chicot Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 Yeah and Bin Laden denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks shortly afterwards too. 129735[/snapback] And this is relevant how?
_BiB_ Posted November 22, 2004 Posted November 22, 2004 There are two distinctly different fights going on in Iraq. One is with the Baath loyalists who went to ground with a pre-planned strategy (a good move on Sadaam's part, BTW-but a predictable one) and that with the overall Jihadists who are taking advantage of the situation at hand. Two totally different sets of goals. Although in some respects they have made an unholy alliance, the cross purposes are eventually going to bump heads. It is very likely that things will look somewhat differently about March 2005. Right now, much is hinging on disrupting and nullifying the elections.
boomerjamhead Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 I somewhat doubt that Saddam's planning was so detailed as to specify that female aid workers were to be executed. Who knows who actually killed Margaret Hassan? (I presume that is who you are referring to). If the statement released is to be believed, even Zarqawi was in favour of her being released. It is something of an assumption to automatically believe she was murdered by ex-Baathists and even more of a leap of faith to assume that this sort of tactic was planned by Saddam three years of ago. Still, if it helps your argument, what the heck. 129355[/snapback] You keep on insisting over and over that the atrocities we are seeing on the news are mostly the work of the Iraqis, and now you want to cast doubt on who killed Hassan? Nice hypocrisy Chicot, very nicely done.
chicot Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 You keep on insisting over and over that the atrocities we are seeing on the news are mostly the work of the Iraqis, and now you want to cast doubt on who killed Hassan? Nice hypocrisy Chicot, very nicely done. 130502[/snapback] Nice job of ignoring what I actually said and making things up to fit your argument. I said that it was not certain that ex-Baathists killed Margaret Hassan, even less certain that such an act was planned for three years ago. Clear now?
boomerjamhead Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Nice job of ignoring what I actually said and making things up to fit your argument. I said that it was not certain that ex-Baathists killed Margaret Hassan, even less certain that such an act was planned for three years ago. Clear now? 130653[/snapback] Sure we're clear. Clear in that you keep insisting that the Iraqis are some of the most savage animals on the face of the earth. Savage animals that need to be hunted down and eliminated regardless of which individual or individuals murdered Margaret Hassan. If the insurgency was planned three years ago, then these SOBs were instructed to commit these crimes three years ago. Who knows if Margaret Hassan was specifically targeted three years ago or not, this "insurgency' is out of control and based on your posts I blame it on the savagery of the Iraqi people themselves. It is what you keep saying right?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Saddam Hussien is a thug. Thugs always have violent plans against a takeover. Why? Because their power is gained through force and illegitamate means. The paranoia is always there. It is the only thing they know. Why would you expect him not to have plans?
Bill from NYC Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Uh Uh... Saddam didnt have anything to do with 9/11 still valid Daddy's War MORE than valid Halliburton contracts The truth hurts, doesn't it? France ISNT ON BOARD so the war isnt legit! Good to know France is by FAR the only nation not on our side. Uding France as your rallying cry gets old in itself, when we are hardly a firm coalition! Where are the WMDs that never existed except when Democrats say they did? They could only go by what your Bushie administration TOLD THEM.. duh! Outsourcing capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora! Bin Laden still on the loose... hmmm.. who's in charge again? BUSH! Why are US Troops shouldering all the load (The Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced dont count thilly)? Just the OPPOSITE, as usual... we're taking almost all the casualties for another concocted reason. And the last liberal talking point; (totally your opinion; 48% of Americans are liberal? HAHAHAAAAAA delusional are we? ) WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CRUSADES DAMMIT????? All Islamists are evil, unless they help us fight, and then if they are found to be bad guys all of a sudden, we label them as evil again! 128304[/snapback] Hey VT, Saddam was giving 25 Gs each to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I was wondering if you think that was OK?
_BiB_ Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Uh Uh... Saddam didnt have anything to do with 9/11 still valid Daddy's War MORE than valid Halliburton contracts The truth hurts, doesn't it? France ISNT ON BOARD so the war isnt legit! Good to know France is by FAR the only nation not on our side. Uding France as your rallying cry gets old in itself, when we are hardly a firm coalition! Where are the WMDs that never existed except when Democrats say they did? They could only go by what your Bushie administration TOLD THEM.. duh! Outsourcing capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora! Bin Laden still on the loose... hmmm.. who's in charge again? BUSH! Why are US Troops shouldering all the load (The Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced dont count thilly)? Just the OPPOSITE, as usual... we're taking almost all the casualties for another concocted reason. And the last liberal talking point; (totally your opinion; 48% of Americans are liberal? HAHAHAAAAAA delusional are we? ) WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CRUSADES DAMMIT????? All Islamists are evil, unless they help us fight, and then if they are found to be bad guys all of a sudden, we label them as evil again! 128304[/snapback] Hey VT, Saddam was giving 25 Gs each to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. I was wondering if you think that was OK? 130933[/snapback] Paid for by (drum roll) UN OIL FOR FOOD!
Alaska Darin Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 People are certainly entitled to their opinions. I was not a proponent of the war in Iraq but I understand why the choice was made. Here are some facts that are available from various internet sources: Where was Abu Nidal when he committed suicide (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in the country with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government. Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times? Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts (the government of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein). Nah. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan. Ramzi Yousef traveled to America on an Iraqi passport. Abu Abbas was captured in Baghdad. It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers. 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings. Khala al Salahat who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ. Coalition Troops shut down at least 3 terrorist camps including Salman Pak, a base 15 miles from Baghdad. There was a full mock up passenger plane there used for training terrorists. The camp specialized in training terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States according to PBS' Frontline and testimony from Iraqi's in front of Congress in the spring of 2002. The Phillipino government expelled a high ranking Iraqi diplomat after seizing cell phone records showing conversations between the official and leaders of Abu Sayyaf. Farouk Hijazi was captured by US forces near the Syrian border this year. He admitted to meeting with Al Qaeda on Saddam's behalf various times since 1994.
KRC Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 People are certainly entitled to their opinions. I was not a proponent of the war in Iraq but I understand why the choice was made. Here are some facts that are available from various internet sources: Where was Abu Nidal when he committed suicide (if shooting yourself in the head 4 times can be considered suicide)? AP reporter S. Yacoub reported that Nidal arrived in the country with the full knowledge of the Iraqi government. Ever take the time to wonder why Nidal would shoot himself in the head 4 times? Can't be because he refused to reengage in his prior activities at the behest of his hosts (the government of Iraq, headed by Saddam Hussein). Nah. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was known to be in Iraq before the war and was treated in Baghdad for injuries suffered in Afghanistan. Ramzi Yousef traveled to America on an Iraqi passport. Abu Abbas was captured in Baghdad. It is a well documented fact that the Iraqi government paid $25K to the families of suicide bombers. 11 Americans are known dead because of these bombings. Khala al Salahat who furnished the semtex that killed 189 Americans on Pan Am 103 surrendered to the 1st Marine Division in IRAQ. Coalition Troops shut down at least 3 terrorist camps including Salman Pak, a base 15 miles from Baghdad. There was a full mock up passenger plane there used for training terrorists. The camp specialized in training terrorists from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States according to PBS' Frontline and testimony from Iraqi's in front of Congress in the spring of 2002. The Phillipino government expelled a high ranking Iraqi diplomat after seizing cell phone records showing conversations between the official and leaders of Abu Sayyaf. Farouk Hijazi was captured by US forces near the Syrian border this year. He admitted to meeting with Al Qaeda on Saddam's behalf various times since 1994. 130939[/snapback] Why do you continue to bother posting this stuff? You are dealing with the mentality of: Revenge for Daddy We went in just for oil We went in so Cheney can profit through Haliburton blah...blah...blah... Stuff like your post just gets in the way.
Alaska Darin Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Why do you continue to bother posting this stuff? You are dealing with the mentality of: Revenge for Daddy We went in just for oil We went in so Cheney can profit through Haliburton blah...blah...blah... Stuff like your post just gets in the way. 130944[/snapback] I just can't help myself. Copy and paste is so darn easy.
chicot Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Sure we're clear. Clear in that you keep insisting that the Iraqis are some of the most savage animals on the face of the earth. Savage animals that need to be hunted down and eliminated regardless of which individual or individuals murdered Margaret Hassan. If the insurgency was planned three years ago, then these SOBs were instructed to commit these crimes three years ago. Who knows if Margaret Hassan was specifically targeted three years ago or not, this "insurgency' is out of control and based on your posts I blame it on the savagery of the Iraqi people themselves. It is what you keep saying right? 130706[/snapback] All I have been saying is the majority of the resistance is homegrown and not the work of foreigners, as some seem to believe. Did you honestly believe otherwise? As for talking of "the savagery of the Iraqi people themselves", weren't these the same people that you described as the friendliest people you could hope to meet (or something similar)? Why are you incapable of dealing in anything but generalisations? Some Iraqis are savage, just as some are friendly. Same goes for Americans and most other nationalities. Whether or not Iraqis are more savage than other races is open to question. The conditions that prevail in Iraq are unlike those in most other countries. For one thing, prior to the invasion Saddam opened all the prisons in the country - there are now all sorts of people at liberty that needed to be locked up. How do you imagine the US would fare if it was under foreign occupation, had all it's criminals released into society and had everyone in it's armed forces summarily dismissed and replaced by raw recruits with little training and less equipment? My guess is it wouldn't be pretty.
boomerjamhead Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 All I have been saying is the majority of the resistance is homegrown and not the work of foreigners, as some seem to believe. Did you honestly believe otherwise? As for talking of "the savagery of the Iraqi people themselves", weren't these the same people that you described as the friendliest people you could hope to meet (or something similar)? Why are you incapable of dealing in anything but generalisations? Some Iraqis are savage, just as some are friendly. Same goes for Americans and most other nationalities. Whether or not Iraqis are more savage than other races is open to question. The conditions that prevail in Iraq are unlike those in most other countries. For one thing, prior to the invasion Saddam opened all the prisons in the country - there are now all sorts of people at liberty that needed to be locked up. How do you imagine the US would fare if it was under foreign occupation, had all it's criminals released into society and had everyone in it's armed forces summarily dismissed and replaced by raw recruits with little training and less equipment? My guess is it wouldn't be pretty. 131308[/snapback] Here we go again. Only some Iraqis are friendly? I cannot for the life of me understand why you give such little credit to your fellow Iraqis. You amaze me. I still maintain that there are many, many times more friendly Iraqis than savage Iraqis but that you won't concede that point because it goes against your view that this was a war for imperialist America and not a war to rid the world of a ruthless thug. I still maintain that the majority of Iraqis are glad that we came and that we are currently cleaning house, but I know you won't concede that one either. But what do I know? And now I only deal with generalizations? Especially when my view of the good people of Iraq runs counter to everything we hear and read? Whatever.
_BiB_ Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Keep in mind, viewers, that BJH spent a good deal of time on the ground there and isn't pulling his view out of his arse.
chicot Posted November 23, 2004 Posted November 23, 2004 Here we go again. Only some Iraqis are friendly? I cannot for the life of me understand why you give such little credit to your fellow Iraqis. You amaze me. I still maintain that there are many, many times more friendly Iraqis than savage Iraqis but that you won't concede that point because it goes against your view that this was a war for imperialist America and not a war to rid the world of a ruthless thug. I still maintain that the majority of Iraqis are glad that we came and that we are currently cleaning house, but I know you won't concede that one either. But what do I know? And now I only deal with generalizations? Especially when my view of the good people of Iraq runs counter to everything we hear and read? Whatever. 131332[/snapback] Of course I will concede the point that there are many more friendly Iraqis than savage Iraqis. I have never argued otherwise. Logically, if there are some savage Iraqis then there can only be some friendly Iraqis. Not all Iraqis can be friendly unless they can be both friendly and savage at the same time. What I have said and still maintain is that most Iraqis want an end to the occupation. That is not the same thing as saying that most Iraqis are going around kidnapping and beheading people, not the same at all. It's entirely possible that this was a war for imperialist America and to rid the world of a ruthless thug. One does not exclude the other.
Wacka Posted November 24, 2004 Author Posted November 24, 2004 Simple way to get us out of there. Have them point out where the terrorists are (both foreign and Iraqi). We go there , kill them and the country is peaceful. We leave end of story.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Why do you continue to bother posting this stuff? You are dealing with the mentality of: Revenge for Daddy 130944[/snapback] Ya... Like this doesn't fit AD to a tee?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Simple way to get us out of there. Have them point out where the terrorists are (both foreign and Iraqi). We go there , kill them and the country is peaceful. We leave end of story. 131459[/snapback] Duh! Why didn't I think of that? That worked so well for the Brits during the American Revolution!
chicot Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Simple way to get us out of there. Have them point out where the terrorists are (both foreign and Iraqi). We go there , kill them and the country is peaceful. We leave end of story. 131459[/snapback] In that case, the US will never leave Iraq since the very fact of the occupation will continually generate violence.
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2004 Posted November 24, 2004 Ya... Like this doesn't fit AD to a tee? 131730[/snapback] Pardon me for not following WTF you are talking about, as usual. Of course, I live in this dimension.
Recommended Posts