Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Shame On You American-Hating Liberals


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#21 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 09:41 PM

>> do you think the IRAK war is going to make USA more secure
against the terrorists ?

>Yes.

Explain.

Q.: Will it prevent terrorists from getting WMD?
A.: What WMD did Iraq have?

Q.: Will it show Muslims America wants them to be democratic?
A.: No, they see Saudi Arabia still gets support. Even some of the moderate ones will see Osama is right and the US wages wars against muslims under a false pretext (WMD).

Q.: Will there be less terrorists?
A.: Yes, Ansar Al Islam has been rounded up, but Saddam didn't support them anyway and they didn't operate from his territory anyway either. On the other hand, noone knows how many new recruits this has given to terrorists.
  • 0

#22 inside bush

inside bush

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 09:52 PM

>> do you think the IRAK war is going to make USA more secure
against the terrorists ?

no
>> do you think the Syria war is going to make USA more secure
against the terrorists ?
no
>> do you think the Lebanon war is going to make USA more secure
against the terrorists ?
no
>> do you think the Saudi Arabia war is going to make USA more secure
against the terrorists ?
no
>> do you think the Iran war is going to make USA more secure
against the terrorists ?
  • 0

#23 Madrigalian

Madrigalian

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 325 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 10:03 PM

Q.: Will it prevent terrorists from getting WMD?

A.: It decapitated and removed one of our visceral enemies allowing us to focus on our other enemies more closely. We no longer need to concern ourselves with Iraq's potential arsenal. We own it. Now we can focus on the other black market buffoons. It also secures for us a forward base free of Saudi "good will" with which to stage our continuing war on Terrorism. It secures for us critical resources such as oil for our millitary complex in a time of war. By verifying for ourselves that there are no WMDs we can then focus on other matters like Hezbola instead of wasting our time playing cat and mouse with a homicidal dictator.

Q.: Will it show Muslims America wants them to be democratic?

A.: It shows Muslims that we are through being victims of terrorism. It demonstrates clearly that Terrorism will no longer be tolerated and any act of terrorism in the future against Americans will result in ever greater hardship and loss for the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia no longer has the "what about your bases here and that whole Saddam situation.." card they keep playing. We no longer need the Saudi "good will" and the Saudi Monarchy had better watch out. We know all about Saudi "good will".

Q.: Will there be less terrorists?

A.: Terrorists will no longer be able to hide behind the skirts of civilian women and Mullahs. We have made it clear that wherever they are, who ever they are we will hunt them down and destroy them. And any government that harbors them. Will there be more Martyrs willing to die than before? Perhaps. Either way, we are now in a better position to hunt them down and kill them where they stand.

Afghanistan was an appitizer.
Iraq was a nice mint between servings. Loosen the belt as you might say.

We havent even gotten to the main course yet. Every day we become that much more aware of who our friends are and who our enemies are. We are taking notes. We are only just beginning.

We didnt start this war. But we damn well will finnish it.

EDIT: We will be in Iraq for as long as it takes. Same with Afghanistan. We will develop tolerant, democratic and humane governments that support the rule of law. Many will demand a Theocracy. They will not get it. No matter how many bodies lay in the rubble of either side at the end of the day, the bottom line is America has has enough of half measures, appeasments and polite venomous smiles.

And once we are done in Iraq, if all goes well, we will not have to worry about Suadi, or Syria or Iran. Those countries will be too busy trying to stop the tide of immigration into Iraq from their citizens escaping to a richer, safer, more tolerant and fair society ruled by law instead of biggotry over who has the more pious Mullah. Or they will be too busy fighting their own citizens who choose to stay and force changes within their own systems of government.

~ Or ~

They can continue to blow themselves up. We are willing to assist them with that too.
  • 0

#24 Panzer

Panzer

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts

Posted 25 April 2003 - 10:23 PM

After reading through this thread, and most other threads on Pravda, i can say that at least UScitizen is trying to rationalize his stance and is looking at both sides. Most of his comments consist of, I agree with you on this point, but not on this....

The difference is most of the Anti-Americans, and die hard liberals do not look at things both ways as UScitizen is doing. Its the same old, "Down with America", "Zionest Pigs", bullShii$$t comments that make me just read half way through it and skip to the next poster. Its not hard for most Americans to say, Hey you know we do some screwed up stuff, and i dont really agree with what certain politicians are doing.... But when you read countless conspiracy crap about your nation, with not even one good comment, it makes you wonder if the person posting it, actually believes everything he or she reads. I know i dont believe everything that our media is saying, so it saddens me that the die hard anti-americans where probably believing everybit of crap coming out of the Iraqi minister of informations mouth.

Is it so hard to look at both sides of the coin??? I voted for Bush in 2000, before that i voted for Clinton on his first term,, and i dont regret either. I do feel that Clinton would have been better off just serving for Four years, but hey i wasnt burning flags in the streets like some of the die hard liberals where when Bush Jr, was elected.

Another thing that sickens me, is that some of the diehards, {not to be connected with Bruce Willis}, will go out of there way to put down our nation, with protests etc... but will absolutly go ballistic if a person has a Flag in there frontyard. For people like this F.U., i will never listen to a thing you have to say, and as far as im concerned you are doing nothing but discrediting yourself.

People need to look at both sides of the argument, it makes for alot better reading and debates. Try it sometime..

Redcoat is a prime example, he seems passionate on his views against the current administration, but he will look at the goods and bads of both sides.
  • 0

#25 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 26 April 2003 - 09:42 AM

>Q.: Will it prevent terrorists from getting WMD?

>A.: It decapitated and removed one of our visceral enemies allowing us to focus on our other enemies more closely. We no longer need to concern ourselves with Iraq's potential arsenal. We own it. Now we can focus on the other black market buffoons. It also secures for us a forward base free of Saudi "good will" with which to stage our continuing war on Terrorism. It secures for us critical resources such as oil for our millitary complex in a time of war. By verifying for ourselves that there are no WMDs we can then focus on other matters like Hezbola instead of wasting our time playing cat and mouse with a homicidal dictator.

It is too late now to focus on the other "black market buffoons". North Korea probably made some extra nukes and is now confident enough to even spend one on a nuclear test. You don't "own" Iraq's potential arsenal, as you don't know where it is. If Iraq had WMD and had terrorist links as claimed, terrorists will find it first as they would know where it is. Think about it logically. You have not "secured" oil, as a matter of fact, Iraq's oil production is lower than ever. Oil didn't even need to be secured as Opec even wants to pump up less oil because the price was high because of speculation due to this war. And this now that Iraq pumps up even less oil. The need to secure oil is utter nonsense, as it is not a critical resource at this time. And it appears Bush isn't going after Syria and the Hezbollah after all.

==============================================

>Q.: Will it show Muslims America wants them to be democratic?

>A.: It shows Muslims that we are through being victims of terrorism. It demonstrates clearly that Terrorism will no longer be tolerated and any act of terrorism in the future against Americans will result in ever greater hardship and loss for the Muslim world. Saudi Arabia no longer has the "what about your bases here and that whole Saddam situation.." card they keep playing. We no longer need the Saudi "good will" and the Saudi Monarchy had better watch out. We know all about Saudi "good will".

It does NOT show them that you are through being victims of terrorism as they don't see terrorists being taken care of. They only see other nations without terrorist links being attacked. And you pretty well know the USA will not take action against Saudi Arabia, you're taking your own wishes for granted. All the US ever did when it appeared members of the royal family funded 9-11 was protest a little and cause a diplomatic fuss everyone has forgotten by now. Great way of making people clear that you're through with being victims of terrorist attacks.

==============================================

>Q.: Will there be less terrorists?

>A.: Terrorists will no longer be able to hide behind the skirts of civilian women and Mullahs. We have made it clear that wherever they are, who ever they are we will hunt them down and destroy them. And any government that harbors them. Will there be more Martyrs willing to die than before? Perhaps. Either way, we are now in a better position to hunt them down and kill them where they stand. Afghanistan was an appitizer.
Iraq was a nice mint between servings. Loosen the belt as you might say.

Terrorists have never hidden behind the skirts of civilian women, I still have to see the first reprt about that one. Your brave special forces however hid behind the skirts of civilian women in Afghanistan however. Enough reports about that. You have so far not hunted down any government that harbors terrorists other than Afghanistan. Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen harbor many terrorists although the government is cautious about supporting them.

==============================================

We havent even gotten to the main course yet. Every day we become that much more aware of who our friends are and who our enemies are. We are taking notes. We are only just beginning.

No you're not. Everyday you're making mistakes about who your real enemies are (Saudi Arabia, China) and who you're real friends are (France, Germany). You're making statements saying that your enemies are your friends and allies because of economic reasons and making statements saying your friends are your enemies for the fact that they disagree, while disagreeing is a democratic right in France and Germany while as it gets you killed in China and Saudi Arabia.

==============================================

"We didnt start this war. But we damn well will finnish it."

Most ridiculous comment so far. You did start the war. You seriously don't believe the Bush statement that you were "reluctant" to go to war? I still haven't encountered the first fanatical American like you who wasn't happy you went to war.

==============================================

"EDIT: We will be in Iraq for as long as it takes. Same with Afghanistan. We will develop tolerant, democratic and humane governments that support the rule of law. Many will demand a Theocracy. They will not get it. No matter how many bodies lay in the rubble of either side at the end of the day, the bottom line is America has has enough of half measures, appeasments and polite venomous smiles."

Afghanistan is 2 years after its fall more screwed up than ever, only Kabul is under control, the rest is ruled by vicious ganglords and drugs production, religious fanaticism and deterioration of womens rights are on the increase. Iraq is also becoming increasingly jucked up. America is continuing with half measures in Afghanistan and Iraq, appeasements to warlords and drug dealers in Afghanistan and Colombia and polite venomous smiles towards the Saudis.

==============================================

"And once we are done in Iraq, if all goes well, we will not have to worry about Suadi, or Syria or Iran. Those countries will be too busy trying to stop the tide of immigration into Iraq from their citizens escaping to a richer, safer, more tolerant and fair society ruled by law instead of biggotry over who has the more pious Mullah. Or they will be too busy fighting their own citizens who choose to stay and force changes within their own systems of government."

You will never be done in Iraq. The country isn't exactly a homogenous entity of ethnicities, religious beliefs or language groups. You're statement about migration into Iraq is a delusional utopy.

==============================================

"They can continue to blow themselves up. We are willing to assist them with that too."

That is the most likely. America is probably waiting for such suicide attacks against its troops to spread a climate of hatred against the Iraqi people in order to make clear to the public that Iraqis don't deserve their own oil wealth and therefore the money should be spend on repression of various groups not agreeeing with the American policy which will probably be to spend most of the money to companies like Bechtel for reconstruction and improvement of the oil infrastructure which needs urgent replacement after rusting away during twelve years of sanctions and two wars.
  • 0

#26 Atheris

Atheris

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 26 April 2003 - 06:39 PM

==UN voted for two separated states (Israel, Palestine). Arabs wanted one with all the people together. Jews were at this time 6% of the population.==

Arabs have rejected every compromise offered, and have never wished to share territory. While I hope for a Palestinian state, I have little sympathy for their politicians. The ordinary Palestinian has a rough life, but sooner or later they will have to come to term with the Israelis.
  • 0

#27 Gunnett

Gunnett

    Registered User

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts

Posted 26 April 2003 - 08:18 PM

My words of advice for any Palestinian is for them to MOVE or make PEACE! The Leadership of the PLO seems to have it pretty good, they have nice fat bank accounts so maybe you (the Palestinian) should ask them "what did you do with all the money?" If I were a Palestinian, I would be wondering to myself why do all these other countries that support us not offer us a place to live? The problem with the Palestinian is they are sheep and we all know what happens to sheep don't we. You don't see the leadership of the PLO blowing themselves up do you. They send the sheep! If this is such a great thing to do, why aren't they or their children first in line for bomb vests?

The real problem is that the Palestinian want the PLO leadership to get them a nation but those jerks don't know anything other than killing. Without this so called "war" the PLO is not but a bunch of losers and taxi car drivers. The Palestinian have no one to blame but their selfs. If they don't like it then they need to put a end to the terrorist and put a end to the PLO and the leadership. I don't even like Jews, but I can see who really is the problem, and it is the Palestinians. Things will improve when the sheep start acting like people.


Originally posted by Simon666
About those Palestinians dancing in the streets: if you were an unemployed 24-year old

living in a refugee camp:

  • with crappy unpaved dust roads
  • without means of income and no hope of getting work in the future
  • without a wife because marriage is too expensive
  • without a house still living with the parents because buying a house is too expensive and because the camp is already overpopulated, and Israelis wouldn't give you a permit anyway so you risk it is destryed soon after
  • without running water
  • without electricity often
  • without medical care
and you looked around you and saw:
  • lots of open space outside of your camp and agricultural land occupied by Israelis
  • children shot with rubber bullets or worse because they throw stones
  • a hole in the wall of your living room so the Israelis can go from house to house without passing in the street
  • even more land being seized for security reasons
  • your only airport, build with EU support being shot to pieces as means of revenge for something you didn't do
  • ambulances being shot for being suspected of carrying explosives while this is most often not the case
  • your parents going through humiliation of showing their chest at checkpoints
  • checkpoints everywhere you want to go while Israelis can pass unhindered
and you heard stories of your parents that:
  • they owned land in the past but were evicted from it
  • they used to have a job but now can't any more because it is made impossible
  • that all the shit they have to swallow is because of the Israelis and the US supporting them
would YOU be happy if Israel or its loyal ally got hurt pretty bad?


Awaiting a reply eagerly, Simon.


  • 0

#28 Eric

Eric

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts

Posted 26 April 2003 - 08:21 PM

have only one question for you

do you think the IRAK war is going to make USA more secure
against the terrorists ?


Of course. Is that a serious question? Terrorist went to Iraq, they got medical treatment in Iraq, they tried to hide in Iraq.
What don't you understand about this simple realization?
  • 0

#29 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 26 April 2003 - 08:32 PM

>> I have only one question for you: do you think the IRAK war is going to make USA more secure against the terrorists ?

>Of course. Is that a serious question? Terrorist went to Iraq, they got medical treatment in Iraq, they tried to hide in Iraq.
What don't you understand about this simple realization?

I think you're not that informed: only one terrorist went to Iraq and that is Abu Abbas, and he renounced terrorism, never committed a single act again, and began working for peace even before he entered Iraq. The medical treatment story is also unproven as nearly noone has a picture of the terrorist in question let alone how he looks like now. European intelligence agencies and others probably as well had questions about that story.
  • 0

#30 Eric

Eric

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 10:16 AM

You can quote your intelligence sources, I'll quote mine [the ones that really know what's going on, and win wars to prove it]. Terrorists cross the borders all the time. Look at the Iraquis going to Syria. Oh, but I'm sure that you would say, "Damascus and Baghdad are not allies. Yea, yea, money talks, bullshit walks.
  • 0

#31 Eric

Eric

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 10:51 AM

Hey, greatly informed one, can you have your european 'intelligence' sources verify whether this case of terrorists being in Iraq is real or nor?
Thanks, appreciate it.

"Sunday 27, April, 2003 / Last Updated: 12:44PM Doha time, 4:44AM GMT (Al Jazeera)
The Italian government announced today that it will seek the extradition of former Palestinian resistance group leader Abu Abbas who was arrested in a swoop yesterday involving US Special Forces in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad."
  • 0

#32 Eric

Eric

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 11:09 AM

You can't make this stuff up fast enough. I go to get an orange after my last post and this is on the TV. Informed one, please have the veracity of this story checked out by your european 'intelligence' sources. Thanks.

Papers connect Saddam, al-Qaeda
Canadian claims first evidence of close links forged secretly in Iraq

The Canadian Press and The Associated Press
Sunday, April 27, 2003

LONDON -- Documents discovered by a Canadian journalist in the bombed-out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide the first evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Papers found Saturday by Toronto Star staff correspondent Mitch Potter reveal that an al-Qaeda envoy met officials in Baghdad in March 1998. The Sunday Telegraph of London, whose reporter in Baghdad had been working with Potter, quoted an unidentified western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational."
  • 0

#33 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 12:04 PM

Hey, greatly informed one, can you have your european 'intelligence' sources verify whether this case of terrorists being in Iraq is real or nor?
Thanks, appreciate it.

"Sunday 27, April, 2003 / Last Updated: 12:44PM Doha time, 4:44AM GMT (Al Jazeera)
The Italian government announced today that it will seek the extradition of former Palestinian resistance group leader Abu Abbas who was arrested in a swoop yesterday involving US Special Forces in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad."

Check one post of mine up, I specifically stated that the best you have is Abu Abbas.
  • 0

#34 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 12:15 PM

Concerning Al Zarqawi getting medical care in Iraq:

CNN:

European intelligence sources tell CNN that while they are sure, based on their investigations, that Zarqawi trained the men in Georgia who were later arrested in Europe, they have found no links between Zarqawi and the Iraqi government.

Pacific News Service:

Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian of Palestinian descent, is a shadowy figure who has recently been associated with the assassination last October of Laurence Foley, an American diplomatic officer in Jordan.

Al-Zarqawi is likely associated with al Qaeda. He did visit Iraq, but only to be hospitalized in Baghdad for wounds suffered in Afghanistan in the fighting after Sept. 11, 2001, when thousands lost their lives on U.S. soil during attacks on the World Trade Center and Washington, D.C. But thus far, no information has been revealed that would show that al-Zarqawi ever met with Iraqi officials.

The idea that al-Zarqawi runs a "terrorist network" of his own or that he is the No. 3 figure in al Qaeda is hyperbole. There is no information available that shows that he is anything other than a foot soldier in connection with known al Qaeda operatives. The administration hypothesis is essentially "proof by proximity." They claim that al-Zarqawi had a group with whom he was operating, and that group could not be functioning in Baghdad without the complicity of Saddam Hussein's government.

Even if al-Zarqawi had been in touch with Iraqi officials, the idea that he is operating a terrorist training center in Northern Iraq is completely unproved. The training center does exist, and it does have connections to al Qaeda, but it is run by a dissident Kurdish Islamic militant group, Ansar al-Islam. This group is utterly opposed to the Iraqi regime and has no connection to it.

Thus, all the pieces in Powell's accusation -- al-Zarqawi, al-Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda and the Iraqi regime -- do exist. But the crucial connection between Saddam and al-Zarqawi is based on supposition, and all the rhetoric in the world cannot create a true link between them.

The Observer:

Al-Zarqawi is not an al-Qaeda operative. If there is a link between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein he is not it. His story is the story of modern Islamic militancy. It is also the story of why the American-led 'war on terror' risks backfiring badly. Al-Zarqawi is not even, on close examination, an 'al-Qaeda associate', as Powell claimed. Primarily, al-Zarqawi is part of a broad movement of Islamic militancy that extends well beyond the influence and activities of any one man. This is a movement that is rooted in broad trends in the Middle East, in the economic, social and political failure of governments, both locally and in the West, to fulfil the aspirations of hundreds of millions of people. Islamic militancy is a multivalent, diverse and complex phenomenon. Focusing on individuals, even bin Laden, is a ludicrous oversimplification.

Cato Institute:

The administration points to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom it links to al-Qaeda and who received medical treatment in Baghdad. The Ansar al-Islam group is said to include al-Qaeda soldiers and have established a poisons training camp.

It's not clear how much credence to give to information gleaned from American captives, however. They could hope to win favor with their interrogators or provoke another conflict with America.

Moreover, al-Zarqawi's ties to al-Qaeda are thin -- it is not a rigid organization with a well-defined membership. German intelligence says al-Zarqawi's al-Tawhid organization is more like an affiliate, and one focused on the Palestinians (and Jordan), not the United States. An American intelligence analyst argues that al-Zarqawi "is outside bin Laden's circle. He is not sworn al-Qaeda."

The alleged link to Baghdad is especially threadbare: al-Zarqawi has worked more closely with Iran, also visited Lebanon and Syria, and been aided by a member of the royal family of Qatar. One German intelligence officer told The New York Times: "As of yet we have seen no indication of a direct link between (al) Zarqawi and Baghdad."

Nor is there solid evidence that either Saddam or Osama bin Laden supports Ansar al-Islam. In fact, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reports that the group is tied to Iran.

Ansar al-Islam asserts a desire to overthrow Saddam to impose an Islamic theocracy and is operating in territory no longer under Baghdad's control because of America's "no-fly zone" policy. As for the alleged poisons lab, even many Kurds say that they haven't heard of it.

Although the allegations are dubious, the administration has brought enormous pressure to bear on intelligence agencies to prove them. Yet the CIA and FBI remain skeptical.

Of Secretary Powell's claims, one intelligence official told The New York Times: "We just don't think it's there."

ABCNews:

Feb. 5 - As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council today, he said there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" - the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is now at the center of the U.S. case.

Powell showed a satellite photograph of what he said was a chemical weapons training center in Northern Iraq, used by al Qaeda and protected by Ansar al-Islam.
"Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq," said Powell.

The group, whose name means "Supporters of Islam," rules a remote portion of the autonomous northern Kurdish territories in Iraq near the Iran border, which is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government.

Denies All Links to Iraq

In an interview with ABCNEWS, the man considered the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to Iraq.

"They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim.

"We believe that Saddam Hussein, him and his group and his ministers also outside of Islam zone," said Krekar.

Ansar al-Islam's 600 or so members impose a strict interpretation of Islamic law on the several thousand villagers under their control, much the way the Taliban did in Afghanistan. At least 40 of their members claim training in Taliban and al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.

Krekar fought with the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, along with other Ansar leaders named Abu Wa el and Abdullah Saifii, who fought in Chechnya with al Qaeda and have been harboring many members of al Qaeda in Iraq since the war in Afghanistan.

Krekar lives openly in Oslo, Norway - far from Iraq - where he sought asylum after he says Saddam tried to kill him. "[Saddam Hussein's secret police] tried to poison me : in June of 1990."

Krekar was detained in Holland last year on drug-related charges after he was expelled from Iran, but was recently released and sent to Norway, where he has not been arrested. He is currently being interviewed by Norwegian intelligence services, but is not in custody.

Joint Alliance

Powell said today that al Qaeda leader Abu Mussab al Zarqawi, "an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants," who received medical treatment in Baghdad, had brought together the men of Krekar and the other groups in a joint alliance against the West.

Krekar says that too, is a U.S. fiction. "I didn't meet him, I didn't contact him, I didn't meet with him," he told ABCNEWS. "I don't know him."

The CIA has yet to interview the mullah, who says if his group is the best evidence of an al Qaeda tie to Iraq, it's a very weak case.

The U.S. case about the terror connection was further undercut today in London. The BBC reported that British intelligence has concluded there is no evidence to support the theory that al Qaeda and Iraq are working together.
  • 0

#35 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 12:31 PM

Concerning the fact that nobody knows what he looks like I admit I was wrong however: I apparently confused him with Imad Mughniyah.
  • 0

#36 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 12:44 PM

"The Canadian Press and The Associated Press
Sunday, April 27, 2003

LONDON -- Documents discovered by a Canadian journalist in the bombed-out headquarters of Iraq's intelligence service provide the first evidence of a direct link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network.

Papers found Saturday by Toronto Star staff correspondent Mitch Potter reveal that an al-Qaeda envoy met officials in Baghdad in March 1998. The Sunday Telegraph of London, whose reporter in Baghdad had been working with Potter, quoted an unidentified western intelligence official as saying the find was "sensational.""

An "unidentified" source? That is as good as no source. And don't you find it strange that JOURNALISTS find all these important documents in all these important buildings while as it should be SOLDIERS finding them, as these kinds of papers can be very important for intelligence agencies to prevent further terrorist attacks?
  • 0

#37 AnotherEuropean

AnotherEuropean

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1611 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 01:35 PM

It is the duty of any sane man, to oppose fascism of any form, and from any source. Who is the founder and supporter of nationalism, and fascism is irrelevant. It is not the "who" that makes such activity bad, but the act itself ... so, just thinking that because you are "American supporter" or "jewish" that you have a greater right, to maime, destroy, rape and pillage than other disgusting regemes of this planet, both current and historic ... tells volumes of your true self. Because you are wrong ... it is unfortunate, that people of all times, and places have "gone along" with fascists ... both religious fascists and just hate and war mongers. Because people are sheep, and worry more about their diet than life.

The amount of sheep, that follow you does not make you right.
  • 0

#38 Simon666

Simon666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1739 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 01:36 PM

It is in every case not normal that journalists find all kinds of important documents when an enemy state has been captured. In case of WWII for example, the Germans stole all our diplomatic papers and other stuff, and then the Russians stole it from them again. We only recently got it back and are getting an insight of what happened in our own government back in those days.

If Iraq is claimed to have had WMD and terrorists, it would be important to secure and search through all these documents as to find where the WMD are in the case terrorists find them first and to identify who these terrorists could be and what their plans are as well as to identify what nations gave what support to Saddam Hussein. The fact that the military isn't actively searching for this might be an indication that there isn't any such evidence of WMD or terrorists.
  • 0

#39 Eric

Eric

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts

Posted 27 April 2003 - 04:11 PM

There has never been any doubt that Iraq has WMD because they used them against Iran and we [the US] friggin' gave them some ourselves.
What the UN has asked for from Iraq is that they either hand the weapons over, or prove that they were destroyed, neither of which Saddam has done.
  • 0

#40 Eric

Eric

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1445 posts

Posted 28 April 2003 - 10:33 AM

Azov-

Did you read my post? Saddam has never shown the UN any proof that he destroyed the weapons. If he had, we wouldn't have invaded, the UN would still be handling Iraq, and loss of life in the war would have been avoided.
Saddam is not an good strategist, is a liar, and is a murderer.
I think it's great that anyone can respond to posts, but you aren't even bothering to address the points that people make. You sound like a 12 year old. Hopefully you are, because your post shows a real lack of depth.
These are serious issues. If you aren't a serious person, why not just read, and hopefully learn something.

-Eric
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2016 Pravda.Ru