The Iraq War Was a Mistake!

more proof. No palestinians or Iraqis flew any airplanes on 9/11.

I never claimed they did!

No arab nationalist organizations support the establishment of a global caliphate....

This is incorrect, many so-called "Arab Nationalists" support the concept of a global Caliphate. However, we are not talking about generic "Arab Nationalists" when we're discussing Radical Islamofascists. We also aren't talking about Muslims or Islam, we are talking about heinous and barbaric monsters who want to kill innocent women and children, drive Jews into the Mediterranean Sea to their deaths, and eliminate the Infidel from their midst.

Iraq comes into play as a "facilitator" of this barbaric ideology of terrorism, whether they were a willing co-conspirator or not, is beside the point. They certainly DID assist and aid these people, and you can deny that all you like, the proof is obvious and clear to anyone who wants to be objective about it.
 
“highly suspect,” primarily because INR analysts did not believe that Niger would be likely to engage in such a transaction and did not believe Niger would be able to transfer uranium to Iraq because a French consortium maintained control of the Nigerien uranium industry.

LMAO.... well, that makes me feel a lot better, knowing the French had their eye on things! Yeah, it would just fucking be impossible for Iraq to illegally buy yellowcake from Niger, with the French oversight!

What a fucking doofus!
 
Let us ALSO not forget that in October of 2002, GEORGE TENET himself vetted a speech where Bush was to say that US intelligence services have come to learn that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger.

That part of the speech was removed, as Tenet stated that such a claim was "Highly Dubious" (Washintonese for "That's a crock of shit, Mr. President)

Amazingly enough, Bush and Co simply rammed similar language into the 2003 State of The Union Address at the very last minute, not allowing anyone to vet it. They also covered their asses with "Plausible Deniability" by substituting "US intelligence" with "The British government".

Later, when asked what sources the British government were relying on for said conclusion, they stated "Non-Document" sources, which they refused to name.
 
Dixie said:
more proof. No palestinians or Iraqis flew any airplanes on 9/11.

I never claimed they did!

No arab nationalist organizations support the establishment of a global caliphate....

This is incorrect, many so-called "Arab Nationalists" support the concept of a global Caliphate. However, we are not talking about generic "Arab Nationalists" when we're discussing Radical Islamofascists. We also aren't talking about Muslims or Islam, we are talking about heinous and barbaric monsters who want to kill innocent women and children, drive Jews into the Mediterranean Sea to their deaths, and eliminate the Infidel from their midst.

Iraq comes into play as a "facilitator" of this barbaric ideology of terrorism, whether they were a willing co-conspirator or not, is beside the point. They certainly DID assist and aid these people, and you can deny that all you like, the proof is obvious and clear to anyone who wants to be objective about it.
Click to expand...

Iraq did not assist the people who attacked us. Iraq did not assist the people who wanted to establish this caliphate. Iraq did not support "radical islamofascists" - a term you like to use rather than the more correct islamic extremists or wahabbists because you need to raise the ire of all those who remember our defeat of true fascism and the accuracy of the term is secondary to achieving the desired effect... for Iraq to support groups with that agenda would be sucidal pure and simple. You yourself said Saddam was not an idiot...why would he provide assistance to an organization whose primary goal was the destruction of his very government?

Arab nationalists do not support the concept of a global caliphate. That is a ridiculous and unsupportable assertion. The idea of a nationalist agenda is diametrically opposed to a caliphate which supercedes nationalism and makes nationalist aspirations obsolete.

When you don't KNOW what you are talking about, you just spew bullshit that makes no sense... and when you do, you sometimes are unaware that your bigotry gets exposed by the process.
 
It's time that right wing partisan face the fact that The Iraq war was pushed by The Neocons, for the sake of American global hegemony.

The SAID they were going to do it in 2000. It all played out exactly how they wanted it to. It isn't a mere coincidence.
 
Iraq did not support "radical islamofascists" - a term you like to use rather than the more correct islamic extremists or wahabbists because you need to raise the ire of all those who remember our defeat of true fascism and the accuracy of the term is secondary to achieving the desired effect...

I use the term to denote a distinct difference between people of true Muslim faith and radical groups who have perverted the religion for their own agenda. Islamic extremists and wahabbists, as you call them, are no more in-line with Islam than the KKK was with Christianity, and they do indeed employ the same fascist-style approach, of our enemies in WWII.

I have never stated that Iraq ever supported the Islamofascists, although Iran, their next-door neighbor, certainly does. In fact, Iran is where most of the hateful ideology stems from, and is the ultimate cause of the problem. I did state, correctly, that Saddam's regime was assisting these people, providing safe haven, training facilities, medical care, and possibly even some financial assistance. Whether Saddam personally knew about it, is another matter. He was the president, he was responsible, whether he knew about it or not, he should have known about it, he should have stopped it from happening as well.

I don't know the extent of the connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, I do know that Iraq sent Farouk Hijazi to Afghanistan to meet with OBL in 1995. Farouk Hijazi served at the pleasure of the president, Saddam Hussein. So, clearly a case could be made of a 'connection' here. ....Oh, I know.... I can't PROVE what they talked about, and ALL enemies routinely send their ambassadors to visit each other! You can come up with more excuses and explanations than a five-year-old with their hand stuck in a cookie jar!

There WAS a connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, and it has been well documented. Your parsing and excusing doesn't change the facts.
 
Dixie said:
You are not equally fervent in your hatred of all terrorists.... the Tamils in Sri Lanka get NONE of your bile...the Catholics of the IRA get NONE of your bile.... there are terrorist groups all over the globe, but YOU are only focused on muslims

Maybe that's because the Tamils and the IRA didn't fly fucking planes into our buildings and kill 3,000 innocent Americans on 9/11? Maybe it's because these terror groups are not hell-bent on establishing a global Caliphate to rule the fucking world under 5th Century Muhammad Law? Maybe it's because there is no sense of urgency in stopping those terrorist groups from killing MORE Americans in the days to come?

It could be any one of these, or a combination of them, which accounts for my current level of outrage and condemnation, but it's certainly not because of any prejudice toward Muslim people, many of which are my personal friends, who also share my disdain and condemnation toward terrorists.

What you are implying is one of the most offensive and insulting accusations you could possibly make, and you have nothing to support it, except your typical judgemental condescending personal opinions. It's about the biggest "cheap shot" you can take at me, and you know it. Of course, this is typical of you, when you are defeated in debate, you always resort to the cheap shots and unfounded accusations.
Click to expand...

you just said we should attack all muslim terrorist groups. You're not bright enough to make a distinction between those who threaten the United States, and those who don't.

Should we attack muslim terrorists in India? They haven't attacked us. Hamas has never to my knoweldge, attacked americans. They have a regional goal to end the israeli occupation, and attack israelis. Israel can defend itself. Shall we attack Chechen rebels in russia? Shall we attack bosnian muslim terrorists? Shall we attack anti-iranian and anti-turkish kurdish muslim terrorist groups?
 
Dixie said:
Iraq did not support "radical islamofascists" - a term you like to use rather than the more correct islamic extremists or wahabbists because you need to raise the ire of all those who remember our defeat of true fascism and the accuracy of the term is secondary to achieving the desired effect...

I use the term to denote a distinct difference between people of true Muslim faith and radical groups who have perverted the religion for their own agenda. Islamic extremists and wahabbists, as you call them, are no more in-line with Islam than the KKK was with Christianity, and they do indeed employ the same fascist-style approach, of our enemies in WWII.

I have never stated that Iraq ever supported the Islamofascists, although Iran, their next-door neighbor, certainly does. In fact, Iran is where most of the hateful ideology stems from, and is the ultimate cause of the problem. I did state, correctly, that Saddam's regime was assisting these people, providing safe haven, training facilities, medical care, and possibly even some financial assistance. Whether Saddam personally knew about it, is another matter. He was the president, he was responsible, whether he knew about it or not, he should have known about it, he should have stopped it from happening as well.

I don't know the extent of the connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, I do know that Iraq sent Farouk Hijazi to Afghanistan to meet with OBL in 1995. Farouk Hijazi served at the pleasure of the president, Saddam Hussein. So, clearly a case could be made of a 'connection' here. ....Oh, I know.... I can't PROVE what they talked about, and ALL enemies routinely send their ambassadors to visit each other! You can come up with more excuses and explanations than a five-year-old with their hand stuck in a cookie jar!

There WAS a connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, and it has been well documented. Your parsing and excusing doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...



“Conclusion: Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa’ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al-Qa’ida and Iraq. ”

From: United States Senate Bipartisan Iraq Intelligence Investigation - Phase 2 September 2006*
 
Agnosticus_Caesar said:
It's time that right wing partisan face the fact that The Iraq war was pushed by The Neocons, for the sake of American global hegemony.

The SAID they were going to do it in 2000. It all played out exactly how they wanted it to. It isn't a mere coincidence.
Click to expand...

*yawn* ....yeah, and the aliens really did crash land in Roswell, and there is really a secret underground facility where their bodies are being kept... and we never actually went to the moon, it was all a "hollywood production."

So... the Neocons planned all along, for us to become involved in a war with Iraq that no one would support, and without any justifiable reason, because they knew this would be great for the Neocon movement? What is the rationale here, I don't get it?

You have read some propagandist interpretation of the PNAC documents, and assume this stuff in a more literal sense than it was ever conceived. PNAC is discussing, intelligently, the growing problem of radicalism and violence in the middle east, and suggesting that this is a problem we will eventually have to face in the future. It was considered to be wise to develop some plan or course of action to take at some point in the future, because the ramifications were inevitable. Well, we had 9/11, so they were correct about that part!

The thing you have a problem accepting is, American Exceptionalism. You think America should be relegated to the back seat with Cuba and Venezuela, and just stay out of other people's business... but America can't do this without the entire world blowing up in chaos... it would be nice to think there was some other entity... some other superpower capable of handling the problems of the world, but there really isn't anyone else who can do it besides us. Because some of us realize this fact of life, you want to call us names and ridicule us for it... hey, that's life... it's lonely at the top!
 
Dixie said:
Iraq did not support "radical islamofascists" - a term you like to use rather than the more correct islamic extremists or wahabbists because you need to raise the ire of all those who remember our defeat of true fascism and the accuracy of the term is secondary to achieving the desired effect...

I use the term to denote a distinct difference between people of true Muslim faith and radical groups who have perverted the religion for their own agenda. Islamic extremists and wahabbists, as you call them, are no more in-line with Islam than the KKK was with Christianity, and they do indeed employ the same fascist-style approach, of our enemies in WWII.

I have never stated that Iraq ever supported the Islamofascists, although Iran, their next-door neighbor, certainly does. In fact, Iran is where most of the hateful ideology stems from, and is the ultimate cause of the problem. I did state, correctly, that Saddam's regime was assisting these people, providing safe haven, training facilities, medical care, and possibly even some financial assistance. Whether Saddam personally knew about it, is another matter. He was the president, he was responsible, whether he knew about it or not, he should have known about it, he should have stopped it from happening as well.

I don't know the extent of the connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, I do know that Iraq sent Farouk Hijazi to Afghanistan to meet with OBL in 1995. Farouk Hijazi served at the pleasure of the president, Saddam Hussein. So, clearly a case could be made of a 'connection' here. ....Oh, I know.... I can't PROVE what they talked about, and ALL enemies routinely send their ambassadors to visit each other! You can come up with more excuses and explanations than a five-year-old with their hand stuck in a cookie jar!

There WAS a connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, and it has been well documented. Your parsing and excusing doesn't change the facts.
Click to expand...


I did state, correctly, that Saddam's regime was assisting these people, providing safe haven, training facilities, medical care, and possibly even some financial assistance

Wrong again Einstein.

Having occupied Iraq for four years, we now have as much intelligence as were ever going to get on the Baath regime.

And our own Intelligence Agencies, and a Bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committe have concluded Saddam was not aiding al qaeda at all. In fact, he considered them a threat to his regime. And he was trying to find and arrest Zarqawi, and was not harboring or aiding him in anyway.

I've given you the link and the Senate Bipartisan conclusions about six times. Please don't pretend you haven't seen them.
 
This is incorrect, many so-called "Arab Nationalists" support the concept of a global Caliphate.

You're going to have to provide a link to a legtimate American Intelligence source, that confirms this assertion. I do not believe Hamas, the muslim Chechen terrorists, or the anti-turkish kurdish muslim terrorists have ever stated their goal is a global caliphate.

I'll wait for the link.
 
“Conclusion: Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments.

Conclusion: We couldn't find out any information on meetings because Saddam's regime and alQaeda don't exactly keep an open public record on such events.... so we can't really determine for a fact, if and when any of these meetings took place, except for one.

I'm just sorry Prissy, I wish I could say that this proves your case, I know you worked hard to find this and post it over and over again, but honestly, I see nothing in the report that indicates these meetings never occurred, only that they couldn't find substantial evidence to conclude they had or had not.

If you can find the part where they definitively state that no meetings took place except for one, and where they can definitively tell us what was discussed in that meeting, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the context of the meeting was not related to any sort of negotiations between the two parties, I would be interested in seeing that. Otherwise, you are continuing to point to a lack of finding as proof of something, and that is not rooted in reality or honesty. Sorry!
 
Dixie said:
“Conclusion: Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa’ida and Saddam Hussein’s regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments.

Conclusion: We couldn't find out any information on meetings because Saddam's regime and alQaeda don't exactly keep an open public record on such events.... so we can't really determine for a fact, if and when any of these meetings took place, except for one.

I'm just sorry Prissy, I wish I could say that this proves your case, I know you worked hard to find this and post it over and over again, but honestly, I see nothing in the report that indicates these meetings never occurred, only that they couldn't find substantial evidence to conclude they had or had not.

If you can find the part where they definitively state that no meetings took place except for one, and where they can definitively tell us what was discussed in that meeting, and prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the context of the meeting was not related to any sort of negotiations between the two parties, I would be interested in seeing that. Otherwise, you are continuing to point to a lack of finding as proof of something, and that is not rooted in reality or honesty. Sorry!
Click to expand...


Conclusion: We couldn't find out any information on meetings because Saddam's regime and alQaeda don't exactly keep an open public record on such event


So you don't have any credible evidence of "meetings" between Iraq and Al qaeda. You're just assuming it, without having any evidence.

Just what I thought
 
I have never stated that Iraq ever supported the Islamofascists,

you are getting all confused Dixie. Did you not say earlier that Saddam's regime assisted and helped trained Al Qaeda at Salman Pak? Which IS it?

although Iran, their next-door neighbor, certainly does. In fact, Iran is where most of the hateful ideology stems from, and is the ultimate cause of the problem.

actually, Iranian persian shiite theocracy is far from the source of the hateful wahabbist ideology, which comes, primarily, from sunnis arabs in Egypt...but they're all ragheads to you anyway - persians, arabs, sunnis, shiites.... so what is the difference, eh?

I did state, correctly, that Saddam's regime was assisting these people, providing safe haven, training facilities, medical care, and possibly even some financial assistance. so those actions are NOT synonymous with supporting islamofascist in your mind? You flip flop in the same fucking paragraph!

I don't know the extent of the connection between Saddam's regime and alQaeda, I do know that Iraq sent Farouk Hijazi to Afghanistan to meet with OBL in 1995. Farouk Hijazi served at the pleasure of the president, Saddam Hussein. So, clearly a case could be made of a 'connection' here. ....Oh, I know.... I can't PROVE what they talked about, and ALL enemies routinely send their ambassadors to visit each other! You can come up with more excuses and explanations than a five-year-old with their hand stuck in a cookie jar!
if you do not know the extent of the connection between Saddam and AQ, why was it reason enough to start a war? And you cannot escape the fact that enemies routinely communicate with one another, but that communication is hardly any evidence of alliances. This is no excuse...it is fact. You want to take the fact that some guys from Iraq talked with some guys from AQ as proof of some sort of nefarious connection and alliance to do America harm.... that is pure fantasy. It was a stupid miscalculation on your part..... you dumbass neocons invaded Iraq who was unwittingly helping us in our fight against the folks who attacked us, and in so doing, destabilized the entire region, significantly improved the credibility and street standing of both AQ and Iran... and cost us 25K dead and wounded Americans and a half a trillion dollars...which has only bought us less safety and more enemies. Thanks a lot. Give us the keys and go sit in the corner for a long time out...we'll call you when you can come out again.
 
You said the evidence that Saddam's government meet with and authorized training for al qaeda was irrefutable

Dixie: "Saddam's regime did indeed meet with representatives of alQaeda, and authorized training camps for them. You can deny this all you like, the evidence is well documented, and irrefutable."


Where is this IRREFUTABLE proof?

DIXIE: "We couldn't find out any information on meetings because Saddam's regime and alQaeda don't exactly keep an open public record on such event"

How come the American intelligence community and a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee refuted your assertion?
 
-DIXIE: “I have never stated that Iraq ever supported the Islamofascists.”

Yes you did. On this thread:


-Dixie: "Saddam's regime did indeed meet with representatives of alQaeda, and authorized training camps for them. You can deny this all you like, the evidence is well documented, and irrefutable."
 
although Iran, their next-door neighbor, certainly does. In fact, Iran is where most of the hateful ideology stems from, and is the ultimate cause of the problem.

Why in the hell would a shia theocracy like Iran be the ultimate cause of what is predominantly (for us) a problem with sunni jihaddists?

Sunni jihaddists practically execute and behead shia on sight these days. OBL and al qaeda hate the persians, as do most sunni arabs.
 
Cypress said:
Dixie: This is incorrect, many so-called "Arab Nationalists" support the concept of a global Caliphate.

You're going to have to provide a link to a legtimate American Intelligence source, that confirms this assertion. I do not believe Hamas, the muslim Chechen terrorists, or the anti-turkish kurdish muslim terrorists have ever stated their goal is a global caliphate.

I'll wait for the link.
Click to expand...

Get back to me with this link when you can.

I know Hamas wants muslims to rule Palestine. Israel is pretty capable of defending itself from that threat.

I've never heard that hamas wants to invade europe, south america, australia, and north america with the goal of establishing a global caliphate, as you asserted.
 
Cypress said:
This is incorrect, many so-called "Arab Nationalists" support the concept of a global Caliphate.

You're going to have to provide a link to a legtimate American Intelligence source, that confirms this assertion. I do not believe Hamas, the muslim Chechen terrorists, or the anti-turkish kurdish muslim terrorists have ever stated their goal is a global caliphate.

I'll wait for the link.
Click to expand...


I've never said that Hamas, Chechens, or Kurds, stated their goal is a global caliphate. I stated in very plain and understandable English, that many so-called "Arab Nationalists" support the concept of a global Caliphate.

Here's your link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_nationalism

Arab nationalism is a common nationalist ideology in the wider Arab world. Arab nationalism is a form of cultural nationalism. It is a claim to common heritage — that all Arabic speakers are united by a shared history, culture, and language. Pan-Arabism is a related concept, which calls for the creation of a single Arab state [Caliphate], but not all Arab nationalists are also Pan-Arabists.

Read that last line carefully... it does not state that NO Arab Nationalists are Pan-Arabists, does it? This, I am assuming, is because SOME Pan-Arabists ARE Arab Nationalists, or at least claim to be, which is why I specifically used the term "so-called" when I made my statement.

You really need to work on reading comprehension, Prissy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top