America is teh loser terrorist

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:25 am

Well I hope you of the liberal persuasion are proud of what your democratic front men are saying. What with Dean now saying that we cannot win the Iraqi war and eventually we'll have 60,000 dead troops along with the new JFK echoing his Genghis Kahn view that american troops are busting down Iraqi doors, raping the women folk and playing boogie man to the kids, I'm still not sure why someone like Dean is allowed to run the a$$ party.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 8:29 am

Do you disagree? Every single day, more and more service men die, yet, the insurgent numbers stay the same or get better. If Bush will not leave until decisive victory has been acheived, it may take longer but the numbers may prove to be similiar. Do you think that every Iraqi that says Americans are busting down doors are liars? Didn't you also believe that the torture at Abu Ghraib was merely "college pranks?"

Stryker · Post by **Stryker** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 9:37 am

Have you asked the insurgents for a headcount recently, zuruck?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:21 am

Howard Dean is the straw that will break that donkeys back...so leave him alone!
Now, lets find the republican counterpart and encourage him too!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 10:41 am

Do I need to Stryker? You're the one the believes the earth is 6000 years old and you're questioning me?

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:39 am

I think it was wrong to start the Iraq war. I think it was not only wrong, it was stupid. We were actually gaining support in the Moslem world before we made that idiotic decision. Attacking Afghanistan was something the Moslem world didn't like, but (reluctantly) conceded was just. Moslem nations were becoming less of a welcoming ground for the terrorists. We were WINNING!

Then we stomped into Iraq and simply fulfilled all of their beliefs that we hated Moslems in general and wanted to restart the crusades. And, by the admission of our own administration, we are now at more risk from terrorist then we were before we invaded Iraq. We gave them a new training ground, and we are busy training the terrorist in live operations against our own troops. Stupid just doesn't BEGIN to cover this war.

That said, walking out on it right now is even MORE dangerous. One of the reasons Osama Bin Laden believed that he could attack us and we would back down was because of Bill Clintons stupidity in Somalia. They killed some soldiers, which was horrible, but instead of making them pay for that, we RAN. So Osama thought that once they had hurt us (In the inevitable war in Afghanistan), we wouldn't have the stomach to go any further and would run away.

I HATE this war. I think it was wrong and stupid to start this war. But to back out now will convince the bad guys that if they can just pile up enough bodies, the Americans will back down. And they will use that technique over and over in more and more places. As much as I hate it, we simply MUST stay until we have achieved some standard of victory. It will cost a lot of lives now, I'm certain, but not as many as we will lose in the future if we set a policy of letting them win if they can kill enough people.

Think of it like building up a huge credit card debt. It was stupid to do, but walking away from it will get you into even MORE trouble. We have to finish paying off George W. Bush's debt, or the interest will kill us.

Kilarin

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:32 pm

That's pretty good Kilarin. You will be refuted though, there are people on here who still believe it was the right thing to do at that TIME, obviously, they have been proven wrong on most accounts, but they will still fight.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 12:35 pm

Kilarin wrote:I think it was wrong to start the Iraq war. I think it was not only wrong, it was stupid. We were actually gaining support in the Moslem world before we made that idiotic decision. Attacking Afghanistan was something the Moslem world didn't like, but (reluctantly) conceded was just. Moslem nations were becoming less of a welcoming ground for the terrorists. We were WINNING!

Then we stomped into Iraq and simply fulfilled all of their beliefs that we hated Moslems in general and wanted to restart the crusades.....

Kilarin

I think you are simplifying things to support your perception. The "Moslem world" is not so monolithic. Take the extreme differences between Turkey and Iran for example! Both countries are muslim yet Turkey has many factions living and working together under a secular government. Iran is run by the epitome of evil religious whacko's!

Who's support did we have before the Iraq invasion and who's did we lose?

Qualify the support you identify with each countries actions instead of their empty rhetoric and tell me what have we really lost and what have we really won.

And in the wider world that includes our western 'allies' how much support did France and Russia show us by taking billions of dollars in Saddams bribe money to circumvent the U.N. resolutions while publically voting for the same resolutions in their capacity as Security Council members? How do you rate the support of those countries when they were sending military equipment into Iraq against the U.N. resolutions? Did we really lose some valuable support by not following their lead or at the least turning a blind eye to a Saddam who was bribing his way free of what little containment we had?

You mention Clintons inept actions as creating weakness...how weak would we be if the biggest terrorist/criminal in the middle east was allowed to prevail by bribing our "allies" and resume his quest to rebuild his WMD's and dominate the region?

I think we have just as many muslim allies today as we did before which was not many, and all muslims now know that bin Laddin was wrong when he called us a paper tiger and in the middle eastern 'muslim world' that means a great deal!
I like the improvement of our status over there and taking Saddam down was a part of establishing that.

dissent · Post by **dissent** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 1:49 pm

Kilarin wrote: Then we stomped into Iraq and simply fulfilled all of their beliefs that we hated Moslems in general and wanted to restart the crusades.

Oh come on, Kilarin. Does anybody seriously think that if we wanted to have a crusade against the Muslims that we would not now be sitting with our boots up on a table in Riyahd, sipping tea and dipping crumpets, and pumping oil out of the ground like a bunch of drunken wildcatters? The folks that want to get people to believe this fantasy have other agendas. The people who believe this fantasy need to bone up on their history, if they think what we are doing in Iraq is a "crusade".

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:38 pm

Zuruck wrote:Do you disagree? Every single day, more and more service men die, yet, the insurgent numbers stay the same or get better. If Bush will not leave until decisive victory has been acheived, it may take longer but the numbers may prove to be similiar. Do you think that every Iraqi that says Americans are busting down doors are liars? Didn't you also believe that the torture at Abu Ghraib was merely "college pranks?"

First off decisive victory was achieved about 3 days into the campaign. What you are looking at is the rebuilding phase of the country. I suggest Zuruck, you look up the same time span after we achieved a "decisive victory" in Germany. See if all went smooth with no allied forces losing there lives.

Oh and compared to Unca Saddie, Abu Ghraib was Disney World. Stop trying to make humiliation of prisoners akin to feeding live human beings into a plastic shredder.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:43 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Who's support did we have before the Iraq invasion and who's did we lose?

Who really protested our invasion of Afganistan? Even Al Jazeera went kinda light on it, and they HATE us. The general feel was that Afghanistan had it coming to them.

Will Robinson wrote:how weak would we be if the biggest terrorist/criminal in the middle east was allowed to prevail by bribing our "allies" and resume his quest to rebuild his WMD's and dominate the region?

Criminal, obviously. But biggest terrorist? Hardly. We have one attack on George Bush Senior that almost certainly came from Iraq. A few donations to the families of suicide bombers. You MIGHT count the scuds shot at Israel during Desert Storm as terrorism, since Israel wasn't exactly involved in the fight.
More Terrorism comes out of our middle eastern allies Pakistan and Saudia Arabia in a week than Iraq was supporting in years. I'm not condoning his actions, Saddam is scum, I'm just saying he was WAY down on the list of major terrorists.

Will Robinson wrote:all muslims now know that bin Laddin was wrong when he called us a paper tiger and in the middle eastern 'muslim world' that means a great deal!
I like the improvement of our status over there and taking Saddam down was a part of establishing that.

They knew that when we took down Afganistan. They learned then that if you attack the U.S., or shelter those who do, we WILL come and get you. Good lesson, important lesson, and one that made sense to them. When we attacked Iraq, they learned that if one Muslim group attacked the U.S., we would then take revenge on other Muslims who had nothing to do with the attack.
Yes, yes, you are going to tell me that that wasn't our motivation. I won't entirely agree with you, BUT, it is a moot point. It doesn't matter what we MEANT, it matters what it looked like to them. Al Queda was in big trouble before the Iraq war. It was getting harder and harder for them to convince other Arab's that their cause was just, that the U.S. was this big Muslim hating monster. Now the terrorist are growing again and it is EASY for Al Queda to convince people that the U.S. has it in for all Muslims. Please note, I am NOT saying we DO, I'm saying they believe it.

dissent wrote:Does anybody seriously think that if we wanted to have a crusade against the Muslims that we would not now be sitting with our boots up on a table in Riyahd, sipping tea and dipping crumpets, and pumping oil out of the ground like a bunch of drunken wildcatters? The folks that want to get people to believe this fantasy have other agendas.

Yes they most certainly do have agendas. They are radical Islamic Fundamentalist and their agenda is to unite the Muslim world against all others. And they DO believe that the U.S is on a "crusade" against Muslims. *I* don't believe that, THEY do. By attacking Iraq we fed the beast.

The sad thing here, is that no one in the middle east, with the possible exception of Syria, liked Saddam. They would have really been happy to have seen him go. They just weren't happy with the REASONS we did it. I can't blame them. Especially when we had a perfectly GOOD excuse sitting right in front of our noses. Nearly every week Saddam's forces would fire on U.S. planes in the no-fly zone. Shooting at our planes is a PERFECTLY good reason to go to war. A reason that the Arab nations would certainly recognize. All Bush had to do was make a very loud public announcement. "The next time an Iraqi position fires on one of our planes, we will bomb your military back to the stone age."

I'm NOT a dove, I'm actually a Hawk. I just think you have to go to war for reasons that are rational and just. You don't go to war because your enemy has weapons. And above all, you don't go to war based on speculation. Our attack on Iraq lowered the bar. India can start a nuclear war with Pakistan now and have a BETTER claim than we did. Pakistan most definitly DOES have WMD, and Pakistan DOES have an ongoing history of terrorist attacks upon India. <sigh> Go to war because someone committed an act of war against you, not because they have a big gun on the shelf.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:52 pm

Before we brow beat the good old USA about alienating the muslum world, just remember this:
In a letter intercepted from al Zahiri, Zahiri warns his fellow terrorists that bombing mosques and killing fellow muslum is alienating the muslum world against them. So if the terrorists understand this, why do the liberal democratic leadership persist in painting us as a terrorist organisation? I suspect in the heart of hearts of the majority of decent muslims, they would rather we were there setting up a free democracy than the likes of the taliban and OBL.

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:06 pm

I read an interesting comment today:

William Stuntz wrote:By prolonging the war, Zarqawi and his Baathist allies have drawn thousands of terrorist wannabes into the fight--against both our soldiers and Muslim civilians. When terrorists fight American civilians, as on September 11, they can leverage their own deaths to kill a great many of us. But when terrorists fight American soldiers, the odds tilt towards our side.

Equally important, by bringing the fight to a Muslim land, by making that land the central front of the war on Islamic terrorism, the United States has effectively forced Muslim terrorists to kill Muslim civilians. That is why the so-called Arab street is rising--not against us but against the terrorists, as we saw in Jordan after Zarqawi's disastrous hotel bombing. The population of the Islamic world is choosing sides not between jihadists and Westerners, but between jihadists and people just like themselves. We are, slowly but surely, converting bin Laden's war into a civil war--and that is a war bin Laden and his followers cannot hope to win.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Dec 07, 2005 6:52 pm

Lothar quoting William Stuntz wrote:We are, slowly but surely, converting bin Laden's war into a civil war--and that is a war bin Laden and his followers cannot hope to win

And, I freely admit, this is our greatest hope. As long as the terrorist are STUPID enough to keep attacking muslims, they make it harder and harder to paint the U.S. as the great satan. I honestly can not figure out what these guys are using for brains. If it wasn't for the unbelievable level of hatred towards the U.S., this would have doomed Al Queda quite a while ago. As it is, we still hear some people in Jordan, right after the bombing, declaring that it was the fault of the U.S. BIZZARE, but true. But if the idiots with the bombs KEEP hitting Muslims and mosques, eventually they may pound hard enough to make everyone realize who the enemy is.

I wish we hadn't started this war, but we are there, and we are stuck with it. Now we have to do everything in our power to pull a victory out of this. And heartless as it may sound, one of the best ways to do that is probably to make certain Iraqi forces stay on the front lines. It has to become THEIR war, not ours. That is not a suggestion of a withdrawl, just that we continue to build and support Iraqi forces. And PRAY that we don't have to go to war with THEM someday, because that is what usually happens in these situations. (i.e. Saddam and the Taliban)

Kilarin

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 10:46 am

Kilarin wrote:....And heartless as it may sound, one of the best ways to do that is probably to make certain Iraqi forces stay on the front lines. It has to become THEIR war, not ours. That is not a suggestion of a withdrawl, just that we continue to build and support Iraqi forces.....

And that is exactly what we have been working towards since day one. We took at least fifty years to get out of Japan...we are still in europe in the wake of WWII!!!! Yet we have some people with loud voices proclaiming total failure in Iraq with the dust even yet to settle!!!

Politicians on the opposite side of the isle from Bush are counting on the average voters proclivity to expect instant gratification to convince them that the effort has stalled, using the vietnam comparison...calling it a quagmire....demanding time tables that would involve major troop reduction in a time frame of mere months...etc.
They do this to seek political victory at home and forsake any possible successful outcome in the middle east by doing so!
Never have I been more disgusted with the selfish motivations of a group of politicians as I am now, it truly borders on treasonous to undermine the War on Terror efforts in the way they are doing it right now. American and Iraqi troops will die as a direct result of the america divided message Howard Dean, Pelosi et al are sending! Regardless of where anyone stands on how we have implimented our policy and/or waged this War on Terror that is the cold hard reality of where we are today and what they are doing to our soldiers by their selfish acts.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 11:52 am

WoodChip wrote:And that is exactly what we have been working towards since day one.

Of course, if Bush hadn't insisted on invading Iraq, we COULD have been fighting this same battle in a much more friendly Afghanistan, and the enemy would have much less support from all directions.

WoodChip wrote:Yet we have some people with loud voices proclaiming total failure in Iraq with the dust even yet to settle!!!

First, Bush very much gave the people the impression that this war was going to be quick and over with. The people were foolish to believe it, but they did.
Second, Bush should have realized this was going to happen. This generation doesn't have the attention span that the WWII generation did. It was ENTIRELY predictable that the American public would only put up with the war for a limited length of time.
And this puts us into a serious quandry. If Bush can't wrap this up in the next two years (and that would be a very optimistic time frame) the public will probably vote in a Democrat in response, I'll give you one guess who she will be.

And odds are that Democrat will have gotten in to office by promising a full withdrawl from Iraq. Which will leave us in worse condition with the Terrorists than we were before. And yes, I'll still blame Bush for starting something he couldn't finish just as much as I will blame the person who pulled us out.

Kilarin

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:23 pm

Will Robinson wrote:Iran is run by the epitome of evil religious whacko's!

Funny, I thought that was the US

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:37 pm

Kilarin wrote:
WoodChip wrote:And that is exactly what we have been working towards since day one.
Of course, if Bush hadn't insisted on invading Iraq, we COULD have been fighting this same battle in a much more friendly Afghanistan, and the enemy would have much less support from all directions.Kilarin

If we didn't invade Iraq, do you seriously believe OBL would have his base of operations in some bodunk village along the Pakistan/Afganistan border?
And just who is supporting AQ besides the walking dead of the Democratic Party?

Kilarin wrote:
WoodChip wrote:Yet we have some people with loud voices proclaiming total failure in Iraq with the dust even yet to settle!!!
First, Bush very much gave the people the impression that this war was going to be quick and over with. The people were foolish to believe it, but they did.
Second, Bush should have realized this was going to happen.
Kilarin

It was the liberal press spouting off how invading Iraq was going to be a American blood bath and trying to take Bagdad was going to be a nightmare. Heh, it took what? Three days? Bush and the military never gave the impression the Iraq war was going to be quick and easy. In fact the press and the democrats have been naysaying the war and trying to front a mantra that nothing was going right from day one.
Most of the people I know never thought the war was going to be over as quick as it was.
As to Bush realising the insurgents were going to fight a protracted guerilla war, well I think hind sight is a wonderful tool for armchair theoryising.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:31 pm

Kilarin wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Yet we have some people with loud voices proclaiming total failure in Iraq with the dust even yet to settle!!!
First, Bush very much gave the people the impression that this war was going to be quick and over with.

That's nonsense!
I distinctly remember him saying many times how this struggle would last well beyond his second term as president!

....If Bush can't wrap this up in the next two years (and that would be a very optimistic time frame) the public will probably vote in a Democrat in response, I'll give you one guess who she will be. And odds are that Democrat will have gotten in to office by promising a full withdrawl from Iraq.....
Kilarin

would you be talking about Hillary? If so she's not talking about pulling out, she's taking flak for saying we must stay the course....

You're losing me here on your perception vs. reality

And on your previous contention that we are angering the whole muslim world in our war on terror, if that's so then the agenda of this meeting seems a little out of synch with your assesment of the "whole moslim world": Leaders of 57 Muslim countries have ended their summit with a warning that the Islamic world is in crisis because of the threat posed by terrorism.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:38 pm

Will wrote:That's nonsense!
I distinctly remember him saying many times how this struggle would last well beyond his second term as president!

didn't this refer to the "War on Terror" in general, rather than the War in Iraq? Like Kilarin, I got the distinct impression that Bush had expected a quite quick resolution.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:38 pm

Dedman wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Iran is run by the epitome of evil religious whacko's!
Funny, I thought that was the US

I appreciate the humor behind that but even if Pat Robertson and Falwell and Co. actually did hold positions of power within the Bush administration, which they don't, their christian theocracy would seem like a benign democratic paradise compared to an Islamofascist regeim like Iran or the world according to Ossama!

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:40 pm

Do you think Pat Robertson looks benign to the rest of the world? Or is he a complete whacko in the same sense that you view Iran? When Bush says attacking Iraq was an order from God...how do you think some people take that? Not the same way you do...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:43 pm

Pandora wrote:
Will wrote:That's nonsense!
I distinctly remember him saying many times how this struggle would last well beyond his second term as president!
didn't this refer to the "War on Terror" in general, rather than the War in Iraq? Like Kilarin, I got the distinct impression that Bush had expected a quite quick resolution.

And therin lies the rub...
The War on Terror is the larger effort of which the war in Iraq is a part of, and the timetables for fighting wars are dynamic and unpredictable.
If someone thinks of the Iraq invasion as a side show, a deviation from the goal, then I could understand their confusion but then they would still be wrong...

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 2:53 pm

Zuruck wrote:Do you think Pat Robertson looks benign to the rest of the world? Or is he a complete whacko in the same sense that you view Iran? When Bush says attacking Iraq was an order from God...how do you think some people take that? Not the same way you do...

The people quoted as having heard Bush's comment described it as Bush not literally meaning 'god told him to invade' and they are muslims! So if they understood his meaning and corrected the press' interpretation of the comment why don't you try to understand it as well?

I think the world knows americans have unprecedented free speech and we have whacko's like Robertson who talk the talk and have little to no impact on government policy. Can you say the same for the imams and clerics in Iran?
When the last time a christian minister chopped off the heads of a few school girls because they were infidels?

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 3:51 pm

Will Robinson wrote:I appreciate the humor behind that

Good, 'cause that's all it was. Don't let it start a new direction to the argumen... er, I mean debate.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:15 pm

Will Robinson wrote:
Kilarin wrote:Bush very much gave the people the impression that this war was going to be quick and over with.
That's nonsense! I distinctly remember him saying many times how this struggle would last well beyond his second term as president!

As Pandora pointed out, that was refering to the war on terror.

Will Robinson wrote:would you be talking about Hillary? If so she's not talking about pulling out, she's taking flak for saying we must stay the course....

Yes, I know that is what she says now. It is my opinion that as this effort grows more and more unpopular, she will change her tune in order to get a few more votes. I will be very pleasantly surprised if that turns out to be wrong.

Will Robinson wrote:even if Pat Robertson and Falwell and Co. actually did hold positions of power within the Bush administration, which they don't, their christian theocracy would seem like a benign democratic paradise compared to an Islamofascist regeim like Iran or the world according to Ossama!

Here we are in complete agreement. Much as I dislike Pat and his friends. They are, at their very worst, small time compared to the Taliban, or even Iran, and especially Osama.

Will Robinson wrote:The War on Terror is the larger effort of which the war in Iraq is a part of

Iraq is NOW an important front in the war on terror. It was NOT before Bush decided to invade. As I pointed out before, Saddam was a terrible criminal, a sadistic totalitarian, an evil dictator, but his involvement with Terrorist activities (outside of his own borders) was way down on the list compared to many of our allies.

Afghanistan was most definitly the headquarters for Al Queda. The people of Afghanistan had been begging for relief for years. Note that, unlike Iraq, when we invaded Afghanistan, the locals took up arms to help.

We HAD the perfect front for the war on terror. One with (relatively) friendly locals, and a front where we had actual, solid, undisputed justification for invading. Osama WAS behind the 911 terror attack. The Taliban WAS protecting him in Afghanistan. When we were fighting in Afghanistan, we could declare our target was terrorist and even most of the Muslim world acknowledged that yes, that was obviously our target.

Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 attack, and was less involved with terrorism than Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libia, and Korea just to name a few. By invading Iraq we gave the insurgents the excuse of claiming they were fighting to free thier country from an unprovoked invasion. An excuse that resonates quite well with the Arab world, although he insurgents seem to be doing everything in their power to destroy that image by consistantly attacking Iraqi civilians instead of the U.S. Military.

To sum up, we had everything we needed to accomplish our goals, right there on the Afghanistan front line. Why on earth G. W. Bush decided to dilute this by invading a country that was not connected to the 911 attack STILL baffles me.

Kilarin

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Dec 08, 2005 5:00 pm

OK, we're on the same page for the most part. A few differences though...

1) Granted Iraq was not a big active player prior to our invasion the way Syria and Iran are/have been, (Saudi Arabia as well but it is more a source of manpower than a state sponsor) but Iraq was always a source of funding and sanctuary, both to al Queda and others and clearly financed and promoted palestinian suicide bombers before our invasion.
The fact that it's now a destination for more islamic terrorists is not necessarily a bad thing however. After all, almost every american in Iraq is well trained, wearing armor, carrying a big gun, and on the lookout for them 24/7...more than you could hope for if any of those islami-kazi's had to come over here to strike us...

2) Afghanastan wasn't the headquarters of al queda so much as it was the place where it's founder was hiding out. bin Laden created the "base" but it's a loose knit web. It's like rock&roll, if in the early sixties you kill the beatles you wouldn't have stopped Rock&Roll.
However kill off or discourage all the venues, record companies and radio stations from sponsoring the effort and you really hurt it's chances at becoming powerful.

Iraq was a small blip on the radar screen of the War on Terror, it became only slightly larger when the influx of islamo-fascist manpower and support moved there. Fifty years from now it will be seen as a small bit of the larger effort but removing Saddam will never be seen as a mistake and much more good than bad will be seen as having come from the effort because by then it will be examined without looking through the filter of american domestic politics and instead from the perspective of long term geopolitical strategy and tactics.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:55 am

50 years from now this world could be pretty nasty.
It's a stretch to say that this whole thing will turn out good. We'll see, I suppose.

I thought that Saddam did not fund Al Qaeda, Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other because they represented different facets of Islam. Saddam was quite Western in fact, Bin Laden was very extreme. In fact, back when the US and Bin Laden were friends, before the Gulf War, Bin Laden offered the US a jihad against Iraq. Of course, the Bush administration and Republicans will never admit this, even though it's common known history.

You really don't think Pat Robertson influences politics, or Fawell? Will, please, if you are going to say that Muslims had no problem saying his mission was from god, that I would like to see quotes on. Besides, I don't think Bush is intelligent enough to say something without meaning it literally. He speaks, smirks, makes a joke, pauses for choreographed applause, then speaks again. There is no wit to the man, hell, he choked on a pretzel once, without even being drunk. Now that's stupid!!

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:21 am

Zuruck wrote:Bin Laden offered the US a jihad against Iraq

Never heard he discussed this with the US, and it seems difficult to believe that he would. But yes, Saddam was probably second on Bin Laden's list. Saddam had Westernized and Secularized Iraq in ways that were exactly what Bin Laden was fighting against. And Saddam's invasion of Kuwait infuriated Bin Laden.

Wikipedia wrote:Bin Laden called for jihad against Saddam and asked the Saudi government for permission to send jihadists to protect the country and help liberate Kuwait.

So yes, any cooperation between Osama and Saddam seems unlikely in the extreme. Saddam knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that one of Osama's goals was "regime change" in Iraq.

Zuruck wrote:You really don't think Pat Robertson influences politics, or Fawell?

Yes, they DO influence politics, and they ARE dangerous. But they simply aren't as good at being EVIL as many others who support political theocracies. Pat calls down the wrath of God upon all those who believe differently than he does. Osama is ready to drop real bombs. Pat Robertson and Jerry Fawell want a government that is politically opressive, Iran executes people who violate sharia law. Pat and Jerry would deny women the same pay as men, but the Taliban denied women the right to even walk out of their doors and felt that if a man misbehaved a good punishment was to gang-rape his sister while he watched.

Much as I disaprove of Pat and Jerry, they are small time evil.

Kilarin

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:45 am

Zuruck wrote:Bin Laden and Saddam hated each other because they represented different facets of Islam. Saddam was quite Western in fact, Bin Laden was very extreme.

[edit: hmm, i read here that although the Baath party is quite secular and socialist, Saddam himself says he is a Shiite Muslim - although it doesn't seem to effect his leadership which is kept very secular. (and it is suggested that some religious displays of his have merely been popularity stunts - he is a national leader afterall). I learned something

but i'll keep this next bit in:]

most Muslims do not agree with Ossama's methods. One can even say that even most EXTREMIST Muslims don't even agree with his methods - as they believe that POLITICAL action is the best method for achiving their goals and that Ossama is only hurting their shared mutual cause.
That shared cause being the promotion of Islamic rule in Arab nations.

Saddam is not a proponent of Pan-Islamism, he is a proponent of Pan-Arabism. Both Saddam and Ossama share a dislike of Israel because Israel's policys and attitude is obnoxiously Anti-Arab.

i'll quote this wiki paragraph coz it's important:

[quote=""Pan-Arabism" Wiki article"]In contrast to pan-Islamism, Pan-Arabism is secular and many prominent Pan-Arabs, such as Aflaq were non-Muslims. Similarly, Tariq Aziz, a Christian and the deputy prime minister of Iraq under Saddam Hussein, was another prominent pan-Arabist. However, in de-emphasizing the role of Islam, pan-Arab ideology has been accused of inciting prejudice against and downplaying the role of non-Arab Muslim peoples such as the Turks, Persians, and Kurds, amongst others. More importantly however, pan-Arabism, in the name of unity, has helped inspire pogroms against Non-Arab/Non-Muslim Minorities such as the persecution of Assyrian Christians in Iraq, and later of the Kurds. Pan-Arabism is almost always confused with Pan-Islamism in the western world, and the distinction between them is rarely talked about in Western media.[/quote]

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:03 am

Kilarin wrote:
Zuruck wrote:Bin Laden offered the US a jihad against Iraq
Never heard he discussed this with the US, and it seems difficult to believe that he would. But yes, Saddam was probably second on Bin Laden's list.

Terrorism doesn't start and end with Bin Laden. He's just one player in the whole system.

This has never been the "war on Osama" or "war on Al Qaeda". It was advertised at the start as the "war on terror", and IMO we ALL should have known that meant something bigger than just Afghanistan and the Taliban. State-sponsored anti-Western terrorism has been building since before I was born, from religious sources (the Taliban and the Mad Mullahs of Iran) and from more secular sources (Saddam and many Palestinian organizations). Fighting that will take time, and require many interventions in many countries -- some more directly than others. Saddam was simply the easiest target, and Iraq provides the best staging point for the rest of the war, as evidenced by the responses we've seen from Syria, Egypt, and even Saudi Arabia recently. Iraq also provides the easiest way to gain allies in the Middle East outside of Israel.

Of course, even though (to hear some people tell it) Karl Rove and George Bush are amazingly brilliant evil geniuses who planned 9/11 years in advance in order to award huge oil contracts to Halliburton, there's no way they were smart enough to even begin to predict that Iraqi allies would be useful or that walloping Saddam would make other dictators take note. No, they definitely couldn't be that smart. There's no way they could've made a strategic decision to put Muslims on the front lines of the WoT by creating a free and democratic Iraq, and there's no way they could've made a tactical decision to scare all the other dictators in that part of the world by making an example of Saddam's blustering and overdramatic self. Because they're only evil geniuses when it's convenient to call them such.

As much as I hate the excessive news coverage of casualties in Iraq, one positive development is that a bunch of middle eastern news channels got drawn in to covering American infidels dying to jihadis, and then ended up covering a lot of Iraqi Muslims dying to jihadis. So public opinion now begins to turn against the jihadis. All the people who have been complaining about winning hearts and minds... where are you now? How do you think that effort is going?

Zuruck wrote:You really don't think Pat Robertson influences politics, or Fawell?
Yes, they DO influence politics, and they ARE dangerous. But they simply aren't as good at being EVIL as many others who support political theocracies....

Much as I disaprove of Pat and Jerry, they are small time evil.

Totally agreed. If you want to look for the American Taliban, you shouldn't look at anyone even slightly more sane than Fred Phelps (the godhatesfags guy.) He might be just as evil as they were, but far less powerful. Pat and Jerry aren't in the same league. They're more like many of the Middle Eastern Islamic leaders the MSM refer to as "moderates" -- they want a theocracy, and they might lie about history (Palestinian "moderates" regularly deny the Holocaust happened), and they think of those from outside of their religion as lesser people, but they're not going to send bombers into infidel marketplaces or encourage gang-rape of family members as punishment for crimes or send people through the meat grinder feet first.

They may be evil, but they're small time.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:32 am

Saddam funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into a charity orginazation that was really just a front for al Queda, and he had his security personel meet with al Queda more than once in africa.

Osama thinks Saddam is an 'impure muslim' but that doesn't mean they couldn't share the burden of fighting a common enemy, that is common practice.
Do you really think Osama would turn down the chance to purchase a couple pounds of anthrax just because it was manufactured by a secularist dictator?!?

As to Robertson and political influence.
Sure he preaches to his flock and they represent a voting block but my point wasn't to say Robertson isn't a factor, that was your interpretation.
My point was to say that he is, by comparison to religious whacko leaders in Iran, practically a non-entity!
He doesn't make policy and he doesn't chop off non believers heads! Our laws are based on judeo-christian philosophy but our laws are not dictated by Robertson and there is a big difference between Robertson urging his flock to vote one way and the clerics of Iran issuing fatwahs that become instant law.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:42 am

I agree that the left views Bush with a definite slant (Just as the right views the left), but I did want to comment on this particular point.
[Quote="Lothar]...to scare all the other dictators in that part of the world by making an example of Saddam's blustering and overdramatic self.[/quote]
Exactly what was the message that we sent to the totalitarian regimes in the area?
I think they all noticed the way we treated two nasty countries in completely different ways.

Iraq: Bad to his own people, attacks his neighbors occasionally. Only involved in terrorism in a small way. Rumored to be developing WMDs, RUMORED TO NOT HAVE NUKES YET.
Result: We smash him to smithereens.

North Korea: Has an insane dictator who makes Saddam look like Barney. Is starving it's own people to death. Sells weapons to any and all who will buy them, including terrorists, with no ethics whatsoever. RUMORED TO ACTUALLY HAVE A NUKE.
Result: We negotiate with these guys. (although thank goodness we didn't just pay them off directly like Clinton did)

So, what do we see as the final result? Iran is scrambling as hard as it can to get a nuke. They KNOW they are likely to be next on the list and they want to get out of the "want a nuke" club and into the "have a nuke" club before we can get done with Iraq and turn our attention upon them.

I don't think that was really the message we WANTED to send.

Kilarin

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 10:50 am

Lothar wrote:Of course, even though (to hear some people tell it) Karl Rove and George Bush are amazingly brilliant evil geniuses who planned 9/11 years in advance in order to award huge oil contracts to Halliburton, there's no way they were smart enough to even begin to predict that Iraqi allies would be useful or that walloping Saddam would make other dictators take note. No, they definitely couldn't be that smart. There's no way they could've made a strategic decision to put Muslims on the front lines of the WoT by creating a free and democratic Iraq, and there's no way they could've made a tactical decision to scare all the other dictators in that part of the world by making an example of Saddam's blustering and overdramatic self. Because they're only evil geniuses when it's convenient to call them such.

As much as I hate the excessive news coverage of casualties in Iraq, one positive development is that a bunch of middle eastern news channels got drawn in to covering American infidels dying to jihadis, and then ended up covering a lot of Iraqi Muslims dying to jihadis. So public opinion now begins to turn against the jihadis. All the people who have been complaining about winning hearts and minds... where are you now? How do you think that effort is going?

heh. 2 consecutive paragraphs:
- First paragraph sarcasticly showing how rediculous the theory is that Bush etc planned the 9/11 attacks.
- Second paragraph suggesting that any actual truthful coverage Middle Eastern News channels supply is simply an unplanned byproduct of their Pan-Islamist agenda.

I find that humourous. That you can easily identify a wacky fringe idea from the opposition camp, but in the next paragraph introduce one from your own camp that's just as crazy.

The Arab world is quite capable of understanding the truth and speaking out against the actions of the various loosely related pro-violence Islamic extremist sects (Eg: Ossama), without any help from the US media, thank you very much.

Zuruck · Post by **Zuruck** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:01 am

I need to be working but I can't help posting in response to such lunacy. War on terror?? Osama started the whole thing? Why is he not target #1? Why has the American govt, let alone the people, forgotten about him? He is the cause of over 3000 deaths on US soil, not Saddam. The War on Terror is a guise to hide the real truth behind PNAC and all the nutballs in the White House. The GOP needed 9/11 badly, they needed it to fulfill what Cheney and Wolfowitz have been wanting for a long time. A reason to push America in the geopolitical superpower role, but it's not working. America has less credibility now than ever before. Our dollar is worth half of the euro, almost every oil country has switched to the euro for it's trading currency and it's killing the dollar. Iraq was about to but now that we own the country, it's back to the dollar. If you people for one second think that this war is about saving American lives, then you're just stupid.

Like I said, the intelligent half of the American public was tricked into the war, the stupid half, this includes Lothar, Will, woodchip, love it and think it's right no matter what.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:14 am

Woodchip wrote:Saddam funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars into a charity orginazation that was really just a front for al Queda, and he had his security personel meet with al Queda more than once in africa.

There MAY have been some meetings, but they don't seem to have resulted in anything. It would be difficult to imagine how they could. One of Osama's stated goals was to remove Saddam from power and restore Iraq to being an Islamic state. It's kind of hard to work very closely together with someone who has sworn to kill you.

You'll have to find me a link on the charity issue, and then further prove that Saddam KNEW the money was going to Al Queda. Because on a rational level, I just have a hard time picturing him funding an organization that had sworn to kill him. There were plenty of other terrorist organizations he could send money to if he wanted to contribute, so why would he single out the one that wants him dead and give them money to help achieve their goals?

Folks might find this wikipidea article interesting. It's neutrality is disputed of course, at it would be if it came to the opposite opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hus ... d_al-Qaeda

Zuruck wrote:Like I said, the intelligent half of the American public was tricked into the war, the stupid half, this includes Lothar, Will, woodchip, love it and think it's right no matter what.

And some of us opposed it (or at least the reasons chosen for it) from the very begining. I guess we were the third half?

But really Zuruck, you will have more luck debating with those who disagree with you if you don't resort to calling them names. Because someone disagrees with you doesn't necessarily mean they are stupid. Attack ideas, and they might listen to you, but no one is very likely to seriously consider anything you say after you have insulted them personally.

Kilarin

Lothar · Post by **Lothar** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:18 am

roid wrote:heh. 2 consecutive paragraphs:
- First paragraph sarcasticly showing how rediculous the theory is that Bush etc planned the 9/11 attacks.
- Second paragraph suggesting that any actual truthful coverage Middle Eastern News channels supply is simply an unplanned byproduct of their Pan-Islamist agenda.

First one was more meant to sarcastically show that some people think Bush/Rove are evil geniuses half the time, and total morons the other half. Smart enough to plan 9/11, but not smart enough to realize getting Iraqis fighting against jihadis would be a good idea?

Second paragraph... not suggesting that truthful coverage is accidental, just suggesting that the truth isn't what some of those channels were hoping it would be.

Zuruck wrote:War on terror?? Osama started the whole thing?

Yes, Osama started the whole thing. There was no terrorism whatsoever in the entire world before 9/11/2001. :roll:

Osama made the mistake of escalating the conflict to "war" status in the minds of the American public. But there's been a struggle against terrorism far longer and far wider than Osama's influence stretches. Osama is one of the big fish we'd like to stop, but he's not the only one.

The War on Terror is a guise to hide the real truth behind PNAC and all the nutballs in the White House.

You don't think the PNAC might actually legitimately have been (at least in part) about the war on terror? There's no way Cheney et al knew terrorism was a problem way back when they wrote the darn thing?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:31 am

Kilarin wrote:There MAY have been some meetings, but they don't seem to have resulted in anything. It would be difficult to imagine how they could. One of Osama's stated goals was to remove Saddam from power and restore Iraq to being an Islamic state. It's kind of hard to work very closely together with someone who has sworn to kill you.

I doubt Saddam was too worried about Osama overthrowing him, he kept a boot to the neck of the whole country and had no civil rights groups/U.N./lawyers/re-election campaigns/etc. to cause him to put up with any dissent. So regardless of what Osama would like to do with Iraq they both were faced with the reality that Saddam was in charge of that place and Osama wasn't going to change that. However they both had a common enemy in the west, specifically the U.S. and that's where the two could likely find a use for each other...
Just like the republicans and democrats will lie cheat and murder to defeat the others they still do come together to fight a common enemy from time to time....

You'll have to find me a link on the charity issue, and then further prove that Saddam KNEW the money was going to Al Queda. Because on a rational level, I just have a hard time picturing him funding an organization that had sworn to kill him. There were plenty of other terrorist organizations he could send money to if he wanted to contribute, so why would he single out the one that wants him dead and give them money to help achieve their goals?

I may find you that link later, I believe it was uncovered in the U.N. Oil for Food scam investigation.
Now do I think Saddam was busy being a murderous dictator and took time out from an afternoon at his rape room or from tossing political opposition in the tree shredder so he could find a charity to send some blood money to? Just having a generous moment.... No way!
I think he was well informed to who the money went to and was buying favor from al Queda or perhaps just happy to help them along in their efforts like he did everytime he sent the family of a suicide bomber $25,000....

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 11:42 am

Zuruck wrote:I need to be working but I can't help posting in response to such lunacy. War on terror?? Osama started the whole thing? Why is he not target #1? Why has the American govt, let alone the people, forgotten about him? He is the cause of over 3000 deaths on US soil, not Saddam. The War on Terror is a guise to hide the real truth behind PNAC and all the nutballs in the White House. The GOP needed 9/11 badly, they needed it to fulfill what Cheney and Wolfowitz have been wanting for a long time. A reason to push America in the geopolitical superpower role, but it's not working. America has less credibility now than ever before. Our dollar is worth half of the euro, almost every oil country has switched to the euro for it's trading currency and it's killing the dollar. Iraq was about to but now that we own the country, it's back to the dollar. If you people for one second think that this war is about saving American lives, then you're just stupid.

Like I said, the intelligent half of the American public was tricked into the war, the stupid half, this includes Lothar, Will, woodchip, love it and think it's right no matter what.

The Iraq portion of the War on Terror is about a lot of things, most of them things that you are consistantly in denial of....political expediency on your part perhaps? Naaa, that would require too much motivation and forethought....more like leftwing fanboyism filling the void created by your ignorance.