Well since this seems to be the thread dominating the discussion at the moment, I guess I can't avoid it any longer.  The only reason I am making a post on it is to re-affirm what everyone is trying to convince Baff of.  Baff, try to clear your mind and think reasonably for a moment.  George Bush never said, never claimed, never even implied that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.

Whether you actually believe that or are just making an attempt to re-write History, I can't say.  But most of Bush's enemies wouldn't even make that claim.  And they have made some doosies.

They are suicide bombbrs. the only reason they are suicide bombers is because their countries are already over run.

The good it does them is revenge. They are sending the sam message to the world America has after 9/11. Mess with us and there will be a price to pay.

And you know what? Your troops all pulled out of Suadi. 

These things affect us. 

We have seen at least two large terror attacks on Western cities since 9/11. One in London and one in Madrid. (We've also seen them in Bali and Turkey).

European Herion comes from Afghanistan not Syria. The Taliban had almost stopped it before we invaded. Now there is more than ever before. The worlds largest priducer.

I think you have Syria confused with Lebanon which is a big drug producer, (hash and opium).

Originally posted by baff

Believe away but if you actually read those links provided, you'd have  seen this bit.

 

"Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda ".

 

Budh linked Saddam to Al quaida before the war. After the invasion  when he had been unable to produce any evidence he then goes on to say Saddam wasn't involved.

Read the date on your links. Understand the timeline of events. One sentence taken out of context isn't helping you.

 

Read it. Understand it, then make your judgement.

Just looking for a random sentence in their that taken out of context supports your arguement isn't getting you anywhere.

If you actively don't want to know, you never will.

 

i know. i know it all. i am an arrogant american, afterall...right?

look, i know exactly what our political leaders said, eluded to, and lied about. i also know the timelines. 

i know WMD was a mask. i know our intelligence was true but exaggerated by this administration.

Mr. Bush has never said 'saddam was in on 911' 

and yes, saddam did have dealings with al queda. bush never publicly stated this leading up to the war.  paraphrasing- 

he eluded that saddam can pass off his wmd to willing accomplices, such as al queda. 

plausible. afterall, why would saddam not want to 'get back at us' ?

anyways all this talk about terrorists makes me hungry for some ham.

and it looks like my peak hour latency issues are done for the night...

what game to play...hmmm...

here is an article about why Bush believed that Saddam had ties to al qaeda, and as Cheney said, he didn't know if they were involved in 9-11 or not.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

and another:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/

So it shows what was said, there was no "direct" or "operation" ties, but there were ties between saddam and al qaeda. saddam was much more connected with other terrorist groups, like the PLO, but he almost certainly had some links with al qaeda. When dealing with "intelligence" it is sketchy at best.

In such cases it is always better to be safe than sorry.

No one, however, from the Bush administration ever said they thought saddam was behind 9-11.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Well since this seems to be the thread dominating the discussion at the moment, I guess I can't avoid it any longer.  The only reason I am making a post on it is to re-affirm what everyone is trying to convince Baff of.  Baff, try to clear your mind and think reasonably for a moment.  George Bush never said, never claimed, never even implied that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.

Whether you actually believe that or are just making an attempt to re-write History, I can't say.  But most of Bush's enemies wouldn't even make that claim.  And they have made some doosies.

I'm a Bush supporter not an enemy. i claim it. The only people who don't where the ones who  all cheering for the Iraq war sayiong "saddam has WMD" back inthe day. The ones who were saying Saddam was in league with Al Quaida themselves. You know who you are.

He claimed Saddam had ties to Al Quaida in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, a claim he still makes to this very day according to those links

After the invasion of iraq he was forced to admit that Saddam had no direct involvement in it, but still claimed he had involvement with Al Quaida.

Something we all know to be utter bollocks since Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.

Originally posted by Fishermage

here is an article about why Bush believed that Saddam had ties to al qaeda, and as Cheney said, he didn't know if they were involved in 9-11 or not.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

and another:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/

So it shows what was said, there was no "direct" or "operation" ties, but there were ties between saddam and al qaeda. saddam was much more connected with other terrorist groups, like the PLO, but he almost certainly had some links with al qaeda. When dealing with "intelligence" it is sketchy at best.

In such cases it is always better to be safe than sorry.

No one, however, from the Bush administration ever said they thought saddam was behind 9-11.

Fail.
 

What is the date on that article?

When did the war start?

 Read links before you post them.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Fishermage

here is an article about why Bush believed that Saddam had ties to al qaeda, and as Cheney said, he didn't know if they were involved in 9-11 or not.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp

and another:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddam-al-qaeda-did-collaborate-documents-show/29746/

So it shows what was said, there was no "direct" or "operation" ties, but there were ties between saddam and al qaeda. saddam was much more connected with other terrorist groups, like the PLO, but he almost certainly had some links with al qaeda. When dealing with "intelligence" it is sketchy at best.

In such cases it is always better to be safe than sorry.

No one, however, from the Bush administration ever said they thought saddam was behind 9-11.

 

Fail.
 

 

What is the date on that article?

When did the war start?

 

Why is that relevant?

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Well since this seems to be the thread dominating the discussion at the moment, I guess I can't avoid it any longer.  The only reason I am making a post on it is to re-affirm what everyone is trying to convince Baff of.  Baff, try to clear your mind and think reasonably for a moment.  George Bush never said, never claimed, never even implied that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.

Whether you actually believe that or are just making an attempt to re-write History, I can't say.  But most of Bush's enemies wouldn't even make that claim.  And they have made some doosies.

 

I'm a Bush supporter not an enemy. i claim it. The only people who don't where the ones who  all cheering for the Iraq war sayiong "saddam has WMD" back inthe day. The ones who were saying Saddam was in league with Al Quaida themselves. You know who you are.

 

He claimed Saddam had ties to Al Quaida in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, a claim he still makes to this very day according to those links

After the invasion of iraq he was forced to admit that Saddam had no direct involvement in it, but still claimed he had involvement with Al Quaida.

Something we all know to be utter bollocks since Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.

Prove they were enemies. You make one false assertion after another. Bin laden said that, even though he was a socialist, that was preferable since he was a muslim socialist, and that musilms should defend sadam against the US.

Where are you getting all these false notions?

YOU CLAIMED Bush said saddam was behind 9-11 9and taht the whole world heard it lol).

Are you now admitting that was wrong? We all know that Bush said they had intelligence which said there were links between Saddam and al qaeda, but taht has nothing to do with what YOU are falsely asserting.

the fact is, after searching documents, and evaluating all the evidence, we have found out there were links, just no operational ones.

Becuase what he accuses Saddam of after the invasion is irrelevant.

it is what he accuses Saddam of before the invasion that gets the American people all domestically onboard for the invasion of Iraq.

You have to understand the timeline of events. The context of what you are reading.

At the point in history of that statement being given, the war is over, concusively and decisively won. Americans are hailed throughout Iaq as liberators.

Bush is under domestic pressure for misleading his people. The for WMD is on. But there is no WMD to be found. This is a big embarrassment because Georgey has been telling porky pies.

It turns out Georgey can't find any supporting evidence to show Saddam was in league with Al Quaeda either.

Itis the year beofre this that Georgeis making all the claims about Saddam being involve with Al Quaida. A suspected sponsor of 9/11. At the time when he needed to get his domestic population behind him in the run up to war. 

He was the laughing stock of the whole world during that run up to war. Only the U.S. people couldn't see it. everywhere else on the whole planet. Knew it was bollocks. But the U.S. was fired up after 9/11 they were looking for blood still.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Well since this seems to be the thread dominating the discussion at the moment, I guess I can't avoid it any longer.  The only reason I am making a post on it is to re-affirm what everyone is trying to convince Baff of.  Baff, try to clear your mind and think reasonably for a moment.  George Bush never said, never claimed, never even implied that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.

Whether you actually believe that or are just making an attempt to re-write History, I can't say.  But most of Bush's enemies wouldn't even make that claim.  And they have made some doosies.

 I'm a Bush supporter not an enemy. i claim it. The only people who don't where the ones who  all cheering for the Iraq war sayiong "saddam has WMD" back inthe day. The ones who were saying Saddam was in league with Al Quaida themselves. You know who you are.

 He claimed Saddam had ties to Al Quaida in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, a claim he still makes to this very day according to those links

After the invasion of iraq he was forced to admit that Saddam had no direct involvement in it, but still claimed he had involvement with Al Quaida.

Something we all know to be utter bollocks since Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.

Well, I gave it my best shot, sorry everyone.  Baff lives in his own little world on this one.  At this point, my advice is to just let him go on believing it.

One last point, and this has already been said as well.  No one here (I don't think) is denying Bush's statements of a link between Hussein and Al Qaida, a link which has been proven (although not a strong link).  That is vastly different than claiming that Hussein had direct involvement in the execution of 9-11.

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Prove they were enemies. You make one false assertion after another. Bin laden said that, even though he was a socialist, that was preferable since he was a muslim socialist, and that musilms should defend sadam against the US.

Where are you getting all these false notions?

YOU CLAIMED Bush said saddam was behind 9-11 9and taht the whole world heard it lol).

Are you now admitting that was wrong? We all know that Bush said they had intelligence which said there were links between Saddam and al qaeda, but taht has nothing to do with what YOU are falsely asserting.

the fact is, after searching documents, and evaluating all the evidence, we have found out there were links, just no operational ones.

 

Yuo aren;t going to get proof from me, and you aren't going to get any links. If that is necessary to you, then you need to find someone else to discuss this with. i'm not here to win any argument with you or prove myself or my view of the world. I'm willing to share my recollections of the events with you and my recollections of the research I did around that time and that's all.

Bin Laden offered the Suadi government to oust Saddam from Kuwait with his mercenary force Al Quaida, but refused to fight alongside western armies. Suadi smartly decided to go with Bush Snr even if it meant allow infidels in the holy land. 
 

After searching all the documents you found that their weren't links. You found that 2 people who may have been affilitated to Al Quaida had visited Iraq stayed in a hotel for two nights and never met Saddam.

A far cry from Bushs claims that he had evidence that Saddam funded 9/11.

Enigma, you must be pretty proud of this one.  

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Well since this seems to be the thread dominating the discussion at the moment, I guess I can't avoid it any longer.  The only reason I am making a post on it is to re-affirm what everyone is trying to convince Baff of.  Baff, try to clear your mind and think reasonably for a moment.  George Bush never said, never claimed, never even implied that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.

Whether you actually believe that or are just making an attempt to re-write History, I can't say.  But most of Bush's enemies wouldn't even make that claim.  And they have made some doosies.

 I'm a Bush supporter not an enemy. i claim it. The only people who don't where the ones who  all cheering for the Iraq war sayiong "saddam has WMD" back inthe day. The ones who were saying Saddam was in league with Al Quaida themselves. You know who you are.

 He claimed Saddam had ties to Al Quaida in the build up to the invasion of Iraq, a claim he still makes to this very day according to those links

After the invasion of iraq he was forced to admit that Saddam had no direct involvement in it, but still claimed he had involvement with Al Quaida.

Something we all know to be utter bollocks since Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies.

 

Well, I gave it my best shot, sorry everyone.  Baff lives in his own little world on this one.  At this point, my advice is to just let him go on believing it.

One last point, and this has already been said as well.  No one here (I don't think) is denying Bush's statements of a link between Hussein and Al Qaida, a link which has been proven (although not a strong link).  That is vastly different than claiming that Hussein had direct involvement in the execution of 9-11.

yeah, obviously he refuses to be confused by the facts when the propaganda he believes is so much to his liking.

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

i know. i know it all. i am an arrogant american, afterall...right?

look, i know exactly what our political leaders said, eluded to, and lied about. i also know the timelines. 

i know WMD was a mask. i know our intelligence was true but exaggerated by this administration.

Mr. Bush has never said 'saddam was in on 911' 

and yes, saddam did have dealings with al queda. bush never publicly stated this leading up to the war.  paraphrasing- 

he eluded that saddam can pass off his wmd to willing accomplices, such as al queda. 

plausible. afterall, why would saddam not want to 'get back at us' ?

anyways all this talk about terrorists makes me hungry for some ham.

and it looks like my peak hour latency issues are done for the night...

what game to play...hmmm...

 

Sorry mate  missed your relpy.

Let me address it.

Bush suggested Saddam had links to Al Quaida. Al Quaida being known in America for one thing and one thing only 9/11.

Bush claimed he thought Saddam might have funded 9/11. Or that there was evidence to suggest etc etc etc. Either way he made the link and the American people at large bought right into it.

I'd forgotten about him saying Saddam was going to give Al Quaida WMD. (Blair started off by saying Saddam had nukes to the hilarity of all, and ended up saying they had WMD 45 minutes away from firing on Britain).

People lie right before wars. It's a time honoured tradition of propaganda called "demonistaion" a process in which we make our people hate/fear their enemies so much that they feel no remorse.

It's not plausable that Saddam would give WMD to Bin Laden at all. they weren;t exactly friendly and Saddam had previously offer to kill Saddam. Sadddam had his own spy network. He didn't need Al Quaida for a terrorist attack he could mount one himself. He had his own suicde squads too. The Fedaieen

Originally posted by Zindaihas

One last point, and this has already been said as well.  No one here (I don't think) is denying Bush's statements of a link between Hussein and Al Qaida, a link which has been proven (although not a strong link).  That is vastly different than claiming that Hussein had direct involvement in the execution of 9-11.

No it's not vastly different from claiming Saddam was directly inviolved. It's almost identical. It had the exact same result. And it was said to deliberatley provoke that response.

The link that was found was not one anyone inthe intellignece community would consider as reliable. He lied. Plain and simple. His spies didn't brief him Saddam had links to Al Quaida they briefed the exact opposite.

Why it isn't different is because George lied for a reason. he lied to sell the war in Iraq to the American people. He attempted to link Saddam with 9/11 and the people bought it.

He didnt ever attempt to disuade the great public misconception that Saddam was involved in 9/11. He didn't ever try and rectifiy the comminly held mistake.

He initiated it. He encouraged it.

There is no difference. A lie is a lie. He told it for a specific purpose a purpose he achieved.

That's what happens in wars. People lie.

Originally posted by baff

They are suicide bombbrs. the only reason they are suicide bombers is because their countries are already over run.

The good it does them is revenge. They are sending the sam message to the world America has after 9/11. Mess with us and there will be a price to pay.

And you know what? Your troops all pulled out of Suadi. 

These things affect us. 

 

We have seen at least two large terror attacks on Western cities since 9/11. One in London and one in Madrid. (We've also seen them in Bali and Turkey).

 

 

European Herion comes from Afghanistan not Syria. The Taliban had almost stopped it before we invaded. Now there is more than ever before. The worlds largest priducer.

 

I think you have Syria confused with Lebanon which is a big drug producer, (hash and opium).

 Opium comes from Afghanistan it is refined in the Bekaa valley Lebanon, you are correct, however it still was facilitaded by Syria.
 

Sorry when i think about the Bekaa valley i am still thinking about the Syrian military occupation of Lebanon.  Hence the belief Syria has had  a hand in the trade.

HON. ROBERT K. DORNAN

in the House of Representatives

FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1990
 

As the U.S. government cracks down on the Colombian drug traffic, Lebanon's lush Bekaa Valley has emerged as the largest `killing field' on the globe. Already producing 80 percent of the world's cannabis, its farmers have now planted a record acreage of poppies to cope with the growing demand for the even more profitable heroin.

Hundreds of acres of fruit orchards, wheat fields, and vineyards of the Bekaa Valley--known in Roman times as the breadbasket of the world--have been uprooted to make way for the intensive cultivation of crops in eager demand by international drug dealers.

The Syrian government, which invaded the area to `bring law and order,' is an active partner with local merchants and raked in an estimated $1 billion last year. This money was desperately needed, as the Syrians have to pay off their vast debts to the Soviet Union before Moscow will supply any more sophisticated missiles, fighter planes, and other weapons for President Hafez Assad's 800,000-strong army.

Syrian troops not only guard the poppy and cannabis fields to prevent theft and ensure that supplies are not sold to competing bidders, but they also intervene to settle disputes between rival terrorist gangs, who have their own drug estates and transportation networks to Scandinavia, France, Finland, Holland, Belgium, and West Germany. Yasser Arafat's PLO (known locally as the `poppy lovers' organization') uses its links
with the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to rake in massive profits from sending drugs via Holland to its network of agents in Britain, West Germany, and Ireland for international distribution. Terror groups today spend far more time as merchants of death selling drugs than carrying out violent attacks for their cause.

European police first stumbled on this trade when Scotland Yard special units, in cooperation with the Dutch Narcotics Squad, unearthed a haul of 300,000,000 pounds' worth of top-grade `Lebanese Gold' transported from Lebanon in two freighters chartered by the PLO. Earlier, and six-man PLO squad led by one of Arafat's chief aides, Ali Mahmoud Buro, was arrested at Heathrow Airport after customs men found a 150-kilogram cache of Bekaa Valley cannabis in their luggage.
 

Masterminding the entire operation in the Bekaa today is Gen. Ghazy Kenaan, chief of Syrian military intelligence. He keeps a particularly close eye on the intensely cultivated Hermel district located next to the Syrian area, recognized as the home of the highest quality `Lebanese Gold' cannabis. To oblige the large North American market for a black `pot' product, the crop from here is mixed with oil to create just the right color demanded by both Canadian and U.S. dealers.

Suicide bombing, chicken or egg which came first, the over running or the suicide bombings, a question for the ages, i  believe they would still suicide bomb without over running their countries,they suicide bomb their own,  you believe otherwise?

Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination. This is the war of the future.
Adolf Hitler

And i am sorry yes London and Madrid both were struck with large attacks, Spain folded, England did not, why is that?
 

It wasn't that large. London and Madrid are no strangers ot this type of thing. before 9/11 it was ETA and the IRA. At points they were doing it 3 times a week. 9/11 really calmed things down here.

Spain is pretty used to terrorist attacks too. But I don't think they ever experienced the Blitz. Old people here just aren't scared of terrorist attacks. They grew up with worse and the 20 years up until 9/11 terror bombs where pretty much daily occurences. If you get scared by terrorism here little old ladies will take the piss out of you.

With Spain it was a case of good timing.

The Iraq war was massively and predominantly unpopular in Spain just as it was in Britain.

The bombs went off on the day before the Spanish election making Iraq the primary election issue.  It reversed the expected outcome by a landslide.

In Britain all the parties backed the war. You could not vote the war out. There was no option. There still isn't.

*Skips all but the first three posts:*

Nobody expects the English Inquisition?

I wonder...

Regarding WMD in Iraq....  Oh I know there are 5000 news articles all quoting the same thing over and over...  so what.

Did ANYONE here read Tommy Franks book?  ANYONE?

Let me spell this out really clear...

"There were no WMD"  - A true statement in the following context....  There were no WMD ready to deploy.

in FaCT... 

Iraq had EVERY component ready, in place, and able to produce WMD.  to quote General Franks in his bood (ok paraphrase...)  A gun is still a gun even if it's all taken apart and sitting on the table.

I have no desire to argue over this... as you libs will nash your teeth over it,   I'm more inclinced to trust the General that won that battle over any news article you can spit out at me.

...nevermind he actually used WMD on his own people...that's just...well that's just insane to accept.

1771  live by it.  learn it...  1771.  READ it.

Originally posted by Faxxer

I wonder...

Regarding WMD in Iraq....  Oh I know there are 5000 news articles all quoting the same thing over and over...  so what.

Did ANYONE here read Tommy Franks book?  ANYONE?

Let me spell this out really clear...

"There were no WMD"  - A true statement in the following context....  There were no WMD ready to deploy.

in FaCT... 

Iraq had EVERY component ready, in place, and able to produce WMD.  to quote General Franks in his bood (ok paraphrase...)  A gun is still a gun even if it's all taken apart and sitting on the table.

I have no desire to argue over this... as you libs will nash your teeth over it,   I'm more inclinced to trust the General that won that battle over any news article you can spit out at me.

...nevermind he actually used WMD on his own people...that's just...well that's just insane to accept.

1771  live by it.  learn it...  1771.  READ it.

Yup. They found plenty of evidence of WMDs, just no stockpiles of ready to go weapons, so the press, in their hatred of Bush, used that to hurt him, further helping the Jihad.

As long as it hurts the hated Bush it doesn't matter if all civilization perishes.