Top 40 Myths (or lies) about War and Terrorism

[Kropotkin]

Bod: I aim to please

[Sava]

I'd say about half are op-ed snippits... and half are clear fact. I'll do a summary for you lazy-asses.

#1 -- FACT -- Bush admin was planning war on Iraq before it took power, and long before 9-11... see Wolfowitz, PNAC, Neo-Cons...

#2 -- FACT -- WMD's was the case the admin presented to the public, but wasn't the real motivation for war. again... Wolfowitz

#3 -- FACT -- Saddam/Niger connection isn't credible. Just about beaten to death.

#4 -- FACT -- Aluminum tubes alleged to be part of nuclear program. IAEA says wrong again.

#5 -- FACT -- Allegations of Iraq shipping WMD to Syria aren't credible.

#6 -- Opinion/theory -- Conflict between CIA and DoD.

#7 -- FACT -- IAEA "claim" that Iraq was 6 months from a nuke never existed.

#8 -- Opinion -- The consensus of US intelligence sources says "no Saddam/Al Qaeda connection. But it's FACT that this is their opinion.

#9 -- Opinion -- The US doesn't want Democracy in Middle East. This is more theory than fact... but a theory based upon extensive analysis of the US's actions in the region.

#10 -- FACT -- Chalabi and Iraqi National Congress are puppets for US.

That's just 10 for you guys, I'll summarize more later. But your guys' claims that this is just opinionated garbage are wrong.

[Ming]

Yes a "few" are reasonable, but most of it is just typical baseless opinions..

No suprise that Sava would post this stuff... He's so consumed with his hate for Bush that it isn't even worth the effort to discuss it with him.

[Sava]

He's so consumed with his hate for Bush that it isn't even worth the effort to discuss it with him.

aw

it might seem that way, but I am quite open-minded... if this is just a vast "left-wing" conspiracy to smear Bush, educate me...

if not, at least discuss the "few" that are "reasonable"...

[Solly]

Drop the hate Sava.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boddington's
Drop the hate Sava.

I'd like to, but it's a product of my frustration towards my government.

[Solly]

Because it is patriotic and you are not?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
it might seem that way, but I am quite open-minded...

Yeah... right...

[Japher]

1 -- FACT -- Bush admin was planning war on Iraq before it took power, and long before 9-11... see Wolfowitz, PNAC, Neo-Cons...

So, Saddam was in the wrong from the get go over 12 years ago, is it any wonder that someone wanted to clean up the mess? All it took was a pres. with some balls.

#2 -- FACT -- WMD's was the case the admin presented to the public, but wasn't the real motivation for war. again... Wolfowitz

I remember seeing a ton of other information that supported a war on Iraq, and if congress and the general/stupid public focused only on WMD than that is their oversight.

#3 -- FACT -- Saddam/Niger connection isn't credible. Just about beaten to death.

I think the Bush Administration did a good enough job at passing the buck over to Blair on that one. Yet acting on it as to go to war? I don't think so. I think we had our own intelligence that suggested at the same thin, British agreement was just icing on the cake. Ever eat angel food? No icing.

#4 -- FACT -- Aluminum tubes alleged to be part of nuclear program. IAEA says wrong again.

IAEA has now become the leading authority on what everyone is doing above and below the table. I wouldn't trust any agency any further than I can throw the buildings the sit in. Man, do the monitor terrorist tradings? I think not!

#5 -- FACT -- Allegations of Iraq shipping WMD to Syria aren't credible.

Credible? Try possible.

#6 -- Opinion/theory -- Conflict between CIA and DoD.

Opinion.

#7 -- FACT -- IAEA "claim" that Iraq was 6 months from a nuke never existed.

See #4, word of mouth? Need everything be written down for it to be true?

#8 -- Opinion -- The consensus of US intelligence sources says "no Saddam/Al Qaeda connection. But it's FACT that this is their opinion.

Opinion.

[/quote]#9 -- Opinion -- The US doesn't want Democracy in Middle East. This is more theory than fact... but a theory based upon extensive analysis of the US's actions in the region.[/quote]


So?

#10 -- FACT -- Chalabi and Iraqi National Congress are puppets for US.

The whole world is our puppet, as some would want us to believe. How do you state this as fact? More so say, than the British or Canadian governments.

--

Go ahead rip me a new one Sava, I know you love too

[Velociryx]

It’d be interesting to reverse it, and simply ask the Bush supporters questions, such as:

1) Was the Bush administration determined to go to war with Iraq from 9/11 onward? Yes or no?

2) Did the Bush administration adequately demonstrate evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq as the basis for the war? If yes, then where are they and why have they not been discovered yet?

3) Did Saddam try to buy Uranium from Niger, or not? If not, then why the lie?

4) Are the aluminum tubes purchased even capable to be used for nuclear stuff, or no?

5) What evidence is there that Syria and/or Iran are now the guardians of Saddam’s stockpile of weapons?

6) How is the CIA responsible for administration misrepresentation of reports?

7) How do you rectify the contradiction between the “6-months and Saddam can build a nuke” with the IAEA’s contention that no such report exists?

8) Where is the evidence of a continual Saddam/Al Qaeda link?

9) Will the US leave Iraq if a democratically elected government orders them to?

10) How is the word “terrorist” or “terrorist supporter” defined by the administration, and why are the Saudis not on that list?

11) Is Al Qaeda crippled? If so, why are there reports circulating of their continuing activity?

12) With the “new security” procedures in place, and the Department of Homeland Defense, are we, as a nation, significantly more prepared and protected against future attacks?

13) Explain the gag order against investigation into the Saudi connection, and any number of other details surrounding the events of 9/11

14) Was there, or was there not a detailed plan for rebuilding Iraq after the shooting stopped, and if so, why isn’t it being followed?

15) Have we succeeded in keeping the peace in iraq? Did we guard important historical sites? How many Iraqi civilians died in the war?

Etc., etc….you get the picture. Valid questions, all.

-=Vel=-

[oedo]

Opinions are like ass holes, everyone has one and they all stink...

2+2=5:
following this discussion, it get the impression that it´s just a matter of whether you´re on the left or on the right to believe this.

[Victor Galis]

So Bush deserves to be impeached and be put on trial for war crimes, what else is new?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Sava
I'd say about half are op-ed snippits... and half are clear fact. I'll do a summary for you lazy-asses.

#1 -- FACT -- Bush admin was planning war on Iraq before it took power, and long before 9-11... see Wolfowitz, PNAC, Neo-Cons...

#2 -- FACT -- WMD's was the case the admin presented to the public, but wasn't the real motivation for war. again... Wolfowitz

#3 -- FACT -- Saddam/Niger connection isn't credible. Just about beaten to death.

#4 -- FACT -- Aluminum tubes alleged to be part of nuclear program. IAEA says wrong again.

#5 -- FACT -- Allegations of Iraq shipping WMD to Syria aren't credible.

#6 -- Opinion/theory -- Conflict between CIA and DoD.

#7 -- FACT -- IAEA "claim" that Iraq was 6 months from a nuke never existed.

#8 -- Opinion -- The consensus of US intelligence sources says "no Saddam/Al Qaeda connection. But it's FACT that this is their opinion.

#9 -- Opinion -- The US doesn't want Democracy in Middle East. This is more theory than fact... but a theory based upon extensive analysis of the US's actions in the region.

#10 -- FACT -- Chalabi and Iraqi National Congress are puppets for US.

That's just 10 for you guys, I'll summarize more later. But your guys' claims that this is just opinionated garbage are wrong.

hi ,

fact , sadman bought stuff in niger before , fact , the local trade rep had 231 sadman's working there , as " trade reps " , ....

fact , sadman tried to get more uranium , .......

facts are facts , .....

have a nice day

[mrmitchell]

quote:
#5 -- FACT -- Allegations of Iraq shipping WMD to Syria aren't credible.

Credible? Try possible.

It's possible that Iraqi patriots buried the WoMD in your backyard while you weren't looking. Thus, we are going to have to stage a full-scale invasion of your backyard to prevent these weapons from being used for wrongdoing.

[Panag]

Syria

Syria sought CW-related precursors and expertise from foreign sources during the reporting period. Damascus already has a stockpile of the nerve agent sarin, and it would appear that Syria is trying to develop more toxic and persistent nerve agents. Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its CW program, including precursor chemicals and key production equipment. It is highly probable that Syria also is developing an offensive BW capability.

Syria—an NPT signatory with full-scope IAEA safeguards—has a nuclear research center at Dayr Al Jajar. In January 2000, Russia approved a draft cooperative program with Damascus that included cooperation on civil nuclear power. Broader access to Russian expertise could provide opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons. We will continue to monitor Syria’s nuclear R&D program for any signs of weapons intent.

During the first half of 2001, Damascus continued work on establishing a solid-propellant rocket motor development and production capability with help from outside countries. Foreign equipment and assistance to its liquid-propellant missile program—primarily from North Korean entities, but also from firms in Russia—have been and will continue to be essential for Syria’s effort. Damascus also continued its efforts to assemble—probably with considerable North Korean assistance—liquid-fueled Scud C missiles.

Syria continues to acquire relatively small quantities ofACW—mainly from Russia, other FSU suppliers, China and Iran. But Damascus’ outstanding debt to Russia and inability to fund large purchases have hampered negotiations for the large quantity of equipment Syria needs to revitalize its aging defense forces. Damascus is interested in acquiring Russian SA-10 and SA-11 air defense systems, MiG-29 and Su-27 fighters, and T-80 or T-90 main battle tanks, as well as upgrades for the aircraft, armored weapons, and air defense systems already in its inventory. Syria’s Defense Minister met with high-level Russian officials in Moscow in May 2001 to negotiate a new military-technical cooperation agreement or arms contracts and address the debt issue, but no new agreements have been completed