I Thought There Were No WMDs!?!?! - Page 3

alias · 06-27-2006, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

That's pretty simplistic (despite you even saying 'simple'). Its kind of hasty too. "Terrorism" is a pretty broad term to be used when saying we have declared war on all terrorism. Not all terrorist organizations despise the United States. In fact, our own governments have sponsered terrorist organizations that worked in our benifit in Central/South America as well as the middle east. We were at war with those who attacked us; which was Al-Qaeda. Iraq had nothing to do with the war on Al-Qaeda. But now that the US government has made asshats out of themselves by invading a country purely on offensive means under the false pretense of WMD's, we have a lot of the radicals in the region targeting us. Under these circumstances, the administration and their policies have inflamed the situation, as well as complicating it further. Our own government (minus Bush and his cronies) admit this; its not debatable; its fact that the Iraq War has significantly increased Al-Qaeda recruiting rates globally.

The idea of a "war on all terrorism" is kind of Orwellian in the sense of "War is Peace". Its an indefinite war. If we were to limit our liberties in the name of this war on terrorism, it would be an indefinite state of emergency. It isn't unbeatable due to any incompetences (although they play their part); it's unwinnable because its neither a war in the traditional sense, nor does it I think meet the definition of war. The more you feed into it, the more it grows. With every invasion of these so-called "terror supporting states", the more terrorists are recruited (and popular insurgencies on top of that). With every raid, with every assassination or government sponsered coup comes more enemies of the United States as a consequence. Its a complicated situation. Peace in terms of this type of conflict may only be brought by understanding. It isn't dramatic and heroic; but if you want to win this supposed "war on terror" you can't do it by these types of reckless military operations.

There are reports coming out every day that confirm Saddam was involved in terrorism and supporting it. That old leftist argument has been defrocked. Time to find another one.

thenewnoise · 06-27-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Yes it does. It works all the time. You kill them until they can't regroup or are so thinned out they have no force. It's worked throughout history.

Kill who? The terrorists? Who are they? Where are they? How do we make sure new terrorists don't get recruited or start a new group?

Katczinsky · 06-27-2006, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

There are reports coming out every day that confirm Saddam was involved in terrorism and supporting it. That old leftist argument has been defrocked. Time to find another one.

I think your response is ignorant to the main point I was trying to make. Even if Saddam was involved in terrorism (which, any evidence is circumstantial), he wasn't involved in neither the funding nor the supporting of Al-Qaeda. It is therefore evident that going into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with retaliation onto those who attacked us. "Terrorists" didn't attack us on 9/11. Al-Qaeda using terror attacked us on 9/11. Al-Qaeda are terrorists, but terrorists aren't Al-Qaeda. The sooner we realize this, the more we realize how redundant and unjustified going into Iraq was in terms of the security of our nation.

Katczinsky · 06-27-2006, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

There are reports coming out every day that confirm Saddam was involved in terrorism and supporting it. That old leftist argument has been defrocked. Time to find another one.

I think your response is ignorant to the main point I was trying to make. Even if Saddam was involved in terrorism (which, any evidence is circumstantial), he wasn't involved in neither the funding nor the supporting of Al-Qaeda. It is therefore evident that going into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with retaliation onto those who attacked us. "Terrorists" didn't attack us on 9/11. Al-Qaeda using terror attacked us on 9/11. Al-Qaeda are terrorists, but terrorists aren't Al-Qaeda. The sooner we realize this, the more we realize how redundant and unjustified going into Iraq was in terms of the security of our nation.

aMFliberal · 06-28-2006, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katczinsky

I think your response is ignorant to the main point I was trying to make. Even if Saddam was involved in terrorism (which, any evidence is circumstantial), he wasn't involved in neither the funding nor the supporting of Al-Qaeda. It is therefore evident that going into Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with retaliation onto those who attacked us. "Terrorists" didn't attack us on 9/11. Al-Qaeda using terror attacked us on 9/11. Al-Qaeda are terrorists, but terrorists aren't Al-Qaeda. The sooner we realize this, the more we realize how redundant and unjustified going into Iraq was in terms of the security of our nation.

I agree, "the terrorists" became the all-encompassing word in American lingo for enemies that the government selectively chooses to fight. I don't understand why people do not realize that everything is done intentionally and usually for purposes other than but including the stated purposes. Announce a "War on Terror", yes it sounds great, it sounds just, nobody is complaining except for the fact that it is so vague. With the War on Terror", the ambiguity allowed the administration to invade Iraq. As in for the people who need quick conclusions, "terrorism" could be associated enough with Saddam. I just think it's funny that an argument for support of this war is that we defeated a regime supporting and funding terrorism and that we are killing terrorists in Iraq. The word terrorism is very hard to define. Experts on terrorism vary in their definitions. One thing is clear enough, the terrorism that Saddam engaged in or supported was not what al-Qaeda did. Saddam was the leader of a nation. al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization with no nation, no definied territory. al-Qaeda is also the organization with the most potential to attack the United States, not withstanding it also being the organization responsible for the most American deaths from terrorism. Yet, people would have you believe that al-Qaeda and Saddam are synonomous. Both bad, both can be associated with terrorism, so why don't you support the war?

foundit66 · 06-28-2006, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

There are reports coming out every day that confirm Saddam was involved in terrorism and supporting it. That old leftist argument has been defrocked. Time to find another one.

You keep saying this, but every time I ask you to PROVE a modern link between Saddam and terrorism, you repeatedly avoid the challenge.

Considering they "come out every day", you'ld think you would be able to find at least one...

alias · 06-28-2006, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenewnoise

Kill who? The terrorists? Who are they? Where are they? How do we make sure new terrorists don't get recruited or start a new group?

I gave you my solution. You give me yours.

alias · 06-28-2006, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

You keep saying this, but every time I ask you to PROVE a modern link between Saddam and terrorism, you repeatedly avoid the challenge.

Considering they "come out every day", you'ld think you would be able to find at least one...

I aint doing any more research for you. If you don't believe me, then present your stuff.

alias · 06-28-2006, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by foundit66

You keep saying this, but every time I ask you to PROVE a modern link between Saddam and terrorism, you repeatedly avoid the challenge.

Considering they "come out every day", you'ld think you would be able to find at least one...

Oh, okay, Here: http://tinyurl.com/kv56j

Your next statement will be that it is not a credible source. Prove it wrong.

foundit66 · 06-28-2006, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alias

Oh, okay, Here: http://tinyurl.com/kv56j
Your next statement will be that it is not a credible source. Prove it wrong.

You're like a guy who just had his wife walk in on him screwing the milk-maid, and then he tells the wife, "Oh great. Now you're going to start yelling at me that I'm cheating on you..."
And to think you had the gall to whine about wikipedia, and then you quote this source...
(Just out of curiousity, do you use the "tinyurl" web-site to help obscure where your links will lead people and what source you are referencing?)

But let's not go that route just yet.
Let's take a source that hopefully YOU will consider credible to REFUTE the claims of this article.

Your article claims on October 4th, 2004: "Saddam Possessed WMD"
Bush admitted on October 7th, 2004 that Iraq HAD NO WMD's...
http://www.public-action.com/911/no-wmd-sdut/

Which source is accurate?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode