| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"papa jack" |
| Date: |
04 Oct 2004 05:36:50 PM |
| Object: |
Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and
obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hus-
sein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious
terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans.
They demonstrate Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and
anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the
summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations wea-
pons inspectors were not present in Iraq. And the papers show
Iraq trained dozens of terrorists inside its borders.
"One of the Iraqi memos contains an order from Saddam for his
intelligence service to support terrorist attacks against
Americans in Somalia. The memo was written nine months before
U.S. Army Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by forces loyal
to a warlord with alleged ties to al Qaeda.
"Other memos provide a list of terrorist groups with whom Iraq
had relationships and considered available for terror opera-
tions against the United States.
[...]
"A senior government official who is not a political appointee
provided CNSNews.com with copies of the 42 pages of Iraqi
Intelligence Service documents. The originals, some of which
were hand-written and others typed, are in Arabic. CNSNews.com
had the papers translated into English by two individuals
separately and independent of each other.
"There are no hand-writing samples to which the documents can
be compared for forensic analysis and authentication. However,
three other experts - a former weapons inspector with the
United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), a retired CIA
counter-terrorism official with vast experience dealing with
Iraq, and a former advisor to then-presidential candidate Bill
Clinton on Iraq - were asked to analyze the documents. All
said they comport with the format, style and content of other
Iraqi documents from that era known to be genuine.
[...]
"Bruce Tefft, a retired CIA official who specialized in
counter-terrorism and had extensive experience dealing with
Iraq, said that 'based on available, unclassified and open
source information, the details in these documents are
accurate ...'
[...]
"But the documents obtained by CNSNews.com shed new light on the
controversy.
"They detail the Iraqi regime's purchase of five kilograms of
mustard gas on Aug. 21, 2000 and three vials of malignant
pustule, another term for anthrax, on Sept. 6, 2000. The
purchase order for the mustard gas includes gas masks, fil-
ters and rubber gloves. The order for the anthrax includes
sterilization and decontamination equipment.
(See Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas)
[...]
"The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18,
1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated
Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes
Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the
Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by
using Arabian elements ..."
[...]
"An 11-page Iraqi memo, dated Jan. 25, 1993, lists Palestinian,
Sudanese and Asian terrorist organizations and the relation-
ships Iraq had with each of them. Of particular importance,
Tefft said, are the relationships Iraq had already developed
or was in the process of developing with groups and individuals
affiliated with al Qaeda, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Ayman
al-Zawahiri. The U.S. currently is offering rewards of up to
$25 million for each man's capture.
[...]
*************************************************************************
{NOTE: I elected to delete numerous details on the relationships
between Iraq and various known terrorist groups. I suggest
readers use the above URL to download and read the entire
article.}
*************************************************************************
"Iraq not only built and maintained relationships with terrorist
groups, the documents show it appears to have trained terrorists
as well. Ninety-two individuals from various Middle Eastern coun-
tries are listed on the papers.
"Many are described as having 'finished the course at M14,' a
reference to an Iraqi intelligence agency, and to having
'participated in Umm El-Ma'arek,' the Iraqi response to the
U.S. invasion in 1991. The author of the list notes that
approximately half of the individuals 'all got trained inside
the 'martyr act camp' that belonged to our directorate.'
"The former UNSCOM weapons inspector who was asked to analyze
the documents believes it's clear that the Iraqis 'were
training people there in assassination and suicide bombing
techniques ... including non-Iraqis.'
[...]
"The government official also explained that the motivation
for leaking the documents, "is strictly national security
and helping with the war on terrorism by focusing this country's
attention on facts and away from political posturing.
[...]
___________________________________________________________________________
Papa Jack commented:
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar
for stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist
organizations. This shows that the President was correct --
and thus Kerry is clearly wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
.
|
|
| User: "Baard Ove Kopperud" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
05 Oct 2004 04:25:23 PM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote in message news:<bd9f1f6b.0410041436.4e58ac77@posting.google.com>...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
___________________________________________________________________________
Excerpts:
"Iraqi intelligence documents, confiscated by U.S. forces and
obtained by CNSNews.com, show numerous efforts by Saddam Hus-
sein's regime to work with some of the world's most notorious
terror organizations, including al Qaeda, to target Americans.
They demonstrate Saddam's government possessed mustard gas and
anthrax, both considered weapons of mass destruction, in the
summer of 2000, during the period in which United Nations wea-
<SNIP>
Quick, Jack... go tell Rumshfeldt.
As he just went before Congress the other day and admitted
that what was "clear connections" and "absolute proof"
before the war regarding an Al'Quaida-link, turned-out to
be an "intelligence-failure" afterwards... something I
don't doubt -- the intelligence of Rusmshfeldt and
Pres. Bush!
-Koppe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
05 Oct 2004 08:43:03 AM |
|
|
(papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar
for stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist
organizations. This shows that the President was correct --
and thus Kerry is clearly wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
Wow! In the months leading up to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors
couldn't find WMDs; in the year and a half since the invasion, US
search teams couldn't find WMDs - and now, out of nowhere, the
evidence just happens to fall into the hands of an obscure reporter
for a B-list, right-wing Web site!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
At least CNS didn't put up any facsimiles of these documents so that
they can be examined by experts in forensic Arabic typography. Looks
like Scott Wheeler learned something from Dan Rather's experience!
.
|
|
|
| User: "M is for Malapert" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
05 Oct 2004 03:39:13 PM |
|
|
"Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:6ed74dfa.0410050543.5c2fbf87@posting.google.com...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Indeed.
Meanwhile:
U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD
U.S. Weapons Inspector to Conclude Iraq Had No WMD, Only Idle Programs
Saddam Hoped to Revive
The Associated Press
WASHINGTON Sept. 17, 2004 - Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did
not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he
had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector
in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon.
http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040917_156.html
And,
Bremer Admits We Need More Troops on the Ground
Ambassador Paul Bremer, the U.S. official who governed Iraq before the Iraqi
provisional government, has publicly criticized the Bush Administration's
planning of the war. According to the Washington Post, Bremer admitted: "We
paid a big price for not stopping it because it established an atmosphere of
lawlessness. We never had enough troops on the ground."
Bremer highlights two major mistakes: not sending enough troops to Iraq, and
not preventing the violence and looting that followed the fall of Saddam
Hussein's government. Coming on the heels of criticism of the war from many
prominent Republicans, including Senators John McCain, Chuck Hagel and
Richard Lugar, Bremer's comments have caused a lot of controversy. Bremer's
aides have said that these comments, made at a private conference, were not
intended to be made public.
http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=blogShowExcerpts&blogId=14&year=2004&month=10&day=5&Action=ShowCalendar&lnav=7
And:
No "hard evidence" of Iraq-al Qaeda link - Rumsfeld
Tue 5 October, 2004 01:08
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says he knows of no
"strong, hard evidence" linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda, despite
describing extensive contacts between the two before the Iraq invasion.
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=596332§ion=news
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
06 Oct 2004 11:51:12 PM |
|
|
(Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0410050543.5c2fbf87@posting.google.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar
for stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist
organizations. This shows that the President was correct --
and thus Kerry is clearly wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
Wow! In the months leading up to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors
couldn't find WMDs;
That's YEARS, and they weren't allowed to look for them. In fact,
"inspector" in this case means to examine, not to search for. But
there was no examining because Saddam was violating UN resolutions by
playing a game of treasure hunt (simultaneously shooting at US
planes).
How many more resolutions were needed?
in the year and a half since the invasion, US
search teams couldn't find WMDs -
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
07 Oct 2004 12:07:36 AM |
|
|
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1414fd53.0410062051.725e0dd5@posting.google.com...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote in message
news:<6ed74dfa.0410050543.5c2fbf87@posting.google.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar
for stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist
organizations. This shows that the President was correct --
and thus Kerry is clearly wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
Wow! In the months leading up to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors
couldn't find WMDs;
That's YEARS, and they weren't allowed to look for them. In fact,
"inspector" in this case means to examine, not to search for. But
there was no examining because Saddam was violating UN resolutions by
playing a game of treasure hunt (simultaneously shooting at US
planes).
How many more resolutions were needed?
Apparentely for liberals, they didn't care
in the year and a half since the invasion, US
search teams couldn't find WMDs -
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
Yes, absolutely
Do you think it is possible that Saddam wanted people to believe he had WMD?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
07 Oct 2004 12:16:40 AM |
|
|
On 2004-10-06 22:07:36 -0700, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> said:
"Sneechres" <sneechres@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1414fd53.0410062051.725e0dd5@posting.google.com...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote in message
news:<6ed74dfa.0410050543.5c2fbf87@posting.google.com>...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Hanoi
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar
for stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist
organizations. This shows that the President was correct -- and thus
Kerry is clearly wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
Wow! In the months leading up to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors
couldn't find WMDs;
That's YEARS, and they weren't allowed to look for them. In fact,
"inspector" in this case means to examine, not to search for. But
there was no examining because Saddam was violating UN resolutions by
playing a game of treasure hunt (simultaneously shooting at US
planes).
How many more resolutions were needed?
Apparentely for liberals, they didn't care
Until Bush took office, no Americans were dying.
in the year and a half since the invasion, US
search teams couldn't find WMDs -
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
Yes, absolutely
Do you think it is possible that Saddam wanted people to believe he had WMD?
If so, so what? Stop making excuses! The fact is, he had no WMD after
1991. Hmmm. Just when Clinton took office.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
07 Oct 2004 10:05:28 AM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar
for stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist
organizations. This shows that the President was correct --
and thus Kerry is clearly wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
Wow! In the months leading up to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors
couldn't find WMDs;
That's YEARS, and they weren't allowed to look for them. In fact,
"inspector" in this case means to examine, not to search for. But
there was no examining because Saddam was violating UN resolutions by
playing a game of treasure hunt (simultaneously shooting at US
planes).
How many more resolutions were needed?
in the year and a half since the invasion, US
search teams couldn't find WMDs -
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs, and no capacity for making same; that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You can only maintain a state of congnitive dissonance for so long -
sooner or later, the brain rebels - when it does, the experience will
scare you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 12:32:55 AM |
|
|
(Spartakus) wrote in message news:<6ed74dfa.0410070705.30822eec@posting.google.com>...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote...
(Spartakus) wrote...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar
for stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist
organizations. This shows that the President was correct --
and thus Kerry is clearly wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
Wow! In the months leading up to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors
couldn't find WMDs;
That's YEARS, and they weren't allowed to look for them. In fact,
"inspector" in this case means to examine, not to search for. But
there was no examining because Saddam was violating UN resolutions by
playing a game of treasure hunt (simultaneously shooting at US
planes).
How many more resolutions were needed?
in the year and a half since the invasion, US
search teams couldn't find WMDs -
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
You can only maintain a state of congnitive dissonance for so long -
Tell us how much longer you plan on pretending the mass graves,
tortures, child prisons, rape rooms, and terrorist funding that was
coming out of Iraq never existed.
sooner or later, the brain rebels - when it does, the experience will
scare you.
Speaking from experience, I'll wager.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 10:34:00 AM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote...
(Sneechres) wrote...
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question.
"Go ***** yourself".
IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction?
Uh, I guess so. What's your point?
Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an exploding missile?
How many missiles capable of delivering chemo/bio weapons did Saddam
possess? Answer: ZERO.
How about when there's 800 tons of it?
How about when there's ZERO tons of it?
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
Gee, that happened in the late 1980s when Saddam was our buddy.
that there were no operational links between Al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
No. He is under arrest. He is also running for president of Iraq.
What now?
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
You do understand the difference between "the government of Iraq" and
"Al Qaeda" is, don't you?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
So we pull resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the hunt
for Osama bin Laden and invade Iraq. OK, I'm following you so far.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
Are you really that stupid?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 10:56:18 AM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2004 08:34:00 -0700, (Spartakus) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote...
(Spartakus) wrote...
sneechres@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote...
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question.
"Go ***** yourself".
IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction?
Uh, I guess so. What's your point?
Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an exploding missile?
How many missiles capable of delivering chemo/bio weapons did Saddam
possess? Answer: ZERO.
How about when there's 800 tons of it?
How about when there's ZERO tons of it?
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
Gee, that happened in the late 1980s when Saddam was our buddy.
that there were no operational links between Al Qaeda and
Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
No. He is under arrest. He is also running for president of Iraq.
What now?
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
You do understand the difference between "the government of Iraq" and
"Al Qaeda" is, don't you?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
So we pull resources away from the fight against Al Qaeda and the hunt
for Osama bin Laden and invade Iraq. OK, I'm following you so far.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
Are you really that stupid?
Yes, Sneechy is. The greatest part of all this coming out now is that
people like Sneechres are caught between having to admit that they
were wrong in their reasons for supporting the invasion, or having to
call Bush & Co. liars so that they may continue to believe their own
reasons.
The cognitive dissonance is quite deafening.
---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."
President George W. Bush.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 01:00:15 AM |
|
|
On 2004-10-07 22:32:55 -0700, (Sneechres) said:
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote in message
news:<6ed74dfa.0410070705.30822eec@posting.google.com>...
(Sneechres) wrote...
spartakus@my-deja.com (Spartakus) wrote...
papajack37@sbcglobal.net (papa jack) wrote...
On October 04, 2004, CNS News posted an article by Scott Wheeler
titled:
"Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties."
http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200410\SPE20041004a.html
Hanoi
Hanoi John Kerry has repeatedly called President Bush a liar for
stating Saddam had WMD's and had contacts with terrorist organizations.
This shows that the President was correct -- and thus Kerry is clearly
wrong.
But, knowing Kerry, he'll claim he knew it all along.
Wow! In the months leading up to the invasion, UN weapons inspectors
couldn't find WMDs;
That's YEARS, and they weren't allowed to look for them. In fact,
"inspector" in this case means to examine, not to search for. But
there was no examining because Saddam was violating UN resolutions by
playing a game of treasure hunt (simultaneously shooting at US
planes).
How many more resolutions were needed?
in the year and a half since the invasion, US
search teams couldn't find WMDs -
They didn't have to, apparently the WMDs will eventually come to them.
Tell us, IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass destruction? When
it's put in an exploding missile, is or is it not a weapon of mass
destruction?
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
That was all sold to Iraq during the Bush I Administration. The recent
report tells us what we already knew - no WMD’s for Iraq after Clinton
took office in ‘92.
that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
Not. Certainly no more than the “Terrorist Ties” George W. Bush has
with the Bin Laden Family. If Saddam Hussein had the same connection
with Bin Laden and his family as the Bush Family does, we would be
saying “Saddam Hussein found to have ties with Terrorism.”
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection? Do
you ever admit you were just plain wrong?
You can only maintain a state of congnitive dissonance for so long -
Tell us how much longer you plan on pretending the mass graves,
tortures, child prisons, rape rooms, and terrorist funding that was
coming out of Iraq never existed.
Are you speaking of the prisons we set up in Iraq? Or are you speaking
on those conditions in Cuba that we set up?
sooner or later, the brain rebels - when it does, the experience will
scare you.
Speaking from experience, I'll wager.
So, basically you are saying you think we did the right thing invading
Iraq no matter what the facts say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 12:12:13 PM |
|
|
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
That was all sold to Iraq during the Bush I Administration.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
Not.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple. So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
Do
you ever admit you were just plain wrong?
Yes, when I am, which is not the case here.
You can only maintain a state of congnitive dissonance for so long -
Tell us how much longer you plan on pretending the mass graves,
tortures, child prisons, rape rooms, and terrorist funding that was
coming out of Iraq never existed.
Are you speaking of the prisons we set up in Iraq?
No. I am speaking of the torture prisons and rape rooms that Saddam
had set up for his own citizenry. I was speaking of the mass graves
that were found of Iraqi people who were killed by Saddam.
Or are you speaking
on those conditions in Cuba that we set up?
There is no prison that "we" set up in Cuba.
sooner or later, the brain rebels - when it does, the experience will
scare you.
Speaking from experience, I'll wager.
So, basically you are saying you think we did the right thing invading
Iraq no matter what the facts say.
Basically I am saying that invading Iraq was the right thing to do
because of the facts that you continue to ignore. Three weeks ago,
even Kerry said that he would vote the same way.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 10:59:44 PM |
|
|
On 2004-10-08 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) said:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message
news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
You Right Wingers sure have to stretch to explain your killing. I
guess if we flooded the Euphrates River that would kill thousands, too.
Is that a WMD? Is this really what it takes to justify the idea that
there were WMD’s in Iraq? Do we have to find such crazy examples?
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
That was all sold to Iraq during the Bush I Administration.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
Not at all. Iraq took the WMD’s that Republicans gave them and killed
people. However, after 1991, when Clinton took office, no WMD’s.
that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
Not.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
Bush and the U.S. does that same thing. Are we terrorists, too? Is
that what you are calling America? A terrorist regime?
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple.
No, it isn’t that simple. Bush is a terrorist by your definition. If
Iraq captured Bush and put him on trial would you support that? We
didn’t go into Iraq to capture Saddam Hussein. We went there to find
WMD’s. Bush lied to us about the reason for war and you support that.
So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
So we are killing everyone we disagree with.
Do
you ever admit you were just plain wrong?
Yes, when I am, which is not the case here.
Are you really George W. Bush?
You can only maintain a state of congnitive dissonance for so long -
Tell us how much longer you plan on pretending the mass graves,
tortures, child prisons, rape rooms, and terrorist funding that was
coming out of Iraq never existed.
Are you speaking of the prisons we set up in Iraq?
No. I am speaking of the torture prisons and rape rooms that Saddam
had set up for his own citizenry. I was speaking of the mass graves
that were found of Iraqi people who were killed by Saddam.
I see. So you are speaking of their atrocities as opposed to ours.
Or are you speaking on those conditions in Cuba that we set up?
There is no prison that "we" set up in Cuba.
Get an education.
sooner or later, the brain rebels - when it does, the experience will
scare you.
Speaking from experience, I'll wager.
So, basically you are saying you think we did the right thing invading
Iraq no matter what the facts say.
Basically I am saying that invading Iraq was the right thing to do
because of the facts that you continue to ignore. Three weeks ago,
even Kerry said that he would vote the same way.
No he didn’t.
--S
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 12:24:02 PM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong. By that level of 'critical' thinking, Bush's case would have
been proven by bringing some WMD in.
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
That was all sold to Iraq during the Bush I Administration.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
They died when Hussein used weapons bought from Americans on them. But
seeing as that happened decades ago and we already know that Hussein
had no WMD nor WMD programs even remotely like what Bush claimed at
the time of the invasion, you're just blowing smoke.
that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
Not.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
Gee, the US administration has funded and even encouraged all those
things for the last 50 years. Were/are they terrorists?
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple. So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
Except Bush had to lie to create public support for his invasion and
you just sucked it up.
Do
you ever admit you were just plain wrong?
Yes, when I am, which is not the case here.
See above. You're wrong.
---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."
President George W. Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 11:47:52 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<h0jdm0h3infmtnm0dnqsorkgppg4kiuelt@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong.
The above non-biased non-partisan link shows otherwise. Maybe not
reading the referenced material is why you and Spartakus are such a
morons.
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
That was all sold to Iraq during the Bush I Administration.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
They died when Hussein used weapons bought from Americans on them.
That's incorrect. They were gassed to death when Iraqi Air Force
planes dropped gas on them in over forty different gas assaults.
The US never sold gas or chemical weapons to Iraq. They were sold a
box of junk in the 80's to fund anti-communist movements in South
America.
But
seeing as that happened decades ago
So I guess it doesn't matter? What's the cut-off point? When dealing
with someone with proven terrorist tendencies, as long as it didn't
happen five minutes ago? Iran Contra happened before the gassings, so
that matters even less, I guess, using that logic.
that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
Not.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
Gee, the US administration has funded and even encouraged all those
things for the last 50 years.
No, it hasn't. The US sided with Russia during WW2, but that doesn't
mean the US was Stalinist or a supporter of communism. You use
whatever support you can get to beat the worst evil at the time (which
in that case was Nazism). Russia's turn came, they were defeated, now
it's terror's turn.
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple. So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
Except Bush had to lie to create public support for his invasion and
you just sucked it up.
Bush didn't lie about anything. Saddam was a terrorist, one of many,
that's a fact. That's all that matters. Now he's gone, the war on
terror continues.
Save your silly sound bytes for the next Demogeek meeting, I'm sure it
will be met with much support.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
08 Oct 2004 11:53:44 PM |
|
|
On 8 Oct 2004 21:47:52 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<h0jdm0h3infmtnm0dnqsorkgppg4kiuelt@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong.
The above non-biased non-partisan link shows otherwise. Maybe not
reading the referenced material is why you and Spartakus are such a
morons.
Or maybe it's the fact that you can't read for comprehension. Here's a
little hint - it's NOT the end of the discussion.
Capische?
and no capacity for making same;
Explain the deaths of 5,000 Kurds.
That was all sold to Iraq during the Bush I Administration.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
They died when Hussein used weapons bought from Americans on them.
That's incorrect. They were gassed to death when Iraqi Air Force
planes dropped gas on them in over forty different gas assaults.
The US never sold gas or chemical weapons to Iraq. They were sold a
box of junk in the 80's to fund anti-communist movements in South
America.
Wrong.
But
seeing as that happened decades ago
So I guess it doesn't matter? What's the cut-off point? When dealing
with someone with proven terrorist tendencies, as long as it didn't
happen five minutes ago? Iran Contra happened before the gassings, so
that matters even less, I guess, using that logic.
No, bonehead. You're bringing up weapons used decades ago as if it
proved that Hussein had the same weapons a year ago.
That's why it's relevant.
that there were no
operational links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein;
Is or is not Saddam Hussein a terrorist with terrorist ties giving
money and other aid to terrorists?
Not.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
Gee, the US administration has funded and even encouraged all those
things for the last 50 years.
No, it hasn't. The US sided with Russia during WW2, but that doesn't
mean the US was Stalinist or a supporter of communism. You use
whatever support you can get to beat the worst evil at the time (which
in that case was Nazism). Russia's turn came, they were defeated, now
it's terror's turn.
See the facts for how the US supported terrorism and torture (with
funds and weapons) in South America and how they've recently decided
that outsourcing torture to the Middle East is just hunky dory.
and there was
no link between the government of Iraq and the 9/11 attacks.
You do understand what the general term "war on terror" means, don't
you? Even John Edwards knows that Al Qaeda is in over sixty
countries--but somehow Iraq managed to keep free of them?
Let's see, Al Qaeda hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in
chemical weapons, and wants WMD.
Saddam Hussein hates the US, hates Israel, has dabbled in chemical
weapons, and wouldn't let anyone look at his WMD.
No, nothing in common there.
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple. So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
Except Bush had to lie to create public support for his invasion and
you just sucked it up.
Bush didn't lie about anything. Saddam was a terrorist, one of many,
that's a fact. That's all that matters. Now he's gone, the war on
terror continues.
Gee, where's all the WMD that were so certainly there? You know, the
ones that he claimed to have incontrovertible evidence for?
Except we now know of course that he had no such evidence and had been
told such in no uncertain terms.
Save your silly sound bytes for the next Demogeek meeting, I'm sure it
will be met with much support.
Keep lying about the facts, Screeches. That's how the Democrats get
support.
---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."
President George W. Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
09 Oct 2004 05:16:59 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<efrem0t9nqhsbcu8vg4s18a9b074ur4ufp@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 21:47:52 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<h0jdm0h3infmtnm0dnqsorkgppg4kiuelt@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong.
The above non-biased non-partisan link shows otherwise. Maybe not
reading the referenced material is why you and Spartakus are such a
morons.
Or maybe it's the fact that you can't read for comprehension.
Really, what is it you said that I misinterpreted? From what I can
see, I posted a non-partisan link to a science website about sarin (a
weapon of mass destruction) being found in Iraq in very large amounts
(and inside an exploding missile shell) which you couldn't be bothered
to read because apparently it proves you're a fricking liar.
Here's a
little hint - it's NOT the end of the discussion.
Actually, yes it is. Until you read the referenced material, we can't
have a discussion. All we have is you're lies and denial of the above
documented and referenced facts.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
They died when Hussein used weapons bought from Americans on them.
That's incorrect. They were gassed to death when Iraqi Air Force
planes dropped gas on them in over forty different gas assaults.
The US never sold gas or chemical weapons to Iraq. They were sold a
box of junk in the 80's to fund anti-communist movements in South
America.
Wrong.
It's not wrong. You do know the details of Iran-Contra, no?
But
seeing as that happened decades ago
So I guess it doesn't matter? What's the cut-off point? When dealing
with someone with proven terrorist tendencies, as long as it didn't
happen five minutes ago? Iran Contra happened before the gassings, so
that matters even less, I guess, using that logic.
No, bonehead. You're bringing up weapons used decades ago as if it
proved that Hussein had the same weapons a year ago.
What it proves, moron mouth breathing Demo-*****, is that Hussein was a
terrorist at one point, proved he had the capability of acting in a
murderous terrorist fashion, and never showed the world that he had
ever reformed. It's called precedent. And gee, I was proved right
when reports started pouring in from the military as they dug up
recent mass graves.
That's why it's relevant.
I know it's relevant. What a person does shows what a person is
capable of doing.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
Gee, the US administration has funded and even encouraged all those
things for the last 50 years.
No, it hasn't. The US sided with Russia during WW2, but that doesn't
mean the US was Stalinist or a supporter of communism. You use
whatever support you can get to beat the worst evil at the time (which
in that case was Nazism). Russia's turn came, they were defeated, now
it's terror's turn.
See the facts for how the US supported terrorism and torture (with
funds and weapons) in South America
You using the word "fact" makes me laugh. Go ahead and make my day by
posting something from DU here. How about a cutnpaste?
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple. So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
Except Bush had to lie to create public support for his invasion and
you just sucked it up.
Bush didn't lie about anything. Saddam was a terrorist, one of many,
that's a fact. That's all that matters. Now he's gone, the war on
terror continues.
Gee, where's all the WMD that were so certainly there?
Al Qaeda didn't have WMD but apparently it doesn't bother you that
we're wiping them out. It's not about WMD, moron, IT'S ABOUT TERROR.
You don't need WMD for that, just an airplane.
You know, the
ones that he claimed to have incontrovertible evidence for?
That the world claimed to have evidence for, including the UK, the UN,
Bill Clinton, and John Kerry's yes vote were all based on it.
Save your silly sound bytes for the next Demogeek meeting, I'm sure it
will be met with much support.
Keep lying about the facts, Screeches. That's how the Democrats get
support.
What are you going to say on October 3rd when John Kerry gets rejected
back to Massachusetts?
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
10 Oct 2004 04:10:40 PM |
|
|
(Sneechres) wrote in message news:<1414fd53.0410091416.64521b6a@posting.google.com>...
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<efrem0t9nqhsbcu8vg4s18a9b074ur4ufp@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 21:47:52 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<h0jdm0h3infmtnm0dnqsorkgppg4kiuelt@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong.
The above non-biased non-partisan link shows otherwise. Maybe not
reading the referenced material is why you and Spartakus are such a
morons.
Or maybe it's the fact that you can't read for comprehension.
Really, what is it you said that I misinterpreted? From what I can
see, I posted a non-partisan link to a science website about sarin (a
weapon of mass destruction) being found in Iraq in very large amounts
(and inside an exploding missile shell) which you couldn't be bothered
to read because apparently it proves you're a fricking liar.
Oh my, another person recognizing Adam lies...say it isn't so.
And I thought Adam was the wise one...oh I feel so let down.
Here's a
little hint - it's NOT the end of the discussion.
Actually, yes it is. Until you read the referenced material, we can't
have a discussion. All we have is you're lies and denial of the above
documented and referenced facts.
Don't forget his evasions, he prides himself in trying to play on
words and be evasive.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
They died when Hussein used weapons bought from Americans on them.
That's incorrect. They were gassed to death when Iraqi Air Force
planes dropped gas on them in over forty different gas assaults.
The US never sold gas or chemical weapons to Iraq. They were sold a
box of junk in the 80's to fund anti-communist movements in South
America.
Wrong.
It's not wrong. You do know the details of Iran-Contra, no?
Who's verison? His or the truth?
But
seeing as that happened decades ago
So I guess it doesn't matter? What's the cut-off point? When dealing
with someone with proven terrorist tendencies, as long as it didn't
happen five minutes ago? Iran Contra happened before the gassings, so
that matters even less, I guess, using that logic.
No, bonehead. You're bringing up weapons used decades ago as if it
proved that Hussein had the same weapons a year ago.
What it proves, moron mouth breathing Demo-*****, is that Hussein was a
terrorist at one point, proved he had the capability of acting in a
murderous terrorist fashion, and never showed the world that he had
ever reformed. It's called precedent. And gee, I was proved right
when reports started pouring in from the military as they dug up
recent mass graves.
If I am not mistaken, they still don't believe that mass graves were
found..or they have some excuse...God only knows..they have an answer
for everything
That's why it's relevant.
I know it's relevant. What a person does shows what a person is
capable of doing.
Same in a court of law, past acts can be brought up under certain
conditions.
Saddam's past acts show he is very capable of many nasty things.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
Gee, the US administration has funded and even encouraged all those
things for the last 50 years.
No, it hasn't. The US sided with Russia during WW2, but that doesn't
mean the US was Stalinist or a supporter of communism. You use
whatever support you can get to beat the worst evil at the time (which
in that case was Nazism). Russia's turn came, they were defeated, now
it's terror's turn.
See the facts for how the US supported terrorism and torture (with
funds and weapons) in South America
You using the word "fact" makes me laugh. Go ahead and make my day by
posting something from DU here. How about a cutnpaste?
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple. So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
Except Bush had to lie to create public support for his invasion and
you just sucked it up.
Bush didn't lie about anything. Saddam was a terrorist, one of many,
that's a fact. That's all that matters. Now he's gone, the war on
terror continues.
Gee, where's all the WMD that were so certainly there?
Al Qaeda didn't have WMD but apparently it doesn't bother you that
we're wiping them out.
According to sources, approximately 75% of the top leaders are either
dead or captured.
It's not about WMD, moron, IT'S ABOUT TERROR.
You don't need WMD for that, just an airplane.
Or boxknives, but they think banning guns will stop it.
You know, the
ones that he claimed to have incontrovertible evidence for?
That the world claimed to have evidence for, including the UK, the UN,
Bill Clinton, and John Kerry's yes vote were all based on it.
Oh they have an excuse for them. Watch Elmo, he is a shining example
of how they make excuses for themselves and their party. It's all
about blame with them, not accountability. Well, I shouldn't say that,
they want to hold people accountable..just not themselves or their own
party.
Save your silly sound bytes for the next Demogeek meeting, I'm sure it
will be met with much support.
Keep lying about the facts, Screeches. That's how the Democrats get
support.
What are you going to say on October 3rd when John Kerry gets rejected
back to Massachusetts?
I don't know if you have been watching but I have made a challenge to
Kerry supporters about 2 days ago, in which I challenged them to be
stand up Kerry supporters. What I meant by that is, I would like to
see if these Kerry supporters have confidence in Kerry.
All they have to do, without passing it off to Kerry's website or
bashing Bush is the following
State for the record..date and time stamped
What will Kerry do if elected (make their predictions now) And they
can't be guesses..they have to be actual predictions..such as "John
Kerry, if elected will do..."
Tell us how Kerry will accomplish these task
And they must do this without bashing Bush, or passing this challenge
off to his website.
Guess how many takers so far...oh yea, these Kerry supporters really
have confidence.
Answer: Not one of them...ZERO
Elmo went off on a little tangent
Adam jumped in, but then said he doesn't support Kerry...or does he?
God only knows, Adam never gives a straight answer
Someone else tried to pass it off to Kerry's website
These people don't have confidence in Kerry..at least not enough to
stake their name on record to show it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
09 Oct 2004 06:37:40 PM |
|
|
On 9 Oct 2004 15:16:59 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<efrem0t9nqhsbcu8vg4s18a9b074ur4ufp@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 21:47:52 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<h0jdm0h3infmtnm0dnqsorkgppg4kiuelt@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong.
The above non-biased non-partisan link shows otherwise. Maybe not
reading the referenced material is why you and Spartakus are such a
morons.
Or maybe it's the fact that you can't read for comprehension.
Really, what is it you said that I misinterpreted? From what I can
see, I posted a non-partisan link to a science website about sarin (a
weapon of mass destruction) being found in Iraq in very large amounts
(and inside an exploding missile shell) which you couldn't be bothered
to read because apparently it proves you're a fricking liar.
Oh? Where did I lie?
Here's a
little hint - it's NOT the end of the discussion.
Actually, yes it is. Until you read the referenced material, we can't
have a discussion. All we have is you're lies and denial of the above
documented and referenced facts.
I have read it, and nothing there is convincing evidence that Bush was
right, since there is no evidence of ownership. Your trumpeted sarin
shell came from a *known* stockpile that was looted *after* the
invasion because the US couldn't be arsed to put watchdogs on the
*known* chemical stockpiles.
Explain how 5,000 Kurdish people died. Do you think they just expired
breathing the aroma of freshly cooked food?
They died when Hussein used weapons bought from Americans on them.
That's incorrect. They were gassed to death when Iraqi Air Force
planes dropped gas on them in over forty different gas assaults.
The US never sold gas or chemical weapons to Iraq. They were sold a
box of junk in the 80's to fund anti-communist movements in South
America.
Wrong.
It's not wrong. You do know the details of Iran-Contra, no?
Like that was the only incident.
But
seeing as that happened decades ago
So I guess it doesn't matter? What's the cut-off point? When dealing
with someone with proven terrorist tendencies, as long as it didn't
happen five minutes ago? Iran Contra happened before the gassings, so
that matters even less, I guess, using that logic.
No, bonehead. You're bringing up weapons used decades ago as if it
proved that Hussein had the same weapons a year ago.
What it proves, moron mouth breathing Demo-*****, is that Hussein was a
terrorist at one point, proved he had the capability of acting in a
murderous terrorist fashion, and never showed the world that he had
ever reformed. It's called precedent. And gee, I was proved right
when reports started pouring in from the military as they dug up
recent mass graves.
That's why it's relevant.
I know it's relevant. What a person does shows what a person is
capable of doing.
But Bush's reasons for war have so far gone unsupported.
That's the relevance.
So what does a person have to do to be a terrorist? Saddam killed
people, tortured people, and funded the killing and torturing of
people. Was there something he missed?
Gee, the US administration has funded and even encouraged all those
things for the last 50 years.
No, it hasn't. The US sided with Russia during WW2, but that doesn't
mean the US was Stalinist or a supporter of communism. You use
whatever support you can get to beat the worst evil at the time (which
in that case was Nazism). Russia's turn came, they were defeated, now
it's terror's turn.
See the facts for how the US supported terrorism and torture (with
funds and weapons) in South America
You using the word "fact" makes me laugh. Go ahead and make my day by
posting something from DU here. How about a cutnpaste?
Are you denying that the US ever gave material support to terrorists
in South America?
Yes or no?
LOL! Is this now what it takes for The Right to make a connection?
There doesn't have to be a connection, you idiot. Saddam Hussein was
a terrorist, and this is a war on TERROR. It's that simple. So far,
we've deposed the Taliban, are working on Al Qaeda, and hopefully
Hamas and the PLO are next.
Except Bush had to lie to create public support for his invasion and
you just sucked it up.
Bush didn't lie about anything. Saddam was a terrorist, one of many,
that's a fact. That's all that matters. Now he's gone, the war on
terror continues.
Gee, where's all the WMD that were so certainly there?
Al Qaeda didn't have WMD but apparently it doesn't bother you that
we're wiping them out. It's not about WMD, moron, IT'S ABOUT TERROR.
You don't need WMD for that, just an airplane.
Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted and rejected.
The invasion *was* about the WMD. Now that there isn't any (surprise,
surprise) Bush is suddenly changing his tune, and you're just bopping
along with him instead of demanding accountability as any intelligent
person would.
You know, the
ones that he claimed to have incontrovertible evidence for?
That the world claimed to have evidence for, including the UK, the UN,
Bill Clinton, and John Kerry's yes vote were all based on it.
Kerry didn't vote for Bush to invade on no evidence. I realize that
discarding context and reason is what you need to do to bolster your
failing pres, but leave me out of it.
Save your silly sound bytes for the next Demogeek meeting, I'm sure it
will be met with much support.
Keep lying about the facts, Screeches. That's how the Democrats get
support.
What are you going to say on October 3rd when John Kerry gets rejected
back to Massachusetts?
And that's supposed to be relevant too? If you Americans are so
impressed with having the biggest idiot in the WH for the last
century, feel free to go to hell all by yourselves.
---
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful,
and so are we. They never stop thinking about
new ways to harm our country and our people,
and neither do we."
President George W. Bush.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sneechres" |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
12 Oct 2004 11:03:23 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<88tgm01n5erubdbqvckqos0lba024a64c1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 15:16:59 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<efrem0t9nqhsbcu8vg4s18a9b074ur4ufp@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 21:47:52 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<h0jdm0h3infmtnm0dnqsorkgppg4kiuelt@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong.
The above non-biased non-partisan link shows otherwise. Maybe not
reading the referenced material is why you and Spartakus are such a
morons.
Or maybe it's the fact that you can't read for comprehension.
Really, what is it you said that I misinterpreted? From what I can
see, I posted a non-partisan link to a science website about sarin (a
weapon of mass destruction) being found in Iraq in very large amounts
(and inside an exploding missile shell) which you couldn't be bothered
to read because apparently it proves you're a fricking liar.
Oh? Where did I lie?
Do you deny that Iraq is WMD free now?
Here's a
little hint - it's NOT the end of the discussion.
Actually, yes it is. Until you read the referenced material, we can't
have a discussion. All we have is you're lies and denial of the above
documented and referenced facts.
I have read it,
Liar.
and nothing there is convincing evidence that Bush was
right, since there is no evidence of ownership.
If the police find drugs in a house that you own, you are liable.
Saddam is liable for whatever is found in his country.
Your trumpeted sarin
shell came from a *known* stockpile that was looted *after* the
invasion because the US couldn't be arsed to put watchdogs on the
*known* chemical stockpiles.
Irrelevant, sarin is illegal and Saddam was not allowed to have it.
It was found in Iraq and it's nice to see you admit it belonged to
Saddam from an identified stockpile.
I know it's relevant. What a person does shows what a person is
capable of doing.
But Bush's reasons for war have so far gone unsupported.
No, they haven't. Saddam was a terrorist, that's all that matters.
See the facts for how the US supported terrorism and torture (with
funds and weapons) in South America
You using the word "fact" makes me laugh. Go ahead and make my day by
posting something from DU here. How about a cutnpaste?
Are you denying that the US ever gave material support to terrorists
in South America?
I'm denying your versions of history so far, but you'll have to be
specific so I can address whatever incident you are lying about now.
Bush didn't lie about anything. Saddam was a terrorist, one of many,
that's a fact. That's all that matters. Now he's gone, the war on
terror continues.
Gee, where's all the WMD that were so certainly there?
Al Qaeda didn't have WMD but apparently it doesn't bother you that
we're wiping them out. It's not about WMD, moron, IT'S ABOUT TERROR.
You don't need WMD for that, just an airplane.
Your attempt to move the goalposts is noted and rejected.
You're the one that moved the goalposts. Where were you in 1998???
The invasion *was* about the WMD.
No, it wasn't. It was about terror and we have ample evidence that
Saddam Hussein was a terrorist running a terrorist government, giving
aid and support to terrorists and allowing them within Iraq's borders.
You know, the
ones that he claimed to have incontrovertible evidence for?
That the world claimed to have evidence for, including the UK, the UN,
Bill Clinton, and John Kerry's yes vote were all based on it.
Kerry didn't vote for Bush to invade on no evidence.
Yes, he did. He voted based on the same intelligence that the rest of
the administration was privy to.
The title of the legislation is proof enough of what Kerry voted for.
--S
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Saddam Had WMD's Plus Extensive Terrorist Ties |
12 Oct 2004 11:59:24 PM |
|
|
On 12 Oct 2004 21:03:23 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<88tgm01n5erubdbqvckqos0lba024a64c1@4ax.com>...
On 9 Oct 2004 15:16:59 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<efrem0t9nqhsbcu8vg4s18a9b074ur4ufp@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 21:47:52 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<h0jdm0h3infmtnm0dnqsorkgppg4kiuelt@4ax.com>...
On 8 Oct 2004 10:12:13 -0700, (Sneechres) wrote,
akin to the neighing and braying of farmyard animals:
Elmo <efspro@bartol.udel.edu> wrote in message news:<2004100723001516807%efspro@bartoludeledu>...
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99995018
Screeches, several members of the Bush Junta have admitted that there
were no WMDs,
Answer the frigging question. IS OR IS NOT sarin gas a weapon of mass
destruction? Is it a weapon of mass destruction when put into an
exploding missile? How about when there's 800 tons of it?
Sure. Now what?
You admit your "facts" are wrong. WMD was found in Iraq. End of
discussion.
Wrong.
The above non-biased non-partisan link shows otherwise. Maybe not
reading the referenced material is why you and Spartakus are such a
morons.
Or maybe it's the fact that you can't | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
