On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:25:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Is the fact that a person with AQ links was in Iraq sufficient
grounds to justify a war against Iraq? If so, how do you feel about
the fact that there are AQ operatives in the UK? You going to bomb
us next?

Are you supporting them? Cooperating with them to launch another
strike? Last I heard, your government just arrested one to extradite
to the US to stand trial. Are you going to go back on that?

What evidence do you have that Saddam was supporting AQ? I haven't
seen any.

You are claiming that a single AQ operative in Iraq
justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of non-terrorists.

There are
other countries that AQ operate in which you do not believe should be
subjected to the same appalling treatment. That view appears, at least
on the face of it, to be inconsistent.

What needs to be proven in order to justify the war is a link
between Saddam and AQ. A single person operating in the country is
meaningless. There is no evidence that Saddam's government was
aiding AQ.

That single person was one of Saddam's own guard unit.

So if a member of the British military was found to be leaking secrets
to AQ, would *that* be sufficient justification for an invasion?

Haven't members of the US military been arrested for leaking secrets
to terrorists?

There is plenty of evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to AQ, but for
some bizarre reason Bush is not interested in tracking him down.

Except for the eight or ten thousand troops that we have looking for
him *and* the rest of his people in Afghanistan.

So why did Bush say that he does not care where he is, and that
looking for him is nor a priority?

There are thousands of troops in
Afghanistan, but they are not all searching for Osama. They are trying
to clean up the mess left when the majority of troops were withdrawn.

Maybe
you should be more concerned about that than about desperately
trying to find evidence to justify the war.

There's nothing desperate about the Iraq Survey Group and their
regular reporting on documents that they've found and translated.

So where is the concrete evidence that you claim exists that justifies
the invasion of a foreign power?

The man responsible for the 9/11 attacks is still out there, and
instead of trying to bring him to justice

We don't want to arrest him, we want to *kill* him.

Maybe you should tell your President that. He appears not to give a
shite where he is.

the US government is trying
to find excuses for its occupation of a country with no proven
terrorist links. Maybe there are links - but they will never be as
obvious as the link between Bin Laden and 9/11.

Anyway, you're suppose to have the justification sorted *before* you
to war, not scrape around looking for it afterwards.

The UN was sure enough about the justification to vote for Resolution
1441. The governments of a few dozen other countries were sure enough
to go along with the US in spite of the intrasigence of France and
Russia on the Security Council. And Saddam played it coy enough to
make anybody suspicious about his motives.

Ah - so if they play it coy, bomb the crap out of them!

The majority of UN countries were opposed to the US invasion. That's
why it did not go to a final vote - the US and the UK knew damned well
that they'd lose. They campaigned long and hard to persuade people,
tried bugging and coercion to get them to change their minds, and then
bailed when they realized they were on to a loser. Had they been
denied in that vote, the invasion would have been even more unpopular
than it was.

The question of justification is moot at this point. We just like
rubbing your nose in the facts that keep turning up, like Sarin shells
and AQ operations run by Saddam's bodyguards. It's a riot, watching
you come up with apologetics to explain away the evidence.

You mean like you danced like a monkey on a hot-plate to explain away
evidence of the US exporting POWs to Saudi to be tortured?

I have yet to see any evidence of a link between Iraq and AQ (although
that doesn't mean there isn't any). The propaganda machine has claimed
to have evidence several times, and every time it has turned out to be
misinformation. Unlike you, I do not continue to trust information
from a source which has proven to be so unreliable. Unlike you, I
prefer to see hard evidence, rather than blindly swallow government
propaganda.

Personally, I do not believe that one sarin shell and one employee
with terrorist links justifies an invasion, even if both turn out to
be the genuine article. You could turn up more than that in Texas. I
was led to believe, by my government and yours, that I was at risk of
a terrorist attack because Saddam had weapons with long-range
capability and was planning to use them. They could turn up a load
more short-range weapons, however nasty, and it does not make those
claims true. I opposed the war because I did not believe that they had
a right to start a war until the UN inspectors had been given a chance
to prove the claims that were being made. Despite all the horseshit
about the UN being incompetent, the allied forces in Iraq have not
managed to turn up anything that backs up their claims of Iraq being a
threat to us.

On Tue, 01 Jun 2004 18:25:04 GMT, Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com>
wrote:

Is the fact that a person with AQ links was in Iraq sufficient grounds
to justify a war against Iraq? If so, how do you feel about the fact
that there are AQ operatives in the UK? You going to bomb us next?

Are you supporting them? Cooperating with them to launch another strike?
Last I heard, your government just arrested one to extradite to the US
to stand trial. Are you going to go back on that?

What evidence do you have that Saddam was supporting AQ? I haven't
seen any. You are claiming that a single AQ operative in Iraq
justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of non-terrorists. There are
other countries that AQ operate in which you do not believe should be
subjected to the same appalling treatment. That view appears, at least
on the face of it, to be inconsistent.

TV's Fred Stone wrote:

The man responsible for the 9/11 attacks is still out there, and
instead of trying to bring him to justice

We don't want to arrest him, we want to *kill* him.

Dead men tell no tales.

"Eris" <Vithant01@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:8puhb0p7ugj80s165r4kgfj8mk30lve340@4ax.com...

On Sat, 29 May 2004 14:24:09 GMT, "Fester" <

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.05.29.12.55.04.504210@hoo.com-amikchi...

On Sat, 29 May 2004 02:43:13 -0500 in episode
<2hqt8gFfva86U1@uni-berlin.de> we saw our hero "towelie"
<bugoNOSPAM@hotmail.com>:

TV's Fester wrote:

"Fear gan dia" <lqsxsstntqxd@hbsnhhrddqxs.com> wrote in message
news:40b7d85e.002@hbsnhhrddqxs.com...

Verily verily I say unto you, it is written by Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns94F7CF8B03E43fstone69@207.69.154.203>:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote in
news:pan.2004.05.28.21.50.37.550707@hoo.com-amikchi:

On Fri, 28 May 2004 12:41:55 +0000 in episode
<20040528084155.28184.00000084@mb-m22.aol.com> we saw our hero
jenny6833a@aol.comClothes (Jenny6833A):

"Fester"

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005133

The article doesn't come close to justifying your subject line.

Not to mention it's written by an idiot. Notice this line:

"We realize that even raising this subject now is politically
incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that

there

were no links whatsoever..."

What a freakin' moron. It's not "politically incorrect" to

mention

there were no links. THERE'S NO ***** EVIDENCE THERE ARE ANY.

Translation: "My fingers are in my ears, my eyes are closed,
LALALALALA, I can't see any evidence and you can't MAKE ME."

Your failure to cite any evidence is noted.

"One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat

Shakir

appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen"

"It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen
rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the

proven

al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda
operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents."

Since the identity hasn't even been comfirmed, I would hardly call

this

"evidence." This "evidence" sounds suspiciously like Xian "evidence"

of

their gods.

Such evidence! Two people have similar names!

Wow. I mean, it's not like people coincidentally have the same name or
anything. *That never happens...

So I take it that if/when it is confirmed that this is the same Shakir,

that

you would admit that Saddam was involved in the 9/11 conspiracy?

If being involved in the 9/11 conspiracy is a reason for invasion, why
aren't we in Saudi Arabia?

We don't have evidence that the head of state of the Saudis was either
involved in helping terrorists, producing WMDs or otherwise threatening us.
Not that I lack some suspicions of many of the royal house. The fact that
many of the conspirators and Ben Laden, himself came from there does not
mean that the government was responsible for their actions. I certainly
dislike the Saudis from the leadership on down, but we had no reason to go
to war with them. Nor would doing so diminish the threat to us from
terrorists.

If we are concerned with human rights why
aren't we in Saudi Arabia,

We did not invade Iraq for hte sake of the liberty of the people there.
Nonetheless, having gone in there for our own defense, we are obligated and
compelled by our self-interests to leave behind a stable,peaceful and if
possible free state.

If we want to avenge 9/11, why aren't we in
Saudi Arabia

Vengeance is not a reason I would support for war either. Our goals should
be the destruction of Islamic terrorists's ability to cause lare-scale
destruction. To that end, we are forced to eliminate their organizations
and leadership and invade countries which have supported them to make future
acts like 9/11 beyond their means.