Saddam was a Terrorist

[BillyBob]

Sure, most of us know this, but there are a few posters here who deny this, mainly because it justifies Bush's action against Saddam and they hate Bush. :doh:



October 07, 2004, 8:45 a.m.
Can Bush say, “Boogie to Baghdad”? (http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200410070845.asp)
What the president should say about Iraq and al Qaeda.

EDITOR'S NOTE: This column also appears today in The Hill newspaper.

Before this debating season is over, would someone please, please utter the words "boogie to Baghdad?"

You remember the phrase. It was written by Richard Clarke, the White House counterterrorism chief who in 1999 was so worried about the chumminess of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein that he believed bin Laden, if attacked by the United States at his lair in Afghanistan, would "boogie" on over to the Iraqi capital for protection.

We learned of Clarke's concerns in perhaps the most-ignored passages of the September 11 Commission report — those dealing with the very Saddam/al Qaeda connection that is being so vigorously denied by John Kerry and John Edwards.

"In fact, Saddam Hussein has little or no connection with al Qaeda," Edwards said Tuesday night during his debate with Vice President Dick Cheney. "What the vice president is telling people is inconsistent with everything that we see every single day. It's a continuation of 'Well, there's a strong connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.' It's not true."

In the first presidential debate, Kerry said flatly there was "no connection" between al Qaeda and Hussein.

But if that is true, please explain the friendly relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein outlined in the September 11 Commission report.

The report says bin Laden, who had arrived in Afghanistan after leaving Sudan in 1996, worried that he might not get along with his new Taliban hosts.

And indeed, by 1997, the report says, the two were at odds.

The tension became so great that bin Laden began looking for a place to go in case he had to leave Afghanistan.

And the place to go was...Iraq.

"There is...evidence that around this time bin Laden sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation," the report says.

But Saddam wasn't interested. He was trying to get along better with the Saudis and thus chose to stay away from bin Laden.

By the next year, however, things had changed.

In 1998, Saddam was under mounting pressure from the United States. He forgot about the Saudis and opened up to bin Laden.

According to the report, "In March, 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden."

The report cited intelligence that "one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."

As a result of those meetings, and more in 1999, the report says Saddam "offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq."

But Bin Laden decided to stay in Afghanistan, where he was getting along better with the Taliban.

And that's where "boogie to Baghdad" came in.

In February 1999, according to the report, the CIA wanted to conduct U-2 surveillance missions over bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan.

But Clarke worried that doing so might scare bin Laden into leaving the country — and going to Iraq.

If that happened, the report says, Clarke feared that bin Laden's "entire network would be at Saddam Hussein's service," and the U.S. would never be able to find him.

So Clarke wrote an e-mail to then-national-security adviser Sandy Berger, saying that if bin Laden learned about the U-2 missions, then, "armed with that knowledge, old wily Usama will likely boogie to Baghdad."

The report says another Clinton National Security Council aide also warned that "Saddam Hussein wanted bin Laden in Baghdad."

Now, do you still believe there was "no connection" between Saddam and bin Laden?

It should be said that the report says September 11 Commission investigators found no evidence that the contacts "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship" — emphasis on the word operational — and no evidence "indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."

Saddam was not responsible for September 11.

But where do Kerry and Edwards get the idea that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda?

Perhaps from the press, which months ago, based on early, incomplete drafts of portions of the September 11 Commission report, confidently proclaimed that "Al Qaeda-Hussein Link is Dismissed" (Washington Post) and "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie" (New York Times).

Most accounts specifically attacked Cheney's statements on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection.

The anti-Cheney slant puzzled even some Democrats on the commission. "The vice president is saying, I think, that there were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government," Democratic vice-chairman Lee Hamilton told reporters. "We don't disagree with that."

That's because it is true.

So in the next debate, when John Kerry starts his "no connection" riff, just remember: Boogie to Baghdad.

[BillyBob]

From the Weekly Standard (http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp)


OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. It was written in response to a request from the committee as part of its investigation into prewar intelligence claims made by the administration. Intelligence reporting included in the 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, including the FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency. Much of the evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources. Some of it is new information obtained in custodial interviews with high-level al Qaeda terrorists and Iraqi officials, and some of it is more than a decade old. The picture that emerges is one of a history of collaboration between two of America's most determined and dangerous enemies.

According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi, a leader of the al Qaeda-affiliated National Islamic Front. Numerous sources have confirmed this. One defector reported that "al-Turabi was instrumental in arranging the Iraqi-al Qaeda relationship. The defector said Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

One such confirmation came in a postwar interview with one of Saddam Hussein's henchmen. As the memo details:

4. According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

[BillyBob]

Saddam's Terror Ties (http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200310210934.asp)
Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence.

As President Bush more robustly promotes his Iraq policy, he should confront directly those who dismiss Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism and, thus, belittle a key rationale for Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush's critics employ a flimsy argument that nonetheless enjoys growing appeal among a largely hostile press corps. Since Hussein did not order the September 11 attacks — the fuzzy logic goes — he has no ties to terrorists, especially al Qaeda. Therefore, the Iraq war was bogus, and Bush should be defeated.

"Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one," said Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.) on October 16. "We were told Iraq was attracting terrorists from al Qaeda. It was not...We should never have gone to war in Iraq when we did, in the way we did, for the false reasons we were given."

West Virginia's Jay Rockefeller, the Senate Intelligence Committee's ranking Democrat, told the Los Angeles Times that Iraq's alleged al Qaeda ties were "tenuous at best and not compelling." In a September 16 editorial, the Times slammed Vice President Dick Cheney for making "sweeping, unproven claims about Saddam Hussein's connections to terrorism." On August 7, former vice president Al Gore stated reassuringly: "The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all."

Bush and his national-security team should repeatedly devote entire speeches and publications — complete with documents, names, and visuals, including photographs of terrorists and their innocent victims — to remind Americans and the world that Baathist Iraq was a general store for terrorists, complete with cash, training, lodging, and even medical attention.

The evidence for Hussein's cooperation with and support for global terrorists is abundant and increasing. Recall, for instance:

Hussein paid bonuses of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. "President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000," Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, declared at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported two days later. Mahmoud Besharat, who the White House says dispensed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." Between Aziz's announcement and the March 20 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans.

According to the State Department's May 21, 2002 "Patterns of Global Terrorism," the Abu Nidal Organization, the Arab Liberation Front, Hamas, the Kurdistan Worker's party, the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization and the Palestinian Liberation Front all operated offices or bases in Hussein's Iraq. Hussein's hospitality towards these mass murderers placed him in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, which prohibited him from giving safe harbor to or otherwise supporting terrorists.

Coalition forces have found alive and well key terrorists who enjoyed Hussein's hospitality. Among them was Abu Abbas, mastermind of the October 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murder of Leon Klinghoffer, a 69-year-old Manhattan retiree who Abbas's men rolled, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean. Khala Khadr al-Salahat, accused of designing the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in December 1988 (259 killed on board, 11 dead on the ground), also lived in Baathist Iraq.

Before fatally shooting himself four times in the head on August 16, 2002, as Baghdad claimed, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal had resided in Iraq since 1999. As the AP's Sameer N. Yacoub reported on August 21, 2002, the Beirut office of the Abu Nidal Organization said he entered Iraq "with the full knowledge and preparations of the Iraqi authorities." Nidal's attacks in 20 countries killed at least 275 people and wounded some 625 others. Among other atrocities, ANO henchmen bombed a TWA airliner over the Aegean Sea in 1974, killing all 88 people on board.

Coalition troops destroyed at least three terrorist training camps including a base near Baghdad called Salman Pak. It featured a passenger-jet fuselage where numerous Iraqi defectors reported that foreign terrorists were instructed how to hijack airliners with utensils. (The Bush administration should bus a few dozen foreign correspondents and their camera crews from the bar of Baghdad's Palestine Hotel to Salman Pak for a guided tour. Network news footage of that ought to open a few eyes.)

As for Hussein's supposedly imaginary ties to al Qaeda, consider these disturbing facts:

The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, on February 13, 2003. Cell-phone records indicate that the diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf's nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40. As Dan Murphy wrote in the Christian Science Monitor last February 26, those phone records bolster Sali's claim in a November 2002 TV interview that the Iraqi diplomat had offered these Muslim extremists Baghdad's help with joint missions.

Journalist Stephen F. Hayes reported in July that the official Babylon Daily Political Newspaper published by Hussein's eldest son, Uday, ran what it called a "List of Honor." The paper's November 14, 2002, edition gave the names and titles of 600 leading Iraqis, including this passage: "Abid Al-Karim Muhamed Aswod, intelligence officer responsible for the coordination of activities with the Osama bin Laden group at the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan." That name, Hayes wrote, matches that of Iraq's then-ambassador to Islamabad.

Carter-appointed federal appeals judge Gilbert S. Merritt discovered this document in Baghdad while helping Iraq rebuild its legal system. He wrote in the June 25 Tennessean that two of his Iraqi colleagues remember secret police agents removing that embarrassing edition from newsstands and confiscating copies of it from private homes. The paper was not published for the next ten days. Judge Merritt theorized that the "impulsive and somewhat unbalanced" Uday may have showcased these dedicated Baathists to "make them more loyal and supportive of the regime" as war loomed.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

While Iraqi Ramzi Yousef, ringleader of the February 26, 1993 World Trade Center bombing plot, fled the U.S. on a Pakistani passport, he arrived here on an Iraqi passport.

Author Richard Miniter reported September 25 on TechCentralStation: "U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and a monthly salary." Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin was indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring some 1,000 New Yorkers.

Along Iraq's border with Syria, U.S. troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Hussein's former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison to al Qaeda. Under interrogation, Hijazi "admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994."

While sifting through the Mukhabarat's bombed ruins last April 26, the Toronto Star's Mitch Potter, the London Daily Telegraph's Inigo Gilmore and their translator discovered a memo in the intelligence service's accounting department. Dated February 19, 1998 and marked "Top Secret and Urgent," it said the agency would pay "all the travel and hotel expenses inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden, the Saudi opposition leader, about the future of our relationship with him, and to achieve a direct meeting with him." The memo's three references to bin Laden were obscured crudely with correction fluid.

Despite the White House's inexplicable insistence to the contrary, tantalizing clues suggest Saddam Hussein might not have shared the world's shock when fireballs erupted from the Twin Towers.

Recall that his Salman Pak terror camp taught terrorists air piracy on an actual jet fuselage.

On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir — an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad's embassy in Malaysia — welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 WTC plot and "Operation Bojinka," al Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets over the Pacific at once.

The Czech Republic stands by its claim that 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim an-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat/intelligence agent. He was expelled two weeks after the suspected meeting with Atta for apparently hostile surveillance of Radio Free Europe's Prague headquarters, from which American broadcasts to Iraq emanate.

Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge Harold Baer ordered Hussein and his ousted regime to pay $104 million in damages to the families of George Eric Smith and Timothy Soulas, both killed in the Twin Towers along with 2,790 others. "I conclude that plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, 'by evidence satisfactory to the court' that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda," Baer ruled. An airtight case? No, but sufficient evidence tied Hussein to 9/11 and secured a May 7 federal judgment against him.

If one has the time or professional duty to connect these dots, a portrait emerges of Saddam Hussein as sugar daddy to global terrorists, including al Qaeda and perhaps the 9/11 conspirators. Why won't Team Bush paint this picture? One administration communications specialist told me the government is bashful on this front because these links are difficult to prove. Yes, but prosecuting the informational battle in the war on terror is not like prosecuting a Mafia don, with wiretaps, hidden cameras and deep-cover "stool pigeons." Evidence of terrorist ties can be even more shadowy than a Cosa Nostra whack job. While this makes metaphysical proof elusive, the White House and relevant agencies owe it to America's national security to highlight what they know about Saddam Hussein and terrorism, even if some of the evidence against him is only circumstantial.

Assuming he wishes to sway domestic and global opinion, President Bush and his administration should guide Americans and the world through the sometimes-murky data and identify the patterns and conclusions that arise. While Saddam Hussein never may endure a courtroom cross-examination, plenty already exists in the public record (and surely more should be declassified) to confirm that his ouster, the liberation of Iraq and its current rehabilitation were and are necessary phases of the war on terror. The president and his top advisers should present the case, not haphazardly, but systematically and in as comprehensive, well-documented, and well-illustrated a fashion as their vast resources will allow.

[BillyBob]

Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties (http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200410\SPE20041004a.html)
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hussein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans. They demonstrate that Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations weapons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show that Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.

One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.

Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq had relationships and considered available for terror operations against the United States.

Among the organizations mentioned are those affiliated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman al-Zawahiri, two of the world's most wanted terrorists. Zarqawi is believed responsible for the kidnapping and beheading of several American civilians in Iraq and claimed responsibility for a series of deadly bombings in Iraq Sept. 30. Al-Zawahiri is the top lieutenant of al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden, allegedly helped plan the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist strikes on the U.S., and is believed to be the voice on an audio tape broadcast by Al-Jazeera television Oct. 1, calling for attacks on U.S. and British interests everywhere.

[BillyBob]

SADDAM HUSSEIN "always had links with international terrorist organizations." (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/167gwjtp.asp)

On the face of it, this is not a controversial statement. It comes from a CNN interview of Iyad Allawi, recently chosen as the interim prime minister of Iraq. Allawi expanded on this assessment in a December 31, 2003, interview with CNN's Bill Hemmer, when he estimated that more than 1,000 al Qaeda terrorists were operating in Iraq. But his more interesting comment came moments later. The al Qaeda fighters, he said,

were present in Iraq, they came and they were active in Iraq before the war of liberation. They were inflicting a lot of problems on the--and inflaming the situation in northern Iraq, in Iraq Kurdistan. They killed once about a year and a half ago 42 worshipers in one of the mosques in Harachi [ph] in a very ugly way.

Again, on the surface, this was not a particularly revealing statement. After all, Colin Powell told the United Nations Security Council that al Qaeda was operating in Iraq--almost certainly with the knowledge and approval of the Iraqi regime--before the war. CIA Director George Tenet has testified to the presence of al Qaeda in Iraq on several occasions. Allawi went on:

Those people have had the backing of Saddam prior to liberation, and they remained in Iraq after the collapse, and after the vacuum was created. After the way, they remained in Iraq. Many joined them since then.

Allawi's declaration that the Iraqi regime supported al Qaeda terrorists before the war in Iraq is intriguing

not because of the claim itself, but because of the man making it. Allawi for years ran an Iraqi exile group called the Iraqi National Accord. In recent years, he was the Iraqi exile closest to the CIA. And although George Tenet has spoken repeatedly about the prewar Iraq-al Qaeda connection, he has been at odds with many in the bureaucracy beneath him.

Allawi's claims about the Iraq-al Qaeda connection--claims he has made for several years--have not always been solid. In December, Allawi provided journalists with a document indicating that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta trained in Iraq weeks before the 9/11 hijackings. That same three-page document also claimed that Iraq had--as President Bush claimed in his State of the Union Address--sought uranium from Niger. The report was a bit too politically convenient and was quickly dismissed as a forgery.

But Allawi isn't the only prominent member of the new Iraqi government to have suggested Iraq-al Qaeda connections. His deputy, Barham Salih, has also repeatedly alleged that Saddam's regime supported Ansar al Islam, al Qaeda-linked Islamists in Kurdistan. "Yes, they hate each other, but they're very utilitarian," said Salih. "Saddam Hussein, a secular infidel to many jihadists, had no problem giving money to Hamas. This debate [about whether Saddam worked with al Qaeda] is stupid. The proof is there."

ABC News' outstanding Pentagon reporter, Martha Raddatz, also reported on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection last week. But her May 25, 2004, report on Abu Musab al Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associate who joined forces with Ansar al Islam terrorists, buried an important detail. "In late 2002, officials say, Zarqawi began establishing sleeper cells in Baghdad and acquiring weapons from Iraqi Intelligence officials." (emphasis added).

[BillyBob]

Saddam's Real WMD Was Terrorism (http://www.defenddemocracy.org/in_the_media/in_the_media_show.htm?doc_id=208308)

By Paul Crespo
Townhall.com
February 6, 2004

Saddam's Real WMD Was Terrorism David Kay, the former US weapons inspector, reported recently that despite the fact that every major Western intelligence agency and the UN believed Saddam Hussein still possessed them, his team has found no significant stockpiles of chemical, biological or nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. Yet, while there is still much more to say about that story, it may turn out that one of Saddam's greatest weapons of mass destruction was terror.

Contrary to the claims of prominent American Democrat politicians, such as Senator Ted Kennedy who flatly stated in October 2003 that: “Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism..." we have uncovered significant evidence tying Saddam Hussein to terrorism for over a decade. Considering the importance of these clear links, it is surprising that the Bush administration has not publicized them further.

Deroy Murdock, a Senior Fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, published Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror, (http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf ) a well documented report highlighting Saddam's ties to Islamic terrorism, in the Hudson Institute's American Outlook magazine's fall 2003 edition. In it he states: “Many critics of the war in Iraq belittle claims of Saddam Hussein's ties to terrorism. In fact, for years, he was militant Islam's Benefactor-in Chief.”

Murdock then describes in detail numerous high-profile Islamic terrorists who were captured or killed in Iraq prior to or after the US invasion. Others terrorists had Iraqi passports and some linked to Al Qaeda were given safe haven in Iraq or were observed being aided by Iraqi officials overseas.

Among the rabid, anti-American killers found in Iraq was Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, whose gang murdered 407 people (including ten Americans) and maimed 788 more in attacks in 20 countries; he reportedly “committed suicide” in August 2002 in Baghdad by shooting himself in the head four times. He had taken refuge in Iraq since 1999. Experts speculate that Saddam may have been cleaning up loose ends as the American government probed his terror links.

One of Abu Nidal Organization's attacks included the bombing over the Ionian Sea of a TWA airliner flying from Israel to Greece in 1974 which killed all 88 people on board. His group was also famous for attacking a TWA ticket counter at Rome's Leonardo Da Vinci airport in 1986 and targeting Lt. Col. Oliver North for death in the mid-1980s.

Khala Khadar al Salahat, a member of ANO, surrendered to the First Marine Division in Baghdad on April 18, 2003. According to an August 25, 2002 report in the Sunday Times of London, a Palestinian source claimed that Salahat and Nidal had furnished Libyan agents the Semtex (plastic explosive) bomb that destroyed Pan American Flight 103 over Lockerbie Scotland in 1988. Among the 259 persons killed in the air and 11 killed on the ground were 35 American college students.

Another vicious terrorist found in Iraq was Abu Abbas, who was captured by US Special Forces just outside Baghdad on April 14, 2003. He had been living there under Iraqi protection since 2002. Abbas was the mastermind behind the 1985 hijacking of the Italian cruise ship Achilles Lauro in the Mediterranean.

We should recall that during that terrorist attack, Abbas's men shot Leon Klinghoffer, a retired 69-year old American, in cold blood before rolling him in his wheelchair into the sea. Importantly, Italian authorities had detained Abbas briefly at the time but released him because he held an Iraqi diplomatic passport.

Ramzi Yousef, the Iraqi architect of the 1993 World Trade Center (WTC) bombing which killed six persons and wounded 1,042 others, entered America on an Iraqi passport before fleeing after the attack on Pakistani papers.

Abdul Rahman Yasin, indicted for mixing the chemicals in that WTC bombing, and still on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list, fled to Baghdad after the attack and lived there for years afterwards.

Murdock adds that according Richard Miniter, author of this year's bestselling book, Losing Bin Laden, documents discovered by US forces in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, showed that the Iraqi government gave Yasin both a house and a salary.

Saddam's terror links were most recently and openly on display in conjunction with Palestinian terror groups. In March 2002, Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz announced publicly at a meeting in Baghdad that Saddam Hussein would raise the reward given to the families of Palestinian “martyrs' (i.e.; suicide bomb terrorists) from $10,000 per family to $25,000.

On March 12, 2003, just eight days prior to the US-led assault on Iraq, Knight-Ridder reported from Gaza City that at a ceremony organized by the Saddam-backed Arab Liberation Front, “the families of 22 Palestinians killed fighting the Israelis each received checks for $10,000 or more, certificates of appreciation and a kiss on each cheek—compliments of Saddam Hussein.”

Hussein's largesse proved increasingly deadly. According to Murdock, between March 2002 and March 2003 when the US forces closed own Saddam's "Terror, Inc.," 28 Palestinian homicide bombers killed 223 innocent people including 12 Americans, and injured 1,209 others.

And while Bill Clinton's former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright boldly declared in October 2003 that: she “never believed the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden. Al Qaeda, and Islamic terrorism,” clues to those links too have been confirmed.

Murdock shows that Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who previously ran an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan and is currently at large, fled to Iraq and received medical care in Baghdad shortly after the Taliban fell. He then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist camp in northern Iraq and reportedly arranged the October 2002 assassination of US diplomat Lawrence Foley in Jordan. He has since been liinked to terror attacks against American troops in Iraq.

Back in January of 2002 Nawaz al-Hamzi and Khalid al-Midhar (9-11 hijackers who slammed American Airlines flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people) reportedly met Iraqi diplomat and VIP airport greeter Ahmed Hikmat Shakir in Kula Lampur, Malaysia. Shakir reportedly then escorted them to an al Qaeda 9-11 planning meeting. Shakir was arrested in Qatar six days after 9-11. Authorities then discovered documents linking him to the 1993 WTC bombing and al Qaeda's plot to blow up 12 American jets over the Pacific Ocean.

Significantly, a Clinton-appointed Manhattan federal judge, Harold Baer, recently ordered Saddam Hussein, his ousted regime, Osama bin Laden, and others to pay $104 million in damages to the families of the 2,750 victims of the 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers. He found “by evidence satisfactory to the court, that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

There is therefore more than sufficient evidence pointing to Saddam Hussein as an important international terror-monger who aided in the murder and maiming of thousands of innocent civilians outside Iraq.

As Deroy Murdock notes: “The President and his National Security team should devote entire speeches and publications…to remind Americans and the world that Baathist Iraq was a general store for terrorists, complete with cash, training, lodging, and medical attention.” The sooner we all understand this, the better.

[drbrumley]

Meanwhile, Mr. Kean added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet."

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Meanwhile, Mr. Kean added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet."

You know, the connection between Iraq and Bin laden are like this.

I have been alive for 37 years. I have met alot of people in my lifetime. Say I was 10 and had this friend. We parted ways and 15 years later, we met again and talked. Albeit, he was not the same person I remembered. He broke the law regularly. Under this bit of crappy evidence put together in these articles, I would be convicted as a friend and accomplice in anything my old friend did. All because of circumstancial evidence. Sorry, that doesnt work in the United States, well it does now, not then,.

[aikido7]

Isn't it also true that both Saddam and bin Laden had ties to the actor Kevin Bacon?

Meanwhile, Mr. Kean added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet."


But ol' Pershev is our friend. And it's not nice to criticize our friends--even on moral grounds.

And The National Review, The Weekly Standard and Cybercast need to all get together and lean on the members of the 9-11 Commission panel and get them to listen to the voice of reason. What a bunch of bozos THEY were. How dare they contradict our administration.

No wonder Bush fought the idea of a commission tooth and nail. He never wanted a study of 9-11 anyway.

[BillyBob]

Go ahead and bury your heads in the sand, guys. You can pretend it never happened. You can pretend the World Trade Centers are still standing. You can Pretend that sky is green, be my guest.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by drbrumley

Meanwhile, Mr. Kean added that there much more evidence of links between al-Qaida and Iran or Pakistan than Iraq, and pointed out that, "Our investigation is continuing. We're not finished yet."

I have no doubt that Al Queda has members in those countries and more, they even have members here in the US, but that doesn't mean that our Government is friendly to them as Saddam was. Besides, this is much bigger than just Al Queda, there are many other terrorist organizations out there, Saddam had ties withj at least a few of them.

As for Iran, we should invade them next.

[aikido7]

As for Iran, we should invade them next.

I'm sure its citizens are already getting out their flowers and candy and unpacking those miniature American flags they always keep handy.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by aikido7

I'm sure its citizens are already getting out their flowers and candy and unpacking those miniature American flags they always keep handy.

Their younger citizens have been protesting the current government, but that isn't the point. That point is that they have a government that sponsors terrorism, just like Saddam did.

[Skeptic]

I'm sorry, but the right-wing war mongering news sources you obtained your "news" from have a strong ulterior motive to spin so-called "intelligence" in their favor.

I'm also very sorry, but as a result of Bush's unforgivable bloody and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have died unnecessarily, the Pentagon, CIA and affiliated intelligence organizations can no longer be trusted to provide the U.S. and the world with reliable unbiased information concerning the alleged "enemy."

There is good evidence that the neoconservatives in power conspired to invade Iraq years before 9/11. This negates their trustworthiness. Enough said.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I'm sorry, but the right-wing war mongering news sources you obtained your "news" from have a strong ulterior motive to spin so-called "intelligence" in their favor.

I'm sorry, but you commies and your commie sources have a strong ulterior motive to spin so called 'intelligence' in their favor.


I'm also very sorry, but as a result of Bush's unforgivable bloody and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have died unnecessarily, the Pentagon, CIA and affiliated intelligence organizations can no longer be trusted to provide the U.S. and the world with reliable unbiased information concerning the alleged "enemy."

Ah yes, bury your head deeper and deeper in the sand, Skeptic. You won't have to worry about your asss sticking up in the air, there are plenty of people in the US who will protect even you commies.


There is good evidence that the neoconservatives in power conspired to invade Iraq years before 9/11. This negates their trustworthiness. Enough said.

Yes, that is because Saddam has been a terrorist for many years! But the last I heard, you commies were pissed because Bush just went into Iraq without a plan. Hmmm, see any contradiction??? :dizzy:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

But the last I heard, you commies were pissed because Bush just went into Iraq without a plan. Hmmm, see any contradiction??? I'm not one of those alleged "commies" who complained about going into Iraq without a plan.

My position has always been clear. My complaint is that Bush and his neocon buddies went into Iraq without any clear hard pre-war empirical evidence that they were a real, significant and imminent threat! My position has always been that, regardless of ANY outcome of Bush's invasion or occupation of Iraq (even if they became the most peace-loving democratic country the world has ever known), that unnecessary invasion, which has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, will NEVER be justified!! Do you know why?

It has something to do with ends and means. Need I spell it out yet again?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :skeptic:

I'm sorry, but the right-wing war mongering news sources you obtained your "news" from have a strong ulterior motive to spin so-called "intelligence" in their favor.

I'm also very sorry, but as a result of Bush's unforgivable bloody and unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children have died unnecessarily, the Pentagon, CIA and affiliated intelligence organizations can no longer be trusted to provide the U.S. and the world with reliable unbiased information concerning the alleged "enemy."

There is good evidence that the neoconservatives in power conspired to invade Iraq years before 9/11. This negates their trustworthiness. Enough said.

:yawn:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

:yawn: I realize you're tired of hearing the truth. But it ain't going away.

Maybe you should take a nap.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I'm not one of those alleged "commies" who complained about going into Iraq without a plan.

My position has always been clear. My complaint is that Bush and his neocon buddies went into Iraq without any clear hard pre-war empirical evidence that they were a real, significant and imminent threat!

Bush made it clear that he was removing Saddam :sozo: BEFORE HE BECOMES AN IMMINENT THREAT!


My position has always been that, regardless of ANY outcome of Bush's invasion or occupation of Iraq (even if they became the most peace-loving democratic country the world has ever known), that unnecessary invasion, which has resulted in the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, will NEVER be justified!! Do you know why?

It has something to do with ends and means. Need I spell it out yet again?

Let me spell it out for YOU!

S-a-d-d-a-m w-a-s a t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t!

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I have no doubt that Al Queda has members in those countries and more, they even have members here in the US, but that doesn't mean that our Government is friendly to them as Saddam was. Besides, this is much bigger than just Al Queda, there are many other terrorist organizations out there, Saddam had ties withj at least a few of them.

As for Iran, we should invade them next.

Ummm Billy, we are not talking about where Al-Queda is or is not, we are talking about links right? Collaboration right? It is a known fact Iran and Al-Queda are bed fellows. Alot more so than Iraq was. If our evidence is they talked alittle back when Clinton was in office AND nothing became of it, then thats not evidence. You can make a case against anyone anywhere with that circumstantional bullcrap. We as a nation are above that. Or we used to be. We as a nation were honored in the world by other nations because our word meant something then. We used to operate under the Constitution, even in foreign policy. Why don't we do that anymore?

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Need I spell it out yet again?

Problem is - you can't spell.

[On Fire]

If you actually say "Boogie to Baghdad" out loud it's very funny.

[scrounger11]

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam

Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:

* A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.

* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

* U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

* The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

Oh Nurse! Pass me the office dictionary please. I need to look up the exact meaning of "hypocrisy"...and is it the same spelling in English as it is in American?...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Bush made it clear that he was removing Saddam :sozo: BEFORE HE BECOMES AN IMMINENT THREAT! It was clear that Bush's attack, before Iraq was a real, significant and imminent threat, was :sozo: IMMORAL!

Let me spell it out for YOU!

S-a-d-d-a-m w-a-s a t-e-r-r-o-r-i-s-t! Let me spell it out for YOU!

S-a-d-d-a-m ... w-a-s ... N-O-T ... a ... t-h-r-e-a-t!

Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children died UNNECESSARILY! :mad:

[BillyBob]

Yeah, you commies love terrorists because you hate the US.

I know, Skeptic. I know.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yeah, you commies love terrorists because you hate the US.

I know, Skeptic. I know. Just because I hate terrorism does not mean that I think the U.S. has a right to kill all alleged terrorists when and wherever we find them, even (1) if they do not pose a real, significant or imminent threat and (2) if killing them means slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

Apart from the fact that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with the so-called "war on terrorism," fighting terrorism in the same way we fight countries, who pose a clear, significant and imminent threat, is the WRONG way to fight terrorism! Bush's "war on terrorism" is a failed policy. The success of an anti-terrorism policy is not determined by whether the U.S. had suffered a major terrorist attack recently. Rather, it is determined by whether anti-American hatred has decreased; whether fewer terrorists have been recruited; whether we have won the cooperation of those countries in fighting terrorism; whether the conditions that breed new terrorists have been reduced. There is no way a primarily military approach to fighting terrorism can lead to long-term security.

If a person says he is going to attack you, and all you do is point a gun at him and say "Bring it on," this may allow you to win some battles, not the war. Bush's hard-nosed 'shoot now, ask questions latter' approach is doomed to failure. It may allow the U.S. to win a few battles, but it will hardly allow us to win the "war."

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Apart from the fact that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with the so-called "war on terrorism,"

Do you deny that Saddam was a terrorist?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Do you deny that Saddam was a terrorist? It doesn't matter whether he was a "terrorist" or not. The point is that there was no clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat in the months prior to March 2003.

Name one terrorist act perpetrated by Saddam that warranted the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as over 1200 U.S. troops.

[Skeptic]

A true fight against terrorism does not simply go after and kill any real or alleged terrorist, despite the collateral damage to innocent lives, as well as our future security.

Bush fallaciously called his "war" in Iraq part of his "war on terrorism." In March 2003, there were no terrorists in Iraq posing such an grave threat to America that Bush just HAD to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Let's assume there were terrorists in Iraq in March 2003. I have seen no evidence that such terrorists were a real, significant and imminent threat to American or other countries. There are terrorists in many countries. But this does not mean the U.S. has a right to invade those countries and kill these terrorists at whatever the cost? No!

I can think of two questions that must always be answered thoroughly, before invading a country to get at real or alleged terrorists:

1. is it worth the thousands of innocent lives that could be lost?

2. is the intelligence of an imminent threat sufficiently based on clear, hard, uncontroversial evidence, and are the consequences such that invading will not increase anti-American hatred and increase terrorist recruitment?

Bush failed to satisfactorily answer both questions, before he invaded Iraq.

[scrounger11]

Ah yes ... here are those definitions I was looking for...

"Terrorism: the use of violence or the threat of violence to obtain political demands."

and of course..

"Terrorize: to fill with terror or force into obedience by threats or acts of violence."

Nurse we must find out if any of the Patients felt terrorized by Saddam. Take a memo Nurse...we'll have to contact the out-patients clinic in Baghdad as well and ask who they feel are the terrorists now.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Just because I hate terrorism does not mean that I think the U.S. has a right to kill all alleged terrorists when and wherever we find them, even (1) if they do not pose a real, significant or imminent threat and (2) if killing them means slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process.

If you hate terrorism, why are you supporting terrorists?

Apart from the fact that invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with the so-called "war on terrorism," fighting terrorism in the same way we fight countries, who pose a clear, significant and imminent threat, is the WRONG way to fight terrorism! Bush's "war on terrorism" is a failed policy. The success of an anti-terrorism policy is not determined by whether the U.S. had suffered a major terrorist attack recently. Rather, it is determined by whether anti-American hatred has decreased; whether fewer terrorists have been recruited; whether we have won the cooperation of those countries in fighting terrorism; whether the conditions that breed new terrorists have been reduced. There is no way a primarily military approach to fighting terrorism can lead to long-term security.
:cow:

If a person says he is going to attack you, and all you do is point a gun at him and say "Bring it on," this may allow you to win some battles, not the war. Bush's hard-nosed 'shoot now, ask questions latter' approach is doomed to failure. It may allow the U.S. to win a few battles, but it will hardly allow us to win the "war."
The terrorists are losing and you don't like that. Gee. :rolleyes:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

It doesn't matter whether he was a "terrorist" or not. The point is that there was no clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat in the months prior to March 2003.

Ah, the truth finally comes out. You don't have a problem with terrorism.



Name one terrorist act perpetrated by Saddam that warranted the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, as well as over 1200 U.S. troops.

Saddam perpetrated many acts of terrorism, not just one. And he would still be doing so if Bush had not removed him from power.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by scrounger11

Ah yes ... here are those definitions I was looking for...

"Terrorism: the use of violence or the threat of violence to obtain political demands."

and of course..

"Terrorize: to fill with terror or force into obedience by threats or acts of violence."

Nurse we must find out if any of the Patients felt terrorized by Saddam. Take a memo Nurse...we'll have to contact the out-patients clinic in Baghdad as well and ask who they feel are the terrorists now.

I have an idea. Since you are obviously as cluseless as Skeptic, why don't the both of you go over to Iraq and wear signs on your back that say:

"I'm an American and I love Saddam".

Let me know when they cut your head off.

[scrounger11]

Oh dear, William Robert! We're going to have to handle our aggression now aren't we?!

(Nurse, check the dosage on this Patient's tranquilizers)

No, no Wiliiam Robert. You seem to have this the wrong way round. It's the US that was 'in love with Saddam'. It was only when HE wouldn't swallow YOUR prescription that his prognosis worsened.

Mr Rumsfeld was a real friend in need - a friend indeed. My how times change.

Perhaps memory loss is a side-effect of your medication. I'll have to do some research in the medical journals...Nurse. Please make a note of that.

As for going to Iraq - well I don't think you'll be going anywhere for many years. Your condition is far too deep-seated.

I would check though if you are liable for the draft. I understand everyone from 18 through 25 should register - by law! I'll see if we can't arrange your deferment, on medical grounds.

If you do wish to ensure your service at the earliest opportunity..here's the link:

http://www.sss.gov/

...perhaps the battlefield would be the best place to work out all your fear and aggression...it could be quite a tonic...

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by scrounger11

Oh dear, William Robert! We're going to have to handle our aggression now aren't we?!


What's the matter, can't handle it when someone points out what an idiot you are?

[On Fire]

scrounger11 needs to see a dentist:

[BillyBob]

:shocked:

[scrounger11]

(Nurse, these two patients both seem a bit tired...certainly not making much sense...

...maybe they're a bit panicked by the thought of the draft...)

Gentlemen don't worry. You are both safe there are standards in the US military - not as high as the UK military I know, but you certainly wouldn't get passed the medical. So get some sleep you are safe at home in this clinic..

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by scrounger11

(Nurse, these two patients both seem a bit tired...certainly not making much sense...

...maybe they're a bit panicked by the thought of the draft...)

Gentlemen don't worry. You are both safe there are standards in the US military - not as high as the UK military I know, but you certainly wouldn't get passed the medical. So get some sleep you are safe at home in this clinic..

Too bad you're not a dentist, you could do your own work.

Now, back to the topic at hand: Saddam was a terrorist. All of your psychotic ramblings and dental redirections won't change that fact.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by scrounger11

(Nurse, these two patients both seem a bit tired...certainly not making much sense...

...maybe they're a bit panicked by the thought of the draft...)

Gentlemen don't worry. You are both safe there are standards in the US military - not as high as the UK military I know, but you certainly wouldn't get passed the medical. So get some sleep you are safe at home in this clinic..

I got one word for you, buddy: PUNCTUATION!

From www.mod.uk

"Our Mission: The Ministry of Defence and Armed Forces are responsible for defending the United Kingdom and promoting international peace and security."

Can you say miserable failure?

[On Fire]

And don't forget this little gem....

[aikido7]

Dere wunce wuzza poster on fire
who typified christendom's ire
he's cornfused wid de facts
so he person'lly attacks
and demonstrates he izza liar.







Hey! On Fire is just JOKING! It doesn't mean that HE'S mean. Can't you take a little joke?

[BillyBob]

There once was a poster named 'commie'
He talked as if he was a zombie
He muddled his syntax
Was cryptic to the Max
Then we found out he lives with his Mommy

[aikido7]

My mommie loves me so well
As if anyone else could tell
And I love George Bush
When shove comes to push
The commies will all go to hell

[Knight]

There was a TOL'er named aikido7
Who played the role of TOL's leaven
He mocked God online
He was such a swine
But we wont have to smell him in heaven

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :aikido:7

My mommie loves me so well
As if anyone else could tell
And I love George Bush
When shove comes to push
The commies will all go to hell

There once was a man named Oedipus Rex,
Who had a very odd complex...

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

If you hate terrorism, why are you supporting terrorists? Why do you say I am supporting terrorists?

Just because I believe that simply killing as many terrorists as we can will not in itself defeat terrorism? Is this why you think I'm supporting terrorists?

Just because I think Bush's policies against terrorism have failed, and have increased anti-American hatred and recruitment of new terrorists? Is this why you think I'm supporting terrorists?

I would like to see the end of terrorism as much as anyone! This is precisely why I think Bush and his policies is harming the cause of reducing terrorism! Simply killing terrorists may win some battles, but it will not stop terrorism. To think that one can kill all terrorists is like thinking one can eliminate all criminals - as if there were as finite amount of them, and once this finite amount is eliminated, all criminals will be gone forever.

There will always be terrorists. Just like there will always be criminals. The key is to create the circumstances that decrease the likelihood of new criminal behavior or new terrorist recruitment.

The terrorists are losing and you don't like that. Gee. Unfortunately, the terrorists are winning, thanks to Bush's failed policies.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Ah, the truth finally comes out. You don't have a problem with terrorism. I do have a problem with terrorism. But I also have a problem with Bush's failed policies against terrorism.

If you think Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq because he thought Saddam was a terrorist threat to America, you're wrong. Bush may have said as much publicly, but as you know and won't admit, this is a lie. Saddam was not a threat and Bush knew it. The Pentagon and CIA also knew he was not a threat, despite their claims to the contrary. If they had known Saddam was a real threat, they would have provided clear hard empirical evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat. Invading Iraq because they might someday develop the capability to pose a threat is not only morally wrong, but downright foolish. Have you read the news from Iraq lately?

Saddam perpetrated many acts of terrorism, not just one. And he would still be doing so if Bush had not removed him from power. What ever Saddam was doing in the recent years leading up to Bush's bloody invasion DID NOT warrant the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children that has resulted from that immoral invasion. There were other more sensible and ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.

[Delmar]

Originally posted by Skeptic

I do have a problem with terrorism. But I also have a problem with Bush's failed policies against terrorism.

His policies against terrorism will not fail unless commies like you have too much influence.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by deardelmar

His policies against terrorism will not fail unless commies like you have too much influence. Bush's policies HAVE failed and are DOOMED to failure! :down:

[aikido7]

His policies against terrorism will not fail unless commies like you have too much influence.

Is there anyone left who does not see that our pre-war planning was non-existent, that our troop levels were and are way less than what we actually need, that the administration has finally been discovered to have not supported our fighting forces near what they could have?

There is failure, but since all praise and glory go to the president, it will not be acknowledged, recognized or addressed.

Slam dunk? Right.

Freedom on the march? If you say so, deardelmar!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by aikido7

Is there anyone left who does not see that our pre-war planning was non-existent, ... The #1 failure was invading Iraq, slaughtering thousands of innocent men, women and children in the process, without first having any clear hard evidence that Iraq posed a real, significant and imminent threat! Hearsay, suspicions, lies, exaggerations and distortions were not sufficient justification.

It is immoral to slaughter thousands of innocent people as a means to prevent a possible future threat! THIS is what most people have failed to see!!

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Have you read the news from Iraq lately?



Yes I have! They will soon be holding a public election. They have more electricity available to them than when Saddam was in power. They have economic opportunities that they never before had. They are building their own police force and military with the assistance and training of the US. They are killing terrorists and will soon bring Saddam to trial. There are no more Saddam Rape rooms, torture chambers or mass graves.

Yep, things are looking good for the Iraqi's, no thanks to you or your demo-commie comrades.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yes I have! They will soon be holding a public election. The farce they are calling "elections" are not worth the lives of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children! Rather than invading and occupying Iraq, it would have been better to assist the Iraqi people with eventually overthrowing Saddam and establishing their own government (democratic or not), than forcing elections at gun point, after slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent people.

They have more electricity available to them than when Saddam was in power. Killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children to achieve this was unnecessary and immoral.

They have economic opportunities that they never before had. Killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children to achieve this was unnecessary and immoral.

They are building their own police force and military with the assistance and training of the US. Killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children to achieve this was unnecessary and immoral.

They are killing terrorists and will soon bring Saddam to trial. Killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children to achieve this was unnecessary and immoral. There were better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam. The U.S. is NOT winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

There are no more Saddam Rape rooms, torture chambers or mass graves. Most of that stuff happened years ago. Killing tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children to achieve this was unnecessary and immoral. There were better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.

Yep, things are looking good for the Iraqi's, no thanks to you or your demo-commie comrades. Things are not as good as you think. And remember, the ends DO NOT justify the means. Iraq could become the most peace-loving and democratic country the world has ever known, yet this STILL would not justify Bush's unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children! There were better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.

[BillyBob]

If our Founding Fathers thought like you, we would currently be paying taxes to a Queen.

[drbrumley]

Originally posted by BillyBob

If our Founding Fathers thought like you, we would currently be paying taxes to a Queen.

Funny you mention the Founding Fathers.

It was the Founding Fathers intention not to do the crap we do now. Case closed.

But since that post was directed toward Skeptic, I would like to ask you Skeptic, who do you think you are preaching to about morality? In war Skeptic, however tragic, civilians will get killed. While I disagree on the way the war in Iraq was brought upon us, Saddam indeed needed to be disposed. And was. But to listen to you talk about the immorality of it, it's pretty pathetic. You fight about the injustices of Iraq and support the murder of hundred's of babies in the womb. Don't preach about morality when you have none to speak of.

[BillyBob]

Doc, Skeptic's complaint has nothing to do with morality, he simply hates George Bush and is politicizing the war on Terror for his own personal means.

If he really had a problem with Iraqi's being murdered, he would have demanded Saddam's removal a long time ago.

[aikido7]

You fight about the injustices of Iraq and support the murder of hundred's of babies in the womb.

Thank God! At first I thought you said Skeptic fights about the murders of hundreds in Iraq and supports the injustices of abortion!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

If our Founding Fathers thought like you, we would currently be paying taxes to a Queen. If our Founding Father's had been given the choice to invade a country that was not an imminent threat to America, knowing that such an invasion would kill thousands of innocent men, women and children, they would have chosen not to invade.

Bush's invasion of Iraq has done NOTHING to increase the security of the U.S. It has done just the opposite!

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by drbrumley

I would like to ask you Skeptic, who do you think you are preaching to about morality? One who has moral values. But not necessarily yours.

In war Skeptic, however tragic, civilians will get killed. In unjust wars of choice, everyone gets killed unnecessarily and unjustly.

While I disagree on the way the war in Iraq was brought upon us, Saddam indeed needed to be disposed. And was. My moral standards tell me that the ends do not justify the means. There were better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.

But to listen to you talk about the immorality of it, it's pretty pathetic. You fight about the injustices of Iraq and support the murder of hundred's of babies in the womb. Don't preach about morality when you have none to speak of. Like I said, my morality is not necessarily yours. Abortion is not murder.

I am MUCH more concerned about the consequences of having a government that is willing to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, in the ABSENCE of any hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, than I am about having a government that is willing to let a woman choose to abort her fetus.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Doc, Skeptic's complaint has nothing to do with morality, he simply hates George Bush and is politicizing the war on Terror for his own personal means. If George Bush was a moral person, he would not have politicized the fight against terrorism by declaring a "war on terrorism," then using this "war" as an excuse to declare that he is a "war-time President" or that America needs to pre-emptively invade other countries suspected of terrorism, even thought there is no clear hard evidence that they pose a real, significant and imminent threat. Pre-emptive preventive "wars" in the absence of an imminent threat are immoral!

If he really had a problem with Iraqi's being murdered, he would have demanded Saddam's removal a long time ago. Since the late 1980s, I have always been in favor of the removal of Saddam from power. But NOT at the unnecessary expense of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, and increased anti-American hatred and increased terrorist recruitment. Since 1991, Saddam had been boxed in by military forces, closely monitored 24/7 by the international community, and was not a threat to America. We had plenty of time to deal with Saddam in better and more ethical ways. There was NO urgent need to rush into Iraq, in March 2003, and slaughter tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in order to depose Saddam!

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Skeptic

One who has moral values. But not necessarily yours.
Then your "moral values" are meaningless to anyone but you.

In unjust wars of choice, everyone gets killed unnecessarily and unjustly.
"Unjust wars of choice" is your spin. It means nothing more than what you wish it to mean.

My moral standards tell me that the ends do not justify the means. There were better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam.
Your moral standards are irrelevant. Your judgments are flawed and simplistic.

Like I said, my morality is not necessarily yours. Abortion is not murder.
Then murder is ok with you as long as the appropriate people are being murdered. Thanks for clearing that up, Commie.

I am MUCH more concerned about the consequences of having a government that is willing to slaughter tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, in the ABSENCE of any hard evidence of a real, significant and imminent threat, than I am about having a government that is willing to let a woman choose to abort her fetus.
There can be no consequences since other people have different moral standards than you.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Then your "moral values" are meaningless to anyone but you. Millions of people share my moral values.

"Unjust wars of choice" is your spin. It means nothing more than what you wish it to mean. It means that Bush did not have to invade Iraq, in March 2003, to protect America from a real, significant and imminent threat. Therefore, Bush's bloody invasion was by choice, not necessity. Hence, his "war" was unjust.

Your moral standards are irrelevant. Your judgments are flawed and simplistic. What makes your moral standards more relevant than mine? Because they derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions?

I think your judgments are flawed and simplistic. There are millions of people who agree with me.

Then murder is ok with you as long as the appropriate people are being murdered. Thanks for clearing that up, Commie. Fetuses are not people. Fascist.

There can be no consequences since other people have different moral standards than you. Millions of people share my moral standards.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :skeptic:

Millions of people share my moral values.
Millions more do not. :shocked:

It means that Bush did not have to invade Iraq, in March 2003, to protect America from a real, significant and imminent threat. Therefore, Bush's bloody invasion was by choice, not necessity. Hence, his "war" was unjust.
Only by your moral standards which many millions do not share. :nono:

What makes your moral standards more relevant than mine? Because they derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions?
As good a reason as any. :bannana:

I think your judgments are flawed and simplistic. There are millions of people who agree with me.
And many more millions who do not. :chuckle:

Fetuses are not people. Fascist.
That is a legal distinction, not a moral one. Commie. :crackup:

Millions of people share my moral standards.
Many more millions do not. :sigh:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

If George Bush was a moral person, he would not have politicized the fight against terrorism by declaring a "war on terrorism," then using this "war" as an excuse to declare that he is a "war-time President"

Uh, he IS a war time President. :doh:

See what I mean, Doc. This isn't about terrorism for Skeptic, it's all about his hatred of George Bush.

or that America needs to pre-emptively invade other countries suspected of terrorism,

'Suspected'? Pull your head out of your asss and stop being such a partisan hack.


Since the late 1980s, I have always been in favor of the removal of Saddam from power.

Then you should be happy.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Bush's invasion of Iraq has done NOTHING to increase the security of the U.S. It has done just the opposite! Since 9/11/01 there has been ZERO attacks on American soil. I'd call that a winning record.

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Skeptic
It means that Bush did not have to invade Iraq, in March 2003, to protect America from a real, significant and imminent threat.

So you're a prophet, too?! You should consider another vocation.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by On Fire

So you're a prophet, too?! You should consider another vocation.

:darwinsm: :skeptic: is a graduate of the University of Hindsight. Degree granted 10 September 2001. :dizzy:

[Dave Miller]

Saddam was surrounded by enemies,the same enemies that are
killing us now. He maintained order by ruling with an iron fist,
including terrorizing his own people, WMDing Iran, and maintaining
a threat of further WMD development. The same was true of the
Shah of Iran 40 years ago.

Saddam was a paranoid ruler for a good reason. And now we're in
the same place he was, but we're unable to maintain the same
level of order he did, because we're not as brutal.

For civilization to work, people have to desire civilization enough to
act civilized. People cannot be forced to act with civility. And that's
why going into Iraq with the military was a huge, huge mistake.

[Flipper]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Yes I have! They will soon be holding a public election. They have more electricity available to them than when Saddam was in power. They have economic opportunities that they never before had. They are building their own police force and military with the assistance and training of the US. They are killing terrorists and will soon bring Saddam to trial. There are no more Saddam Rape rooms, torture chambers or mass graves.

Yep, things are looking good for the Iraqi's, no thanks to you or your demo-commie comrades.

Not according to Iraqi blogger Riverbend. She is quite the leftist, but her account is corroborated by either Iraqi bloggers. I like to read the Iraqi blogs each week because I think you can get a fairly good feeling for what things are really like from a day-to-day perspective in Baghdad.

Seems like, as of December 12, she doesn't agree with your rosey assessment of the fuel/electricity situation.


The situation seems to be deteriorating daily. To brief you on a few things: Electricity is lousy. Many areas are on the damned 2 hours by 4 hours schedule and there are other areas that are completely in the dark- like A'adhamiya. The problem is that we're not getting much generator electricity because fuel has become such a big problem. People have to wait in line overnight now to fill up the car. It's a mystery. It really is. There was never such a gasoline crisis as the one we're facing now. We're an oil country and yet there isn't enough gasoline to go around...

Oh don't get me wrong- the governmental people have gasoline (they have special gas stations where there aren't all these annoying people, rubbing their hands with cold and cursing the Americans to the skies)... The Americans have gasoline. The militias get gasoline. It's the people who don't have it. We can sometimes get black-market gasoline but the liter costs around 1250 Iraqi Dinars which is almost $1- compare this to the old price of around 5 cents. It costs almost 50,000 Iraqi Dinars to fill up the generator so that it works for a few hours and then the cost isn't so much the problem as just getting decent gasoline is. So we have to do without electricity most of the day.


Here's a fragment of her NYE blog:

New Year and Elections...
We spent New Year at home (like last year). It was a very small family gathering and E. and I tried to make it as festive as possible, under the circumstances. We agreed, amongst ourselves in the area, to have the generator turned on from 10 pm until 2 am so we could ride out 2004 on a wave of electricity....


...American politicians seem to be very confident that Iraq is going to come out of these elections with a secular government. How is that going to happen when many Shia Iraqis are being driven to vote with various fatwas from Sistani and gang? Sistani and some others of Iranian inclination came out with fatwas claiming that non-voters will burn in the hottest fires of the underworld for an eternity if they don't vote (I'm wondering- was this a fatwa borrowed from right-wing Bushies during the American elections?). So someone fuelled with a scorching fatwa like that one- how will they vote? Secular? Yeah, right.


http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

So what will happen if the election is handed on a plate to pro-Iranian forces? Will the US forgo democracy and help the interim government fudge the results? What do you think that will do to terrorist acts?

[On Fire]

Originally posted by Flipper

Here's a fragment of her NYE blog:

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Fake.

[drbrumley]

Whats so fake about?

[BillyBob]

I posted an report recently which clearly showed that Iraq has more electricity at its disposal than any time during Saddam's reign.

I choose to trust the report over some left-wing, Bush-hating blogger.


As for the supposed fuel shortage, the only people to blame are the terrorists who keep bombing the oil pipelines. Obviously the Americans have fuel, we ship it in. Haliburton has a contract to keep our troops supplied with fuel, no mystery there.

[BillyBob]

Here (http://www.iraqprocurement.com/docs/new459.htm) is an interesting article. Not only does it show that Iraq has more electricity than ever, but it also describes a growing economy.


Two more electricity generators that had fallen into disrepair under Iraq's former regime returned to service on Saturday, producing enough electricity to fuel 72,000 Iraqi homes. Engineers from both Iraq and the US brought the generators - seven megawatts in the south and 17 megawatts north of the city - online.

“This is a very important step in overcoming the power shortage across the country,” said Raad Shalal, a senior official at the Ministry of Electricity official. “This will help us reach our goal of increasing power for Baghdad and the country.”


Electricity production in the country averages approximately 5,000 megawatts, a total that services an estimated 15 million Iraqi homes and exceeds the pre-war level of 4,400 Megawatts.

“We continue to work in partnership with the Ministry of Electricity and the Iraqi people to bring the country more electricity,” said Major Erik Stor, operations officer for the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Restore Iraqi Electricity Directorate. “We know how important electricity is to the safety and security of the Iraqi people, and we continue to work on their behalf with the ministry to bring the country additional electricity.”

Since regime change in the country, much of the news in Baghdad has focused on the availability of less power in the capital city, though Stor claims that this is misleading.


Enough electricity is being produced to fuel 72,000 Iraqi homes

“It is important to remember that Baghdad was one of few cities across this nation that had electrical service prior to regime change,” he said. “Within months of freeing the Iraqi people from the Saddam rule, power was redistributed to help build a fair and equitable national power system for Iraq and its future.”

Despite the addition of power to the country’s national grid, the demand for electricity in Iraq continues to grow, according to a fact sheet published by the Ministry of Electricity. “With more than half a million new jobs created, new industries and new factories, Iraq has experienced a rapid increase in electricity demand,” the sheet reads. “The increase in demand is a good sign of a thriving economy emerging from three decades of isolation.”

Since beginning its work in the country nearly a year ago, an additional 1,621 megawatts have been added to Iraq's national grid, enough to service 4.8 million Iraqi homes.

[BillyBob]

Saddam’s Legacy (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/ES/electric.html#)

A reliable supply of electricity is essential to every functioning modern economy. The Saddam regime neglected all components of the electrical system -- the generation, transmission, and distribution sub-sectors. Post-war looting and sabotage have severely degraded the electrical infrastructure, including the destruction of transmission lines, towers, and many substations. Decades of operation without regular maintenance and fuel shortages, however, have also severely hampered dependable production. As a result, the country now produces less than 4,000 megawatts daily, with blackouts, unplanned outages and other failures occurring on a frequent basis. The system is also inadequate to meet Iraq’s growing demands and lacks acceptable measures of reliability.

[BillyBob]

# By October, 2003, rehabilitated electric power capacity to produce peak capacity greater than the pre-war level of 4,400 MW. Hit 5,365 MW on August 18, 2004.

# Since achieving record power production in Summer '04, the Ministry of Electricity-with assistance from USAID-has begun the standard Fall maintenance process which will necessarily reduce the amount of power available for consumption. USAID worked with the MOE to conduct last Fall's maintenance program.

# Repairing thermal units, replacing turbines, rehabilitating the power distribution network, and installing and restoring generators.

# USAID has added 435 MW of capacity through maintenance and rehabilitation work, and also repaired a 400 KV transmission line.

# USAID and the Ministry of Electricity are working with partners to add a total of more than 1,281 MW to the national grid by December 2005 through maintenance, rehabilitation, and new generation projects.

# USAID completed a project to convert two units that produce 80 MW each to operate on crude/heavy fuel oil instead of diesel which is imported and in short supply.

# Most recently, USAID has initiated a project to rehabilitate 13 existing substations and construct 24 new substations in Baghdad. These 37 substations will improve the distribution and reliability of electricity for more than two million Baghdad residents.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by Dave Miller

Saddam was surrounded by enemies,the same enemies that are
killing us now. He maintained order by ruling with an iron fist,
including terrorizing his own people, WMDing Iran, and maintaining
a threat of further WMD development. The same was true of the
Shah of Iran 40 years ago.
The part about Saddam is true, the part about the Shah is not.

Saddam was a paranoid ruler for a good reason. And now we're in
the same place he was, but we're unable to maintain the same
level of order he did, because we're not as brutal.
Outline a good reason for being a paranoid ruler who uses brutality to maintain order.

For civilization to work, people have to desire civilization enough to
act civilized. People cannot be forced to act with civility. And that's
why going into Iraq with the military was a huge, huge mistake.
:cow:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

Millions more do not. You said my moral values are meaningless to anyone but me. If millions of people share my moral values, then such values are meaningful to them as well.

Only by your moral standards which many millions do not share. I said that Bush did not have to invade Iraq, in March 2003, to protect America from a real, significant and imminent threat. Therefore, Bush's bloody invasion was by choice, not necessity. Hence, his "war" was unjust.

If you think it was necessary that Bush invade Iraq in March 2003, then please tell me why it was necessary then and not later. Was there clear hard pre-war evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat? If not, what was the urgency to invade Iraq in March 2003?

Why was it morally necessary to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, in March 2003?

As good a reason as any. I asked you: what made your moral standards more relevant than mine? Because they derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions?

Are you serious? Do you really believe that, because your moral values derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions, this is "as good a reason as any"? If so, then you have not justified why anyone should follow your moral values any more than mine!

And many more millions who do not. You said my judgments were flawed and simplistic. I said I think your judgments were flawed and simplistic, and that there were millions of people who agreed with me.

You have not shown why you think my moral judgments are flawed and simplistic. Whereas, I have claimed that your judgments are flawed and simplistic because they are merely based on dogmatic fairy tales and superstitions.

That is a legal distinction, not a moral one. I said fetuses were not people. If you think fetuses are people, is your opinion a moral one? If yours is a moral opinion, why isn't my opinion a moral one?

I believe a fetus is a part of a woman's body until it exits her body. I believe that a woman has a moral (in addition to legal) right to chose what to do with her body. The legal status of a woman's right to chose is based on the moral values of our society. Otherwise, it is unlikely we would have such a law.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Uh, he IS a war time President. Because Bush has gotten the U.S. into an immoral war of choice in Iraq, and a misguided pseudo global "war on terrorism," I do not consider Bush a "war-time President."

See what I mean, Doc. This isn't about terrorism for Skeptic, it's all about his hatred of George Bush. It's about Bush's failed, immoral and stupid policies.

'Suspected'? Pull your head out of your asss and stop being such a partisan hack. One does not morally invaded a country merely because they are suspected of terrorist connections or activities (as is the case with the alleged Saddam/al-Qaeda connection), or merely because there is evidence of support of internal terrorist activity. Not ALL countries that support ANY kind of terrorism should be invaded by the U.S. military.

There are other factors to consider than JUST the catch-all notion of "terrorism." If there is STRONG support for al-Qaeda, that's one thing. However, if there is questionable or minuscule support for al-Qaeda or other terrorist organizations, I don't think a massive full-force bloody military invasion and occupation of a country is warranted. Does this mean that nothing should be done? Of course not! I realize it may be a surprise to you, but there ARE other actions the U.S. can take to deal with counties that may pose a potential future threat, but are not a serious and imminent threat, than massive military invasions and occupations. Invasions and occupations CAN be counterproductive, you know.
:sozo: Take Iraq, for example!!

The U.S. State Dept says that Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria continue as sponsors of terrorism. Yet, I don't see a push by Bush and his cronies to invade them. I wonder why? Is it because they don't possess WMD? No. Three of those countries probably have more WMD than Iraq has had in recent years. Bush and his neocon buddies knew this. Is it because they don't possess a potential future threat to America? No. Is one reason because they pose a larger threat than Iraq did? Probably. Is it also because they do not have as much oil as Iraq did? That could be part of it. Is it because Iraq was more "DOable" than these other countries? Probably. Hell, since 1991, we destroyed much of Iraq's military infrastructure and came to know very well their capabilities and weaknesses - they were only boxed in and monitored 24/7 by U.S. and international forces. After all of THAT, of course they were more "DOable"! Is it because Bush and his cronies thought that invading Iraq was more likely to give them some political, economic and strategic advantage? Probably.

Then you should be happy. Even though I have long felt that Saddam had to go, I would have preferred that other options had been explored that would have spared tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, even if it meant that Saddam had to remain in power for a few more years. There was no hard evidence that Saddam posed a WMD threat. There was no hard evidence that Saddam had any meaningful or operational connections with al-Qaeda. There was no hard evidence that he was committing massive atrocities anything on par with what he did in the late 1980s - under the watchful and oblivious eyes of daddy Bush. Therefore, there was NO URGENCY to rush into Iraq, in March 2003, with the full force of the U.S. military and kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in order to remove Saddam from power. There were better and more ethical ways to deal with Saddam.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I do not consider Bush a "war-time President."


I know, you also do not consider Saddam a terrorist. You are wrong on both counts.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

I know, you also do not consider Saddam a terrorist. You are wrong on both counts. Believe what you will. Both are trivial points. What about the other non-trivial points I made in the post?

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Believe what you will. Both are trivial points.

You admit that you trivialize terrorism?

:doh:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

You admit that you trivialize terrorism? I don't trivialize terrorism. You distort and exaggerate the threat Iraq posed, and oversimplify the solution to terrorism. And, judging from your replies, you tend to skim over the important points, if you read them at all.

Someday, you and most right-wingers will see that Bush's invasion of Iraq was a big mistake! Currently, you defend Bush's unnecessary bloody invasion like creationists defend their God-poofed theories. You are big on ideology and speculation, but short on empirical evidence.

If you think that all groups and individuals who fit your definition of "terrorist" should be treated the same way, why hasn't Bush invaded Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Syria and other countries where terrorists live and do their dirty work? You can't really think that Iraq posed a greater threat to America than Iran or North Korea, do you?

Is it possible that Bush invaded oil-rich Iraq because we made sure, after 1991, that Saddam was NOT a threat? Bush and his buddies knew Iraq was easy for the taking. What they did not count on was the resistance of Iraqi citizens to U.S. occupation! Bush and company were high on ideology and confidence, and low on empirical evidence and the cultural reality of Iraq.

[BillyBob]

Saddam was a terrorist, what more is there to discuss?

[On Fire]

Sadam was a terrorist but he no longer terrorizes. He's been whipped.

The law abiding citizens of Iraq will eventually take care of the remaining terrorists in Iraq.

[On Fire]

1,212 days since the last terrorist attack on the U.S.

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

You said my moral values are meaningless to anyone but me. If millions of people share my moral values, then such values are meaningful to them as well.
All you're saying here is that millions of people share your meaningless values. :doh:

I said that Bush did not have to invade Iraq, in March 2003, to protect America from a real, significant and imminent threat. Therefore, Bush's bloody invasion was by choice, not necessity. Hence, his "war" was unjust.
It does not logically follow. You say the war is "unjust" because you say so. :rolleyes:

If you think it was necessary that Bush invade Iraq in March 2003, then please tell me why it was necessary then and not later. Was there clear hard pre-war evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat? If not, what was the urgency to invade Iraq in March 2003?
It was necessary because George Bush made the decision that it was necessary. Yes, there was clear, hard pre-war evidence. The sanctions imposed on Iraq were about to be lifted and Saddam was going to re-start his war machine.

Why was it morally necessary to kill tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children, in March 2003?
Stupid question as the conditions for the question are a lie. :loser:

I asked you: what made your moral standards more relevant than mine? Because they derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions?
Following YOUR specious reasoning, my moral standards are more relevant than yours because I am more relevant than YOU.

Are you serious? Do you really believe that, because your moral values derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions, this is "as good a reason as any"? If so, then you have not justified why anyone should follow your moral values any more than mine!
I don't have to justify it to you. I need merely impose it. I believe that is the commie/atheist preferred method. :nananana:

You said my judgments were flawed and simplistic. I said I think your judgments were flawed and simplistic, and that there were millions of people who agreed with me.
So millions of people have flawed and simplistic judgments just like you. :chuckle:

You have not shown why you think my moral judgments are flawed and simplistic. Whereas, I have claimed that your judgments are flawed and simplistic because they are merely based on dogmatic fairy tales and superstitions.
Yes, I have. YOUR response is simply a broken-record screed of communism and atheism. :drum:

I said fetuses were not people. If you think fetuses are people, is your opinion a moral one? If yours is a moral opinion, why isn't my opinion a moral one?
My opinion is a moral and logical one. Your opinion is specious and legalistic based on nothing more than YOUR personal belief that it be so. :cloud9:

I believe a fetus is a part of a woman's body until it exits her body. I believe that a woman has a moral (in addition to legal) right to chose what to do with her body. The legal status of a woman's right to chose is based on the moral values of our society. Otherwise, it is unlikely we would have such a law.
:cow: Your "belief" is irrelevant. :kookoo: This so-called "right" you are carping about is based on nothing more than Harry Blackmun's fantasy about insinuating a privacy principle where it doesn't exist. Obviously you have never read Roe v Wade. :readthis:

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

Saddam was a terrorist, what more is there to discuss? Much more. Saddam's actions and threats were minuscule compared with those of al-Qaeda - definitely not significant enough to warrant the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003.

Your method of using the word "terrorist" as an excuse to take deadly extreme and foolish measures against those who do not pose a significant and imminent threat is immoral. Bush's so-called "war on terrorism" is a misguided ploy to give Bush and his neocon Pentagon buddies free reign to use the military as he pleases. The goal of fighting terrorism is necessary. Wars are fought against countries, not types of criminal activities.

Feel free to use the word "terrorist" any way you like. But not all "terrorists" need to be taken out at the expense of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by Frank Ernest

All you're saying here is that millions of people share your meaningless values. What makes your values meaningful, and mine not? Let me guess... Does it have something to do with a book of fairy tales and superstitions? :chuckle:

It does not logically follow. You say the war is "unjust" because you say so. When is a war unjust to you, Frankie?

It was necessary because George Bush made the decision that it was necessary. Would you have given Bill Clinton the same level of trust to make the right decision to invade a country, given the absence of hard evidence of a threat?

Yes, there was clear, hard pre-war evidence. The sanctions imposed on Iraq were about to be lifted and Saddam was going to re-start his war machine. Pure unfounded speculation - NOT something upon which one bases the killing of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Again, what clear hard pre-war evidence was there that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat. Without such evidence of a threat, the U.S. becomes no better than our previous enemies who attacked other nations based on hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations.

Stupid question as the conditions for the question are a lie. If you think Bush's invasion of Iraq was morally necessary, then you must think that the resulting deaths of innocent Iraqi people was morally necessary. Why was it so urgent that Bush invade Iraq in March 2003? Was there no time to explore better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam?

Following YOUR specious reasoning, my moral standards are more relevant than yours because I am more relevant than YOU. What makes my reasoning specious? Why are you more relevant than me?

I don't have to justify it to you. I need merely impose it. I believe that is the commie/atheist preferred method. You don't have to justify it to me. But, if you really believe that, because your moral values derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions, this is "as good a reason as any," then you should offer a rational explanation for why anyone should follow your moral values any more than mine! Why should anyone believe the book of fairy tales and superstitions in which you put your faith?

I don't impose my moral beliefs on anyone. I can only try to persuade others to consider them. Christian fundies, on the other hand ....

So millions of people have flawed and simplistic judgments just like you. What makes their judgments flawed and simplistic, and yours not?

My opinion is a moral and logical one. Your opinion is specious and legalistic based on nothing more than YOUR personal belief that it be so. Your belief in the Bible and your particular interpretation of it is YOUR personal belief.

Your "belief" is irrelevant. Why is YOUR belief relevant?

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::skeptic:

What makes your values meaningful, and mine not? Let me guess... Does it have something to do with a book of fairy tales and superstitions? :chuckle:
No, I don't subscribe to evoillusion or apetheism. :crackup:

When is a war unjust to you, Frankie?
When it's perpetrated by liberals for political gain. :shocked:

Would you have given Bill Clinton the same level of trust to make the right decision to invade a country, given the absence of hard evidence of a threat?
I wouldn't trust Bill Clinton to change the toilet paper in my bathroom. :doh:

Pure unfounded speculation - NOT something upon which one bases the killing of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
:cow: Incessant broken-record screed . :drum:

Again, what clear hard pre-war evidence was there that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat. Without such evidence of a threat, the U.S. becomes no better than our previous enemies who attacked other nations based on hearsay, suspicions, lies, distortions and exaggerations.
More political meaningless :cow: propaganda. :drum:

If you think Bush's invasion of Iraq was morally necessary, then you must think that the resulting deaths of innocent Iraqi people was morally necessary. Why was it so urgent that Bush invade Iraq in March 2003? Was there no time to explore better and more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam?
Who are you to tell me what I must think? Since you are irrational and have "moral" standards motivated by political propaganda, there is no need to respond to your broken-record screed.

What makes my reasoning specious? Why are you more relevant than me?
Reality makes that so.

You don't have to justify it to me. But, if you really believe that, because your moral values derive from a book of fairy tales and superstitions, this is "as good a reason as any," then you should offer a rational explanation for why anyone should follow your moral values any more than mine! Why should anyone believe the book of fairy tales and superstitions in which you put your faith?
Sorry. :cry: Your question fails as it is loaded with irrational characterizations. No answer required.

I don't impose my moral beliefs on anyone. I can only try to persuade others to consider them.
:cow: Your whole broken-record screed is an attempt to impose your so-called moral beliefs on others. :drum:

Christian fundies, on the other hand ....
:yawn:

What makes their judgments flawed and simplistic, and yours not?
Reality, reason and logic.

Your belief in the Bible and your particular interpretation of it is YOUR personal belief.
Sorry. Your bleating attempt at isolation fails due to lack of a rational basis. :nono:

Why is YOUR belief relevant?
It conforms to reality, reason and logic. :nananana:

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Much more. Saddam's actions and threats were minuscule compared with those of al-Qaeda -

That's insane! Saddam possesed much more resources than Al Queda could ever have hoped to. Interestingly, he had ties to Al Queda, as well as other terrorists groups.

definitely not significant enough to warrant the slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in March 2003.

You seem to think that nuclear capabilities in the hands of a terrorist is not worth stopping.


Your method of using the word "terrorist" as an excuse to take deadly extreme and foolish measures against those who do not pose a significant and imminent threat is immoral. Bush's so-called "war on terrorism" is a misguided ploy to give Bush and his neocon Pentagon buddies free reign to use the military as he pleases. The goal of fighting terrorism is necessary.

And now we come to the REAL reason you don't support this war, it's your hatred of George Bush. You don't give a crap about fighting terrorism.


Wars are fought against countries, not types of criminal activities.

They are now!!! If we did things your way, the terrorists would have free reign and we would do nothing to stop them. If you wanna lay down your arms and be a wimp and allow them to kill you, be my guest. The rest of us will take of them, you just sit this one out.



Feel free to use the word "terrorist" any way you like. But not all "terrorists" need to be taken out at the expense of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children.

Says the person who would get us all killed.

[BillyBob]

Iraq-al-Qaida link revealed
Saddam part of 'money-laundering operation' for Islamic terror group
Posted: September 30, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Scott L