Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 06-16-2004, 09:13 AM   #1 (permalink)
The Original JizzSmacka
 
Jesus Pimp's Avatar
 
9/11 panel: No al Qaeda cooperation with Iraq

Quote:
Wednesday, June 16, 2004 Posted: 11:56 AM EDT (1556 GMT)


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The panel investigating the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks found "no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States," according to a staff report issued on Wednesday.

The report contradicts statements from the Bush administration that Saddam Hussein had ties to al Qaeda.

In response, a senior administration official traveling with President Bush in Tampa, Florida, said, "We stand by what Powell and Tenet have said," referring to previous statements by Secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA Director George Tenet that described such links.

Bush and Vice President Cheney have made comments in recent days alleging such ties. (Full story)

The commission's report says Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.

The report also found that there was no "convincing evidence that any government financially supported al Qaeda before 9/11" other than the limited support provided by the Taliban when bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan.

The toppling of the Taliban regime "fundamentally changed" al Qaeda, leaving it decentralized and altering Osama bin Laden's role.

Prior to the attacks, bin Laden approved all al Qaeda operations and often chose targets and the operatives involved himself.

"After al Qaeda lost Afghanistan after 9/11, it fundamentally changed. The organization is far more decentralized. Bin Laden's seclusion forced operational commanders and cell leaders to assume greater authority; they are now making the command decisions previously made by him," the report said.

The commission is holding its last hearings Wednesday and Thursday.

Among those testifying at Wednesday's hearing were officials from the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office, as well as a number of CIA officials, who will not be identified to protect their anonymity should they be sent on overseas assignments in the future.

Al Qaeda seeking nuclear weapons
The commission said that al Qaeda was still seeking to obtain a nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

Al Qaeda "remains interested in using a radiological dispersal device or 'dirty bomb,' a conventional explosive designed to spread radioactive material," the commission said.

The report said that al Qaeda may also seek to launch a chemical attack using widely-available chemicals or by attacking a chemical plant or chemical shipments.

The commission also said stdhat Tenet testified that a possible anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face."

Al Qaeda funding
Al Qaeda's funding came primarily from a fund-raising network, not business enterprises or bin Laden's personal fortune. Bin Laden owned some businesses and other assets in Sudan, but "most were small or not economically viable." The report says bin Laden "never received a $300 million inheritance," but from 1970 until approximately 1994 received about $1 million a year.

The commission found that Saudi Arabia was a rich fund-raising ground for al Qaeda, but that it had found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior officials within the Saudi government funded al Qaeda.

The group distributed the money as quickly as it was raised, with much of the money going to the Taliban for its operations in Afghanistan.

The CIA estimates that al Qaeda spent $30 million each year on expenses including terrorist operations, salaries and maintenance on terrorist training camps.

Its largest expense was payments to the Taliban, which was an estimated $10 million to $20 million per year.

The commission estimated that the September 11 attacks cost between $400,000 and $500,000, plus the cost of training the 19 hijackers in Afghanistan.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion/index.html

Looks like Bushie & gang are in some potential deep shit. What do you think?
__________________
Never date anyone who doesn't make your dick hard.
Jesus Pimp is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 09:41 AM   #2 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
I call bullshit. With all the shit going on in Iraq with Ansar Al-Islam and Al Zarqwai, There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam had at least some contact and coordination with the group.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 09:56 AM   #3 (permalink)
I change
 
ARTelevision's Avatar
 
Location: USA
I believe the caveat here is they are looking for direct links to 911.

That way, the obvious issues like Ansar Al-Islam and Al Zarqwai are overlooked.
__________________
create evolution
ARTelevision is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 10:30 AM   #4 (permalink)
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
 
Location: Los Angeles
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I call bullshit. With all the shit going on in Iraq with Ansar Al-Islam and Al Zarqwai, There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam had at least some contact and coordination with the group.
Yeah but the question is when?

He could have had contact after the invasion (the enemy of my enemy is my friend)

Anways the panel is looking at direct links to 9/11 and if there isn't any direct link with Iraq, I'm not surprised on 9/11
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 02:19 PM   #5 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Actually, the report goes further than just denying 9-11 links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq and downplays the existence of any cooperation at all:

Quote:
A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.
- quotes taken from cnn.com
This makes sense given that Radical Islamists were a threat to Saddam. Let's not forget the open revolt and subsequent repression of the Sunnis after the first Gulf war.

Hopefully this report will put to rest the idea of the Saddam/Osama connection once and for all, but given that a sizable percentage of Americans still believe that there were Iraqis amongst the hijackers on 9-11, I somehow doubt it will.

Last edited by cthulu23; 06-16-2004 at 03:19 PM..
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-16-2004, 03:03 PM   #6 (permalink)
Insane
 
Hehe...

*edit* to underscore the point (note the dates).

Last edited by hammer4all; 06-16-2004 at 03:29 PM..
hammer4all is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 01:48 AM   #7 (permalink)
Insane
 
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23

Hopefully this report will put to rest the idea of the Saddam/Osama connection once and for all, but given that a sizable percentage of Americans still believe that there were Iraqis amongst the hijackers on 9-11, I somehow doubt it will.
I think it should end that connection, and you said that people well still think that it exsists, but who do you think well say they were related because some guy from iraq flew a plane or what not? To me it seems that it shoulden't matter if they were from country A or country B they still attacked it wasn't their leaders army attacking it was them!
roadkill is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 02:36 AM   #8 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I call bullshit. With all the shit going on in Iraq with Ansar Al-Islam and Al Zarqwai, There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam had at least some contact and coordination with the group.
I don't see the logic behind that. Why, because of their presence in the country do you think Saddam has to know about it and approve of it?
I betcha there are more Al-Qaeda in America than there were in Iraq. Does that mean our government is complicit with them?

Why does a secularist dictator who is known to be afraid of and openly oppressive of fundamentalist Islam immediately have contacts with Al-Qaeda because of a very minor presence?
Superbelt is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 04:20 AM   #9 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by roadkill
I think it should end that connection, and you said that people well still think that it exsists, but who do you think well say they were related because some guy from iraq flew a plane or what not? To me it seems that it shoulden't matter if they were from country A or country B they still attacked it wasn't their leaders army attacking it was them!
What I mean is that some Americans seem eager to paint Iraqis into scenes that they had nothing to do with, such as the 9-11 hijackings, despite evidence to the contrary.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 06:27 AM   #10 (permalink)
Wah
 
Location: NZ
of course there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Hussein (or if there was, there's absolutely no evidence remaining). The question of exactly who is doing the guerrilla terrorism stuff in Iraq now, I don't pretend to know the answer to.

anyone remember how much the West loved Iraq a few years ago? that was because they were fighting against those crazy fundamentalists muslims in Iran. We sold em guns for goodness sake. We wouldn't have cosied up to him if he'd been a terrorist sponsor (at least I hope not, but you never know)
__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy
apeman is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 06:53 AM   #11 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
I think there is an important piece of distinction that's being lost in all this.

First, I have yet to meet anyone in person who thinks Iraq was involved in the specific plot carried out on 9/11. That attack is fully and totally associated with Al Qaeda.

Second, even without ties to Al Qaeda there is little doubt that Iraq had ties to terrorism. Payments to suicide bombers, terrorist training camps within the boundaries of Iraq, the assassination plot against the Bush Sr, etc all point to Iraq being a sponsor of terrorism.

From the House Select Committee to George Tenet:

Quote:
"The Committee has reviewed the three volumes of information provided by you on Iraq's ties to terrorism, most of which remains classified. We have found no reason to question the State Department's decision to designate Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism for at least a decade. "
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

Bush has continually made the point that the war on terror is not just about Al Qaeda and the actions on 9/11. It's about all who sponsor, encourage, and act as terrorists and we've passed the point of sitting idly by as terrorist groups target innocent people with no significant repercussions.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 07:36 AM   #12 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Broken Arrow, OK
I agree with onetime. Because we were atacked by terrorists means we need to go after them before they attack us again. That is why we went after saddam, someone who wants to attack america. He was an imediate threat. 911 only made it obvious we needed to do something.
__________________
It's hard to remember we're alive for the first time
It's hard to remember we're alive for the last time
It's hard to remember to live before you die
It's hard to remember that our lives are such a short time
It's hard to remember when it takes such a long time

phyzix525 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 07:44 AM   #13 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by phyzix525
I agree with onetime. Because we were atacked by terrorists means we need to go after them before they attack us again. That is why we went after saddam, someone who wants to attack america. He was an imediate threat. 911 only made it obvious we needed to do something.
I can grab some quick quotes from Colin Powell in early 2001 that state categorically that Iraq was contained by sanctions and not a threat to anyone but the Iraqi population. The tune changed after 9-11 as the Neocons saw that they now had a pretense to invade Iraq, a favorite daydream of theirs.

edit: OK, here's what Rumsfeld had to say on Face the Nation when faced with the "immediate threat" allegation....obviously, they are not pushing that idea anymore:

Quote:

SCHIEFFER: Well, let me just ask you this. If they did not have these weapons of mass destruction, though, granted all of that is true, why then did they pose an immediate threat to us, to this country?

Sec. RUMSFELD: Well, you're the--you and a few other critics are the only people I've heard use the phrase `immediate threat.' I didn't. The president didn't. And it's become kind of folklore that that's--that's what's happened. The president went...

SCHIEFFER: You're saying that nobody in the administration said that.

Sec. RUMSFELD: I--I can't speak for nobody--everybody in the administration and say nobody said that.

SCHIEFFER: Vice president didn't say that? The...

Sec. RUMSFELD: Not--if--if you have any citations, I'd like to see 'em.
And here are the Powell quotes that I mentioned earlier:
Quote:
Pasted from: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0217-12.htm

“We have been able to keep weapons from going into Iraq,” Powell said during a Feb 11, 2001 interview with “Face the Nation. “We have been able to keep the sanctions in place to the extent that items that might support weapons of mass destruction development have had some controls on them… it's been quite a success for ten years…”

Moreover, during a meeting with Joschka Fischer, the German Foreign Minister, in February 2001 on how to deal with Iraq, Powell said the U.N., the U.S. and its allies “have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions.”

Saddam’s “forces are about one-third their original size. They don't really possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago,” Powell said during the meeting with Fischer, a transcript of which can be found at http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/...ry/me0222a.html

“Containment has been a successful policy, and I think we should make sure that we continue it until such time as Saddam Hussein comes into compliance with the agreements he made at the end of the (Gulf) war.”

Powell added that Iraq is “not threatening America.”

Last edited by cthulu23; 06-17-2004 at 07:55 AM..
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 09:55 AM   #14 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
The invasion of Iraq was primarily to cement in world thinking the belief that America will no longer roll over to terrorism. We spent three decades not reacting (or reacting in the most limited of ways) to it and this inaction only emboldened terrorist organizations and allowed them to spread while building support (not only private support but the public support of people like Hussein, Qadafi, Arafat, Bin Laden, et al).

At worst a terrorist organization had to worry about a couple of sub launched missiles zooming towards one of their possible camps. Since 9/11 the aggressive Bush policy has proved to the world that, even in the face of objections from our historical "allies" and the increasing deaths of our soldiers, sailors, and Marines, we will wield our military assets to break those governments and organizations who target us.

All the other "reasons" are political window dressing.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 10:18 AM   #15 (permalink)
This vexes me. I am terribly vexed.
 
Superbelt's Avatar
 
Location: Grantville, Pa
Instead we showed the world we will lie and act irrational to justify the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the stated reasons for our invasion. That despite a virtual internation concensus we will do what we want on the world stage. That makes it hard to build up true alliances. We lose respect and goodwill, which is also important.

We also shattered something very important. The impression the rest of the world had that our military was invincible. That was an important bit of PR we had going for us. It made everyone else fear and respect our military might.
Superbelt is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 10:35 AM   #16 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: nyc
it strikes me as propaganda to insist that iraq was involved with terrorists despite all evidence to the contrary. warring nations always like to cast the enemy in an increasingly bad light and to gain support for the war the bush administration made and continues to make every attempt to associate iraq and saddam with terrorists. this is a blatant attempt to associate iraq and the 9-11 terrorists without any evidence. saddam was a dictator who did horrible things in the name of power and probably not a very nice guy to have over for dinner but none of these things make him a terrorist. we cannot continue to call anyone who we don't like a terrorist; it trivializes the suffering of real victims of terrorism. I think the bush administration knows that when most people in America hear the word "terrorist" they immediately think of 9-11 and they have exploited this association in an effort to justify their war.
brianna is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 10:59 AM   #17 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Superbelt
Instead we showed the world we will lie and act irrational to justify the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the stated reasons for our invasion. That despite a virtual internation concensus we will do what we want on the world stage. That makes it hard to build up true alliances. We lose respect and goodwill, which is also important.

We also shattered something very important. The impression the rest of the world had that our military was invincible. That was an important bit of PR we had going for us. It made everyone else fear and respect our military might.
You keep claiming that we "lied" yet there's still no evidence. Since there's no evidence of wmd's they apparently never existed but when faced with no evidence of "lying" it obviously occurred. Doesn't make sense to me. But that's ok, not everything needs to.

Nobody in their right mind thought our military was invinceable. It's been known for decades that our military was vulnerable to guerrila tactics.

As far as "true" alliances, please. Most of the countries that opposed our going into Iraq didn't offer much in the way of support to our previous efforts to attack terrorists so it's not much of a loss.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 11:00 AM   #18 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by brianna
it strikes me as propaganda to insist that iraq was involved with terrorists despite all evidence to the contrary.
Please feel free to cite "all the evidence to the contrary".
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 11:40 AM   #19 (permalink)
Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate
 
Location: Los Angeles
the question is also asked: do you have evidence to support that iraq worked with the terrorists?

I find it more and more ridiculous to pretend we have all the information when its our own wishful thinking... if only we could all know...
Zeld2.0 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 11:44 AM   #20 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
If we are so concerned with terrorism, why did we not invade Syria, Sudan or one of the many other nations that has much stronger ties to terrorism than Iraq? Should we forget that people like Paul Wolfowitz have been arguing for the invasion of Iraq for a decade, long before terrorism was the fear du'jour?
Is it all just a coincidence? Why was Colin Powell downplaying the threat of Iraq just months before 9-11?

Let's hear the evidence that shows that Iraq was such an arch supporter of terrorism that they deserved invasion over Sudan or any other nation filled with radical Islamicists.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 11:57 AM   #21 (permalink)
Wehret Den Anfängen!
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
I am so behind the times.

I thought everyone knew this a long time ago.

Funny, from the reaction in this thread, I guess I was wrong...
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.
Yakk is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 12:16 PM   #22 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
yes well this "problem" with the bushrationale for war was evident to those who looked from the outset---the question i wonder about is why on earth has it taken so long for the mainstream press to begin actually looking at the line of crap they were being handed by the administration? what caused them to roll over and go all pravda under stalin? i understand the results of this report are significant--but the facts have been available for a long time, yet.....i dont understand it....so much for american freedom of the press i guess.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 12:44 PM   #23 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: nyc
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
Please feel free to cite "all the evidence to the contrary".
since this thread is about the 9/11 commission finding that iraq had no ties to al queda i don't feel any need to restate the evidence, but feel free to read about on the commission's web page (http://www.9-11commission.gov/).
brianna is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 12:51 PM   #24 (permalink)
Wah
 
Location: NZ
even if the administration didn't make it all up, they've ended up looking like they have. so the obvious conclusions to draw are:
a) they lied
or
b) they're stupid
or
c) very very unlucky in a slightly improbably way (WMD, terrorists, Halliburton etc)

being from the UK I'm still trying to decide if Blair was (a) or (b) or maybe even (d) delusional. No-one trusts Blair any more anyway, he's buggered his chances for good. Ha!
__________________
pain is inevitable but misery is optional - stick a geranium in your hat and be happy
apeman is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 01:30 PM   #25 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
Location: Twilight Zone
"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said.




Did anyone else read these lines from the report?
Seems that good old OBL did meet with Iraqis, But Iraq APPARENTLY never responded.

So if Iraq was to respond they would have done it in plain view while the world was watching them after GW1.

And the last paragraph also contains the word appear, appear to whom?

Money that is being exchanged between terrorist groups is done out in the open? For the whole world to see?
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
reconmike is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 02:16 PM   #26 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
Do you think that Al Qaeda sent out a press release about meeting with Iraqi officials? All of the information comes from intelligence sources.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 02:20 PM   #27 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
Saddam's constant support of Palestinian terrorist groups, or support logistically and materially to groups that are affiliated with Al-Qeada such as Ansar Al- Islam, or hell his aiding of Al Zarqawi seem to show a pretty long standing line of support for Al Qeada.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 06-17-2004, 02:36 PM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
More so than other nations that support terrorism? Full-on radical islamic terrorism has really only bloomed in Iraq since the invasion. Why didn't we invade Libya? They were directly responsible for the bombing of an american airliner, which killed hundreds. If it's about terrorist ties, why did we invade Iraq instead?
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 03:48 AM   #29 (permalink)
Insane
 
tiberry's Avatar
 
Location: Location, Location!
Who freakin cares!!! I say we had enough justification based on the atrocities commited by the Saddam regime regardless of any direct ties to Al Quaeda...its this pansy-ass liberal "But you said.." crap that prompts the political need to "justify" our actions to the public in the first place.

FORGET the political BS and just do what's RIGHT!! You have a hostage huh? You're going to kill him if we don't release our terrorist prisoners huh? Well how about this Mr. Terrorist - I don't give a flying DAMN about you, your buddies we have locked up OR the liberal bleeding heart pansies!!! I'm executing, on international TV, one prisoner - every hour until you release the American. If I run out of prisoners - or you harm the American in any way - I will begin a carpet bombing of your country until I'm satisfied that you and your kind are ALL dead.

Go back to your homes - watch your television and eat your Krispy Kremes...Watch your soap operas, go to school, work, and the park. Worry about the thug that might car jack you on the way to the supermarket or mug you outside the theater - leave the warfighting to the professionals.

Seriously folks - This isn't rocket science. By clinging to this pseudo-moral BULLSHIT and siding with the terrorists - we're only asking for more casualties. They COUNT on this!! That's why they do it! War IS ugly...if its not - it could last forever...
__________________
My life's work is to bridge the gap between that which is perceived by the mind and that which is quantifiable by words and numbers.

Last edited by tiberry; 06-18-2004 at 03:54 AM..
tiberry is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 03:51 AM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by brianna
since this thread is about the 9/11 commission finding that iraq had no ties to al queda i don't feel any need to restate the evidence, but feel free to read about on the commission's web page (http://www.9-11commission.gov/).
Quote:
Originally posted by brianna
it strikes me as propaganda to insist that iraq was involved with terrorists despite all evidence to the contrary. warring nations always like to cast the enemy in an increasingly bad light and to gain support for the war the bush administration made and continues to make every attempt to associate iraq and saddam with terrorists. this is a blatant attempt to associate iraq and the 9-11 terrorists without any evidence. saddam was a dictator who did horrible things in the name of power and probably not a very nice guy to have over for dinner but none of these things make him a terrorist. we cannot continue to call anyone who we don't like a terrorist; it trivializes the suffering of real victims of terrorism. I think the bush administration knows that when most people in America hear the word "terrorist" they immediately think of 9-11 and they have exploited this association in an effort to justify their war.

You stated that Iraq had no ties to terrorism not that they had no ties to the 9/11 attacks.

Hussein has been a public supporter of Palestinian terrorism and Shiite terror groups acting in Iran for more than a decade. Iraq is second only to Iran on the State Department's list of States that sponsor terrorism.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 04:28 AM   #31 (permalink)
Banned from being Banned
 
Location: Donkey
Quote:
Originally posted by phyzix525
I agree with onetime. Because we were atacked by terrorists means we need to go after them before they attack us again. That is why we went after saddam, someone who wants to attack america. He was an imediate threat. 911 only made it obvious we needed to do something.
You can't get rid of terrorism. It's a big illusion that is very similar to the war on drugs.

You'll NEVER stamp out terrorism by "attacking" them. All that does is create more of them. If they were to capture Osama, that wouldn't get us anywhere because of the vast amount of terror cells that co-exist. Someone else would simply take over as leader.

The fact of the matter is we're pretty much SOL. I can't prove it now, but I guarantee you this "war on terrorism" will be going on the rest of our lives.

9/11 made it obvious we needed to do something, but NOT what we're doing now. It's just making it worse. If I'm not mistaken, it boils down to how the US treats the middle east.
__________________
I love lamp.

Last edited by Stompy; 06-18-2004 at 04:31 AM..
Stompy is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 04:43 AM   #32 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by Stompy
You can't get rid of terrorism. It's a big illusion that is very similar to the war on drugs.

You'll NEVER stamp out terrorism by "attacking" them. All that does is create more of them. If they were to capture Osama, that wouldn't get us anywhere because of the vast amount of terror cells that co-exist. Someone else would simply take over as leader.

The fact of the matter is we're pretty much SOL. I can't prove it now, but I guarantee you this "war on terrorism" will be going on the rest of our lives.

9/11 made it obvious we needed to do something, but NOT what we're doing now. It's just making it worse. If I'm not mistaken, it boils down to how the US treats the middle east.
To stamp out terrorism in the long term we need to protect ourselves in the short term. Taking the fight to them and forcing the organizations to revamp and restructure buys us time to change root causes of terrorism. Creating hope for the future in terrorist hotbeds, changing the perception that the US is anti-Muslim, growing understanding of other religions and belief systems, building alliances with Muslim governments and groups, etc takes time and until that can take root we need to cause damage to the terrorist infrastructure that has been built over the last several decades.

It goes way beyond how the US "treats" the Middle East as a significant portion of terrorist groups is against us for our belief that Israel has a right to exist, that our culture (that's right our entire culture) is anathema to their way of life, that our culture is seeping into and overshadowing theirs, etc, etc, etc.

In your estimation, how would the "proper" response happen? Remember that not only must we fight the long term terrorist threat but we must also protect our citizens in the short term.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 06:20 AM   #33 (permalink)
Banned
 
cthulu23's Avatar
 
To tiberry....the "pseudo-moral bullshit" is what separates us from the terrorist....doing what's "right" requires it.

To onetime2...a "proper" response was the invasion of Afghanistan, which did not prompt the same outpouring of protest from the international community as our Iraq action did.
cthulu23 is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 06:32 AM   #34 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by cthulu23
To onetime2...a "proper" response was the invasion of Afghanistan, which did not prompt the same outpouring of protest from the international community as our Iraq action did.
That doesn't address the proposition that any military attack generates new terrorist recruits.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 07:50 AM   #35 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
"its this pansy-ass liberal "But you said.." crap that prompts the political need to "justify" our actions to the public in the first place."

gee, i thought that in order to "export democracy" you would have to have it at home to export....if bushworld requires no public justification for its actions, how exactly is the united states different from a dictatorship?

it seems to me that bushworld's new spin on things--trying to defend some vague sequence of "contacts" between iraq and al qeada---amounts to saying that if i watched a marx brothers film and made some kind of connection to that film, then i am a marx brother.

it is profoundly not ok for an administration to lie to the public about war--and even if "patriots" more than assume, but somehow rather enjoy the fact of propaganda once a war is on, there is still a huge problem with lying about the premises for going to war. if you look at the evidence, the fact that bush at best distorted the situation is obvious. but it has always been obvious in this case. what is surprising to me, still, is that it has taken this long for the problems to emerge inside the political bubble that is the american press.

as for the matter of "terrorism" nothing coherent can be said about the problem without actually looking at the conditions that spawn it, the role that various large-scale factors play in spawning it (globalizing capitalism, american foreign policy, local/domestic matters) and working to change those factors. the idea that "terrorism" can be understood at all in terms of the politics-as-western-movie idiocy that the bush administration has floated since 911 is ridiculous. the logic of crusade is the only one that follows form the non-analysis bush and his cohort have provided. you might also think about the extent to which the term terrorism prevents anything like a coherent analysis and/or response. but bush does not seem interested in coherence, really--he is interested in "god's will".....apparently, god did not like saddam hussein any more. apparently god thinks that husseins dictatorship was qualitiatively worse than the other dictatorships the americans either put into power or supported over the past 60 years from somoza to pinochet and so on. apparently god forgot that the americans supported and armed iraq under reagan just as they supported and armed the taliban, just as they trained and armed death squads all across central america. given the history of american foreign policy since world war 2, the argument that there is any plausible humanitarian motive for this war is not even a joke.....
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 09:03 AM   #36 (permalink)
Addict
 
Location: nyc
Quote:
Originally posted by onetime2
You stated that Iraq had no ties to terrorism not that they had no ties to the 9/11 attacks.

Hussein has been a public supporter of Palestinian terrorism and Shiite terror groups acting in Iran for more than a decade. Iraq is second only to Iran on the State Department's list of States that sponsor terrorism.
sure, and as i said these two things are not what americans think of when the president says "terrorism" and he knows that. he is intentionally trying to associate iraq directly with 9/11 terrorism by walking a thin line between truth and fact manipulation. the average american defines terrorism as "muslims who are associated with al queda and 9/11 and hate americans" this is why the're willing to call iraqi's terrorists and members of the IRA not terrorists.
brianna is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 09:40 AM   #37 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: NJ
Quote:
Originally posted by brianna
sure, and as i said these two things are not what americans think of when the president says "terrorism" and he knows that. he is intentionally trying to associate iraq directly with 9/11 terrorism by walking a thin line between truth and fact manipulation. the average american defines terrorism as "muslims who are associated with al queda and 9/11 and hate americans" this is why the're willing to call iraqi's terrorists and members of the IRA not terrorists.
You can not mention terrorism without Al Qaeda being a part of the discussion. No more than you can mention Democratic Presidential Candidates without mentioning John Kerry (it's simply an example not a dig at the Dems). The two are inextricably linked because of the success of the attacks on 9/11. It's not about fooling the American people it's about fighting terrorism because the US and the international community has done a piss poor job of it for the last 30+ years.

We are not just at war with Al Qaeda. There are many reasons you can't only focus on Bin Laden's group. First and foremost is the fact that the success of the attacks on 9/11 emboldens the other groups and creates a need for them to step up activities to garner support for their causes.

As far as members of the IRA not being considered terrorists, since when? Certainly it could be looked at that way within the Irish enclaves of the US where the IRA obtained considerable support but it's not true of the vast majority of Americans. Ask an average person a decade or so ago what the IRA was and they'd almost to a person say an Irish terrorist organization. Of course, they've quieted down considerably since their heavily active period so the recognition of them today among Americans is pretty low.

The reason that Americans associate terrorism with Muslims is the simple fact that the vast majority of recent terrorist attacks against US citizens and interests have been perpetrated by Muslim extremists from the Middle East.
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
onetime2 is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 12:39 PM   #38 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
It's almost as if we invaded Iraq on FALSE PRETENSES. Actually it's a lot like that.
Locobot is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 02:12 PM   #39 (permalink)
Kiss of Death
 
Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow
What would those false pretenses be? You mean those WMD's that Saddam had, claimed, but never produced for destruction? Those same WMD's that are still missing? Maybe the fact that they have found evidence of ongoing WMD programs, precursors, and chemicals (such as that Sarin IMP) would attest that just maybe Saddam was lying...

But you're right, America sucks, we're evil and we cheat and lie.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
Mojo_PeiPei is offline  
Old 06-18-2004, 06:00 PM   #40 (permalink)
is awesome!
 
Locobot's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
What would those false pretenses be? You mean those WMD's that Saddam had, claimed, but never produced for destruction? Those same WMD's that are still missing? Maybe the fact that they have found evidence of ongoing WMD programs, precursors, and chemicals (such as that Sarin IMP) would attest that just maybe Saddam was lying...

But you're right, America sucks, we're evil and we cheat and lie.
Dude, seriously. 60-70% of Americans believed there was a direct link between Iraq and the events of 9/11. This commission is just telling us what the other 30-40% of us already knew: no such link exists. Rubbing alcohol is a precursor for making crystal meth, should we treat anyone with rubbing alcohol in their bathroom as a drug dealer? Should we sieze their assets? Ransack their homes?

REMEMBER THIS: it is patriotic to question the actions and motivations of your government. It is an obligation of the press and people to actively be involved in the processes that effect them.

Next time you decide you want to threadjack (this is not the place for WMD discussion) and sarcastically misquote me remember the words of Ol' Dirty Bastard, "You don' waaaahhhhnnn', you don' waaahhhhnnn', you don' waaahhhhnnn' fuck wit me"
Locobot is offline  
 

Tags
9 or 11, cooperation, iraq, panel, qaeda

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:30 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360