Forums: Community: Campground:
Unspeakable
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Campground

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


sharpender


Nov 2, 2004, 5:45 AM
Post #26 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 663

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

If I recall the scenario correctly the zimmerman telegram was blown out of it's context to rile the people to the cause of war. While Wilson was publicly telling Americans that he abhored war he was doing every political trick to make it happen. It is a fascinating and frightening read. Wilson kind of lost his mind at the end of it all and died an untimely death. His aim was to make the "great peace" with the league of nations but his only entry to the negotiation was through the war.


prufrock


Nov 2, 2004, 8:01 AM
Post #27 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 378

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
What about all the terrorist training camps that the coalition cleaned up whilst in ?Iraq, convenient of the left to forget them too eh, huh huh.

I challenge you to point them out. HINT: several "suspected" terrorist camps were nothing of the sort. The only real ones that I am aware of were up north -- in the part of Iraq we denied Saddam access to. (Not being a smart ass -- if you know about them, link to them. But the northern one(s) seem to always be cited, and those don't count. They were in a region where the Kurds had a de facto sovereign nation).

Why does the right keep clinging to the bizarre notion that Saddam was connected to terrorists in any way that threatened us, or justified war?

He offered wives of suicide bombers a cash payment. He harbored (to some degree) Abu Nidal. So we invaded for that? 1200 coalition casualties, 10K-100K dead Iraqis, and so-so odds of having any chance of getting out of Iraq better off, for that? There is a reason Bush Senior did not invade Iraq -- he had brains his son did not inherit.

Iran. Syria. Saudi Arabia. Take your pick -- they are all much worse on that count. Funny that we picked Saddam. Saddam was actually one of the most secular, least terrorist-supporting regimes in the Middle East. The world is full of tyrants -- we don't have the resources to topple them all. And when we try, we don't have any guarantees of making things better.


dr_feelgood


Nov 2, 2004, 10:11 AM
Post #28 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Yeah, What He(they) Said ^^^


dr_feelgood


Nov 2, 2004, 10:13 AM
Post #29 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 6, 2004
Posts: 26060

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Note to self: Read page 2 before posting to avoid looking like a wanker....


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 2:56 PM
Post #30 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Oh, as for CONCLUSIVE evidence as to Saddam's links to terrorists, read the following... Since Abu Nidal had been dead for the past couple of years, the world seems to have forgotten all about him!

Abu Nidal Organization --Iraq extremists
In reply to:
Has the Abu Nidal Organization received state support?

Yes. Iraq, Syria, and Libya have all harbored the group and given it training, logistical support, and funding, often using the ANO as guns or hire. Abu Nidal began working with Iraqi intelligence while representing Fatah in Baghdad, experts say. He formed his organization with Iraq’s help and began by attacking Syria and the PLO. In 1983, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein expelled Abu Nidal and his group in an attempt to win American military support for Iraq’s 1980s war with neighboring Iran. Once the war ended, Iraq resumed its support of Abu Nidal.


Partner tradman


Nov 2, 2004, 3:05 PM
Post #31 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Sources seem to indicate that although Abul Nidal himself worked for Iraq's secret service (and is supposedly now dead), Iraq's funding of the Abu Nidal organisation stopped in 1987, which was also when they last attacked western targets, and the organisation self-destructed in paranoia and distrust.

Generally information seems scarce and unreliable. Anyone got anyting concrete?


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 3:19 PM
Post #32 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

http://www.rotten.com/...errorists/abu-nidal/


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 3:26 PM
Post #33 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

this is the most compelling, and is a UK source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...2/08/25/wnidal25.xml

In reply to:
Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist, was murdered on the orders of Saddam Hussein after refusing to train al-Qa'eda fighters based in Iraq, The Telegraph can reveal.

Despite claims by Iraqi officials that Abu Nidal committed suicide after being implicated in a plot to overthrow Saddam, Western diplomats now believe that he was killed for refusing to reactivate his international terrorist network.

According to reports received from Iraqi opposition groups, Abu Nidal had been in Baghdad for months as Saddam's personal guest, and was being treated for a mild form of skin cancer.


Partner tradman


Nov 2, 2004, 3:26 PM
Post #34 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Yup, that supports what I'm getting elsewhere: Abu Nidal haven't killed anyone since the late 80s when their funding was cut off, and haven't been operationally effective at all since 1990, when they were squashed by various Middle Eastern governments.

Okay, so Saddam stopped supporting Nidal after the UN sanctions crippled his country, his WMD prgram, his nuclear program and his whole economy.

This is all nearly 15 years ago.

I'm not clear how this justifies the current occupation of Iraq?


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 3:40 PM
Post #35 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

It provides that up until his death, Abu Nidal was supported and given safe haven by Saddam, rather than being turned over to one of the many countries that had convicted him!

Saddam openly supported/sheltered (in Baghdad) the worlds most notorious terrorist leader until 2002.


thegreytradster


Nov 2, 2004, 3:41 PM
Post #36 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 7, 2003
Posts: 2151

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Sources seem to indicate that although Abul Nidal himself worked for Iraq's secret service (and is supposedly now dead), Iraq's funding of the Abu Nidal organisation stopped in 1987, which was also when they last attacked western targets, and the organisation self-destructed in paranoia and distrust.

Generally information seems scarce and unreliable. Anyone got anyting concrete?

http://www.memri.org/...Area=iraq&ID=IA19304

In reply to:
Another person who was directly involved in terrorism is Abu Al-Abbas, who was allocated a total of 11.5 million barrels, some of which was lifted by Vilma Oil Consultant, a Spanish company. Abu Al-Abbas has also sold 1.5 million barrels through Ayad Ammora and Partnership (Syria), which is also listed as a recipient of vouchers for 18 million barrels.

Abu Al-Abbas was first mentioned in a "top secret and personal" letter (No.110/2/43 of 25 January 1993) from the Iraqi intelligence service to the secretary of the president of the republic. The letter listed the terrorist organizations that could be employed by Iraq to carry out sabotage and terrorism activities against American interests in the Arab world.


Partner tradman


Nov 2, 2004, 3:50 PM
Post #37 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Why does Abu Nidal being in Iraq make Iraq a threat?

There were Al Quaeda terrorists in the US in the weeks prior to 9/11and probably still are now, does that mean the US is a threat?


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 3:56 PM
Post #38 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Iraq gave SAFE HARBOR to known terrorists... There is a vast difference between that and the terror cells here in the US, which are being sought out at a rapid pace! :roll:

The thing is, for months on end, so many of you were insistant that Saddam never had any ties to terrorists, yet now it's a backtracking matter of symantics and timelines... He did support them, at the very least up until 2002, period!


bumblie


Nov 2, 2004, 4:00 PM
Post #39 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Why does Abu Nidal being in Iraq make Iraq a threat?

There were Al Quaeda terrorists in the US in the weeks prior to 9/11and probably still are now, does that mean the US is a threat?

One big difference is that life in Iraq was very closely monitored, while life in the US is not. To spell it out - if terrorist had active training camps in Irar, the government was aware of it.


Partner tradman


Nov 2, 2004, 4:00 PM
Post #40 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Hmm, you're right.

And now the US is giving safe harbour to Saddam Hussein.

Okay, he's got no support, no finance and is contained, but hey he's in the country and alive right?

:lol:

Sorry, you were about to tell us all why Abu Nidal being in Iraq with no support and no finance makes Iraq a threat?


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 4:03 PM
Post #41 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Actually, I believe he's in Iraq... But to compare sheltering a terrorist, with having someone in PRISON while awaiting a death sentence trial is pretty absurd, and makes my points even more clear! :shock:


Partner tradman


Nov 2, 2004, 4:06 PM
Post #42 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Yeah, I was being facetious.

Sorry, you were about to tell us all why Abu Nidal being in Iraq with no support and no finance makes Iraq a threat?


monkey_toes


Nov 2, 2004, 4:09 PM
Post #43 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 19, 2004
Posts: 197

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Iraq gave SAFE HARBOR to known terrorists... There is a vast difference between that and the terror cells here in the US, which are being sought out at a rapid pace! :roll:

The thing is, for months on end, so many of you were insistant that Saddam never had any ties to terrorists, yet now it's a backtracking matter of symantics and timelines... He did support them, at the very least up until 2002, period!

I wasn't going to get into this one - but ...... The US still has NORAID as a charitable organization.

For those who don't know - NORAID also know as INAC is one of the organizations responsible for funding the IRA terrorists and is also responsible still for collecting funds for 'the Real IRA' terror group.

That actually is one of my gripes about the current war on terror - especially since it directly affected friends and family back in the UK.

There had my mild rant.


Partner tradman


Nov 2, 2004, 4:12 PM
Post #44 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
That actually is one of my gripes about the current war on terror - especially since it directly affected friends and family back in the UK.

There had my mild rant.

We've all got our stories about that.

:(


sarcat


Nov 2, 2004, 4:27 PM
Post #45 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 22, 2004
Posts: 1560

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
What does 911 has to do with Iraq? Nothing. But it's still R core argument.

You insinuate that this R core is a bad thing. Why then is the same issue D core but twisted 180 degrees?

Let's put aside who is wright or wrong. The true hipocracy is that if the R party is truely wrong, the D party can't aruge anything of their own merit that is right. The basis of the entire D campain has been to undermine Bush and point fingers never validating any substantial political ideals of their own.


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 4:35 PM
Post #46 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
Yeah, I was being facetious.

Sorry, you were about to tell us all why Abu Nidal being in Iraq with no support and no finance makes Iraq a threat?
The leader is deceased, but what about the several hundred other members..? Have they joined efforts with the other terrorist factions..?


Partner tradman


Nov 2, 2004, 4:55 PM
Post #47 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jan 14, 2003
Posts: 7159

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
The leader is deceased, but what about the several hundred other members..? Have they joined efforts with the other terrorist factions..?


You may think I'm picking holes here, but a dead former terrorist without portfolio, whose followers' identities and whereabouts are unknown and whose operational abilities ended 15 years ago hardly qualifies as an imminent threat in my mind.


Partner tgreene


Nov 2, 2004, 4:58 PM
Post #48 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 22, 2003
Posts: 7267

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

They had the desire, proved their intent, and could have easily joined other organizations w/ the means of continuing their reign of terror...

It's highly unlikely that they simply woke up one day, realized they had hit the golden age of 65, and retired! :tinfoilhat:


prufrock


Nov 2, 2004, 5:30 PM
Post #49 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 24, 2003
Posts: 378

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

In reply to:
In reply to:
Why does Abu Nidal being in Iraq make Iraq a threat?

There were Al Quaeda terrorists in the US in the weeks prior to 9/11and probably still are now, does that mean the US is a threat?

One big difference is that life in Iraq was very closely monitored, while life in the US is not. To spell it out - if terrorist had active training camps in Irar, the government was aware of it.

So do you have any evidence of Iraq training terrorists in training camps, particularly to harm Americans? The US government doesn't -- at least if they did, they have kept it hidden in spite of the fact that even one known al Queda training camp could have made many (most?) of their PR problems in Iraq go away. (HINT: the camp in N. Kurdistan doesn't count -- Saddam had no control over it, as we denied him that). Maybe I missed something, if you have credible information, please point it out.

Abu Nidal -- has-been terrorist criminal, waiting to die in Baghdad. Sure, would have rather we had him to try and convict. But what is that supposed to prove? HINT: it proves nothing other than Saddam is nasty guy. I think we already knew that.

So are we still trying to find an ex post facto justification for the Iraq war? Or is it just fun to revel in the past dalliances of toppled dictators.


bumblie


Nov 2, 2004, 5:55 PM
Post #50 of 53 (1006 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629

Re: Unspeakable [In reply to]
Report this Post
Can't Post

Pru,
In your post, you ask a number of interesting questions, none of which has a thing to do with my post.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Community : Campground

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook