so wrong?

[open mind]

It's not my responsiblity to provide evidence if you want to throw out every credible link. If you're not willing to look at evidence from the US, Britian, Israel, or the UN in regards to Iraq supporting terrorism you are the one who is putting a wall of stupidity in front of yourself.

Completely disregarding intelligience from 2 of the top intelligence agencies in the world (US and Israel) is pretty dumb. I've seen you quote US intelligence before in posts..............but magically now it doesnt work for you. It's amazing because a long, long while back you're argument was different.
it's not, but if your going to say something you should be ready to back it up, if you want to be taken seriously. (i think you've said this a few times)
i'm not saying that they get nothing right (which would be why i've pointed to them in other unrelated topics), but when they've gotten so much wrong on a certain issue i want to see something from somebody else, if it's out there...........it shouldn't be that hard since we put together such a large coalition right?

[justinevans]

Simply shows you that terrorism doesnt automaticaly equate Al Qaeda. Many against the war would like to contain terrorism to just a fight against Al Qaeda and Bin Laden........and if we dont take him we don't succeed.

There are many extremist groups and there all a danger

timothy mcveigh was a terrorist...i agree with you, but terrorism is really something that cannot be stopped. you just have to hope for the best.

[Cal Smith]

it's not, but if your going to say something you should be ready to back it up, if you want to be taken seriously. (i think you've said this a few times)

Yes, I've said that plenty and I think I've backed up fairly well what I've said. I've got around 4 different sournces, a couple of which come from the top intelligence agencies in the world.

i'm not saying that they get nothing right (which would be why i've pointed to them in other unrelated topics), but when they've gotten so much wrong on a certain issue i want to see something from somebody else, if it's out there...........it shouldn't be that hard since we put together such a large coalition right?

Exactly, the fact that we have a large coaltion and the fact that the whole security council passed the UN resolution's demanding him to stop supporting terrorism should tell you that all those countries believed he was supporting terrorism. Also from what you're arguing, if I were to find intelligence from them it would be useless because they've also gotten so much wrong on a certain issue.

[Cal Smith]

timothy mcveigh was a terrorist...i agree with you, but terrorism is really something that cannot be stopped. you just have to hope for the best.

Yes, but Mcveigh wasnt in a group that was actively, promoting attacks. It was a 3 man operation and nothing more. There wasnt a larger group funding them and their werent other cells. You probably can't stop the individuals like this. On the other hand the large groups, like al qaeda, can be stopped. You cut the funding, and don't give them an area to work out of then they will collapse and be forced to work more individualy, or with other groups.

[justinevans]

Yes, but Mcveigh wasnt in a group that was actively, promoting attacks. It was a 3 man operation and nothing more. There wasnt a larger group funding them and their werent other cells. You probably can't stop the individuals like this. On the other hand the large groups, like al qaeda, can be stopped. You cut the funding, and don't give them an area to work out of then they will collapse and be forced to work more individualy, or with other groups.

true, but it does not stop another one from forming. people hate America...someone will always fund it.

[open mind]

Yes, I've said that plenty and I think I've backed up fairly well what I've said. I've got around 4 different sournces, a couple of which come from the top intelligence agencies in the world.



Exactly, the fact that we have a large coaltion and the fact that the whole security council passed the UN resolution's demanding him to stop supporting terrorism should tell you that all those countries believed he was supporting terrorism. Also from what you're arguing, if I were to find intelligence from them it would be useless because they've also gotten so much wrong on a certain issue.
you haven't shown any one report from near the time we went in, nor have you given any links from a source that didn't obviously fuck up things on a massive scale, way to back up what you say there guy.
i was being sarcastic about the largeness of the coalition.
the u.n. passed that resolution around a decade before we went in again, got anything from around the time we went in again from the u.n. that states they believe iraq was in violation of the resolution? if not your point is invalid.
if you find something from any sources that didn't have iraq as a huge part of their agenda (u.s., uk, israel) i promise i won't argue this point anymore.

[Cal Smith]

you haven't shown any one report from near the time we went in, nor have you given any links from a source that didn't obviously fuck up things on a massive scale, way to back up what you say there guy.

From who? I've asked you before who you would find "credible"? Funny, thing is I've seen you say before, "good point" in regards to Iraq paying the families of suicide bombers. I realize you're either full of it, or just unwilling to admit now that Saddam supported terrorism (eventhough a while back it was a "good point").

Why do you not think it's a good point now?

i was being sarcastic about the largeness of the coalition.
the u.n. passed that resolution around a decade before we went in again, got anything from around the time we went in again from the u.n. that states they believe iraq was in violation of the resolution? if not your point is invalid.
if you find something from any sources that didn't have iraq as a huge part of their agenda (u.s., uk, israel) i promise i won't argue this point anymore.

No, they didnt. They passed resolutions all the way up till the war, if you didnt know this it's a pointless arrgument on my part because that should be something obvious and basic to someone half way informed.

In either case though, here (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/), notice the date NOVERMBER, 8th 2002. Now this was about 4 months prior to the war. I doubt you'll read the whole thing so I'll copy and paste the part about Iraq and terrorism.

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism,"

Does this satisfy you? It's recent, it's from the UN, and the whole security council agreed to it?

[dai the flu]

face it cal, you're gonna need to show some pictures. but only from a credible photographer, no american or british studios please. i want polaroids from saddam's diary showing osama in a bubble bath. and make it recent.

[open mind]

From who? I've asked you before who you would find "credible"? Funny, thing is I've seen you say before, "good point" in regards to Iraq paying the families of suicide bombers. I realize you're either full of it, or just unwilling to admit now that Saddam supported terrorism (eventhough a while back it was a "good point").

Why do you not think it's a good point now?



No, they didnt. They passed resolutions all the way up till the war, if you didnt know this it's a pointless arrgument on my part because that should be something obvious and basic to someone half way informed.

In either case though, here (http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/), notice the date NOVERMBER, 8th 2002. Now this was about 4 months prior to the war. I doubt you'll read the whole thing so I'll copy and paste the part about Iraq and terrorism.

"Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism,"

Does this satisfy you? It's recent, it's from the UN, and the whole security council agreed to it?
1)if your going to quote me how about actually quoting me?
2)i know, but you didn't show anything recent on terror and iraq from the u.n. or anyone else that wasn't pushing for war (which was all i was asking for this whole time)
3)yes, i just don't see why it took so long to get that.

[noodledancer]

ideally, that'd be great. lets fed-ex some no-bake cookies to Al Qaeda and the world would be a better place. but we all know that wouldnt happen. nobody here DOESNT want or believe in peace. but you have to be realistic. sitting back peacefully and letting terrorists train, coordinate, and mobilize uncontested would be a much bigger mistake than anything thats been done so far in this regard.
dai the flu, i like you. :o)

there is a difference between giving money to terrorist groups and giving money to somebodies family.
not really.
aiding and supporting would be helping them to accomplish attacks through direct funding and training of terrorists, it doesn't discourage terrorism to give money to the families of sucide bombers yes, but it's not aiding or supporting terror.
it's still supporting terrorism. it makes recruiting people to blow themselves up easier if you can ensure their families will be taken care of. he may not paying the group, but he's paying individuals to carry out their missions. thus, he's supporting the objectives of the organization. i really don't understand how you can't see that.

regardless, this is coming at an enormous cost to anericans. i don't really think other countries are taking hits like americans are.
the bulk of the forces in iraq are american, thus americans are ore likely to be killed. it's simple probability.

[open mind]

dai the flu, i like you. :o)



it's still supporting terrorism. it makes recruiting people to blow themselves up easier if you can ensure their families will be taken care of. he may not paying the group, but he's paying individuals to carry out their missions. thus, he's supporting the objectives of the organization. i really don't understand how you can't see that.[/SIZE][/FONT]
concerning the palestinian/israeli conflict he didn't pay individuals or groups to carry out missions. i really don't see how you can't understand that.

[Cal Smith]

concerning the palestinian/israeli conflict he didn't pay individuals or groups to carry out missions. i really don't see how you can't understand that.

i dont see why you've changed your opinion on it?

[commatosa]

guys, I'll tell you why we haven't found Bin Laden yet or even why we haven't won the war on terrorism. It's because they pray harder than us. Well, we all need to hold hands and pray and we'll get em'

[open mind]

i dont see why you've changed your opinion on it?
did i?

[Cal Smith]

did i?

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showpost.php?p=313411&postcount=44

[open mind]

http://www.absolutepunk.net/showpost.php?p=313411&postcount=44
i guess you didn't notice we were talking about something else, but hey go ahead and take things out of context if you feel like it, i'm sure you know what i meant more then i do.

[Cal Smith]

i guess you didn't notice we were talking about something else, but hey go ahead and take things out of context if you feel like it, i'm sure you know what i meant more then i do.

Give me a break..........read the entire thread? You wanted to know what the link was with Iraq and terrorism.

I read the whole thing, you said it plain as day. You're asking about Iraq/terrorist links on the 2nd page of the thread. Look at post number #34 on page 2 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=21941&page=2)

Then on the next page after he tells you about Saddam funding families of suicide bombers you say............

"Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers" ---------your response---------"good point about saddam i forgot about that:o"

Out of context my ass. It's alright to admit your opinion changed on the matter you know? I'd just like to know why?

[open mind]

Give me a break..........read the entire thread? You wanted to know what the link was with Iraq and terrorism.

I read the whole thing, you said it plain as day. You're asking about Iraq/terrorist links on the 2nd page of the thread. Look at post number #34 on page 2 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=21941&page=2)

Then on the next page after he tells you about Saddam funding families of suicide bombers you say............

"Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers" ---------your response---------"good point about saddam i forgot about that:o"

Out of context my ass. It's alright to admit your opinion changed on the matter you know? I'd just like to know why?
i was just agreeing that it went beyond supporting palestine and not recognizing israel (you leave that part out hence your taking things out of context), but hey, you know me better then i do, and i'm sure you know what i meant better then i do to.

[noodledancer]

concerning the palestinian/israeli conflict he didn't pay individuals or groups to carry out missions. i really don't see how you can't understand that.
wasn't this thread talking about saddam's support of terrorism in general? i don't recall it being narrowed to having a role in the palestinian/israeli conflict.

Give me a break..........read the entire thread? You wanted to know what the link was with Iraq and terrorism.

I read the whole thing, you said it plain as day. You're asking about Iraq/terrorist links on the 2nd page of the thread. Look at post number #34 on page 2 (http://www.absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?t=21941&page=2)

Then on the next page after he tells you about Saddam funding families of suicide bombers you say............

"Saddam paid money to the families of suicide bombers" ---------your response---------"good point about saddam i forgot about that:o"

Out of context my ass. It's alright to admit your opinion changed on the matter you know? I'd just like to know why?
cal, you try so hard! this kid just refuses to listen...

[open mind]

wasn't this thread talking about saddam's support of terrorism in general? i don't recall it being narrowed to having a role in the palestinian/israeli conflict.


cal, you try so hard! this kid just refuses to listen...
yeah, but cal felt he needed to narrow it down to that and my supposedly changed views.
so you know what i meant 2 years ago better then i do to.........