Reuben Gant Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 This report concluded that Hamas and Hizballah have spurned Iraq, but other terrorist organizations could act as surrogates to conduct terrorist activities for the Iraqi government. It also concluded that there were ties to terrorist groups and that Saddam was reaching out to more groups. 371100[/snapback] My understanding of what the CIA meant by safe-haven did not include Iraqi cooperation with these groups, but knew they were somewhere in the country. Of course, the Iraqi gov. did not controll the Kurdish North-east were they were to have alleged to have been. "Reasonable" in the intelligence estimate has specific content, it does not mean verifiable. (side-point) interestingly enough, the movements that Bush praised in his speech in Lebanon have been urging Hizballah to retain their guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 People, this is what you get when you start diggging a hole for yourself... You said: Funny, I didn't know that AQ was the only terrorist organization we should be concerned with in the GWOT. What other terror group attacked us on 911? I asked where is Al Qaeda on that list of Saddam's terror buddies... and you went off about... Clinton put Iraq on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. The UN specifically mentioned them in the countless resolutions after the cease-fire agreement. Iraq was to give up all ties to terrorist activities. They did not and the UN specifically mentioned that they did not give up those activities, violating the cease-fire agreement. 370934[/snapback] Those activities are related to the Palenstinian terror groups Not Al Qaeda... so YES YOU ARE trying to link other groups to our fight, thus justify the invasion. I believe we should stay andd kick butt now that we are there. But Bush is a total F up when it came to the reason to invade, the strategy, and the planning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 My understanding of what the CIA meant by safe-haven did not include Iraqi cooperation with these groups, but knew they were somewhere in the country. Gee that sounds like our country... maybe we should put Bush in the same cell as Saddam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Those activities are related to the Palenstinian terror groups Not Al Qaeda... so YES YOU ARE trying to link other groups to our fight, thus justify the invasion. 371137[/snapback] So what defines an Al Qaeda member these days anyway? Do they have to know OBL or just agree with him? It's not like these guys have ID cards. I believe we should stay andd kick butt now that we are there. But Bush is a total F up when it came to the reason to invade, the strategy, and the planning.Somehow I don't think Bush was the person who came up with the strategy and planning behind the invasion. The President isn't usually the guy standing in front of a huge map of a region with a laser pointer explaining which divisions will be attacking where. OTOH, maybe he should have just advised them to "kick butt." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shameless Homer Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Gee that sounds like our country... maybe we should put Bush in the same cell as Saddam. 371139[/snapback] Mommy and Daddy must be proud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Somehow I don't think Bush was the person who came up with the strategy and planning behind the invasion. The President isn't usually the guy standing in front of a huge map of a region with a laser pointer explaining which divisions will be attacking where. 371148[/snapback] It certainly sounds like he had more to do with it than people on his own staff, who were much more qualified.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 The President isn't usually the guy standing in front of a huge map of a region with a laser pointer explaining which divisions will be attacking where. 371148[/snapback] Well, unless their name is Stalin or Hussein. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 It certainly sounds like he had more to do with it than people on his own staff, who were much more qualified.... 371153[/snapback] Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Well, unless their name is Stalin or Hussein. 371154[/snapback] Or Hitler. But I guess that makes sense for the Bush = Hitler moveon.org crowd who pictures W bathing in crude oil and ordering the Air Force to bomb civilians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Funny, I didn't know that AQ was the only terrorist organization we should be concerned with in the GWOT. What other terror group attacked us on 911? So you think 911 is the only terror attack worth retaliation? Allrighty then.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I would try to fix your quoting fiasco, but it isn't worth the effort since you apparently do not like to actually read posts before responding. 371137[/snapback] You are really having trouble with the reading comprehension thingy, aren't you (along with a suprising inability to use the quote feature). My post was in response to the GWOT and Iraq being involved in the GWOT. Do you understand what GLOBAL means? Let me explain the concept for you, since the previous question was rhetorical: the GWOT is to fight all states and non-state actors responsible for terrorist activities. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but there have been a few more attacks other than 9/11 and at least a handful of organizations outside of AQ who have been involved in terrorist activities. I have never used terrorism to justify the war in Iraq. You randomly change the argument in mid-debate and try to attach philosophies to people who have never said nor implied agreeing with those philosophies. It doesn't work and it just makes you look desperate. For example: 1) Bush wants to fight the GWOT. You read that Bush is saying that Iraq was reponsible for 9/11. 2) I say that Clinton had Iraq on the list of State sponsors of Terrorism. You read that I am trying to tie Palestinian terorist groups to the Iraq invasion. 3) I say that the UN has repeatedly stated that Iraq has violated the cease-fire agreement including the terrorism provisions. Again, you read that I am trying to tie Palestinian terrorist groups to the invasion of Iraq. You still have this fascination with trying to say that the GWOT is only focused on AQ. Keep digging, Sparkey. Eventually, you might dig up a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 What other terror group attacked us on 911? So you think 911 is the only terror attack worth retaliation? Allrighty then.... 371170[/snapback] Boggles the mind, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 But Bush is a total F up when it came to the reason to invade, the strategy, and the planning. 371137[/snapback] So you think our military men and woman are !@#$ ups too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 People, this is what you get when you start diggging a hole for yourself... You said: What other terror group attacked us on 911? I asked where is Al Qaeda on that list of Saddam's terror buddies... and you went off about... Clinton put Iraq on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. The UN specifically mentioned them in the countless resolutions after the cease-fire agreement. Iraq was to give up all ties to terrorist activities. They did not and the UN specifically mentioned that they did not give up those activities, violating the cease-fire agreement. 370934[/snapback] Those activities are related to the Palenstinian terror groups Not Al Qaeda... so YES YOU ARE trying to link other groups to our fight, thus justify the invasion. I believe we should stay andd kick butt now that we are there. But Bush is a total F up when it came to the reason to invade, the strategy, and the planning. 371137[/snapback] Are you REALLY so dense as to think terrorist groups are so thoroughly stovepiped? Do you know how al Qaeda's organized to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 So you think our military men and woman are !@#$ ups too? 371175[/snapback] Only if they serve under a democrat president... ;-) ;-) And yes, AD that was pointed at you! :-) ONLY KIDDING! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 So you think our military men and woman are !@#$ ups too? 371175[/snapback] No.. do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 It certainly sounds like he had more to do with it than people on his own staff, who were much more qualified.... 371153[/snapback] What??????? I mean, here's a bunch of people saying "Bush is a total idiot, he's a complete !@#$-up, he couldn't find his own ass with both hands and a map, he's the worst president ever...but he, all by his lonesome with NO help from anyone with experience in the matter, planned and executed the political AND military strategy down to the operational level for the invasion of Iraq." Do you have ANY idea how completely !@#$ing stupid and clueless you sound? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 No.. do you? 371195[/snapback] You implied it with your comment, try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Are you REALLY so dense as to think terrorist groups are so thoroughly stovepiped? Do you know how al Qaeda's organized to begin with? 371191[/snapback] No...no...no...You have it all wrong. There is only one terrorist organization and that is AQ. I expected better from you, Tom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Funny, I didn't know that AQ was the only terrorist organization we should be concerned with in the GWOT. What other terror group attacked us on 911? So you think 911 is the only terror attack worth retaliation? Allrighty then.... Boggles the mind, doesn't it? 371172[/snapback] I'm starting to have a real problem with this whole "No Child Left Behind" thingy. It's obviously not working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts