Iraq actions makes terrorism risks worse ?

[DRoseDARs]

...over ten years ago.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Straybow
But then you aren't a native English speaker. Perhaps your mother tongue doesn't use metaphors and this nuance is lost on you?

Or perhaps the point you were making is based on parallels based on the part of the metaphor that doesn't exactly represent the actual situation.

W only admitted that we now know they weren't building WMDs at the time. That isn't the same as possessing material that was to have been destroyed under supervision. Nor is it the same as Saddam pursuing WMDs, which he clearly was

Or could he be that he was bluffing because he knew it was the only way to scare the Iranians, all the while knowing that if he actually used such weapons the international community would not like him?

[Berzerker]

I'm saying that the terrorists today didn't convert from pacifism. What makes them terrorists isn't American boots on Iraqi soil. It isn't even American boots on Saudi soil (OBL's and AQ's primary complaint), that's just a rationale for the choice of targets.

What was his rationale for attacking the Russians in Afghanistan? Russian boots on the ground? Why did he stop attacking them when they left? Oh yeah, no more boots on the ground...and he looked west and saw US boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia and started attacking them. Kinda strange behavior for someone who doesn't really care about what boots are where, true? To argue that he'd be attacking the US and the Russians "anyway" if all those boots weren't on the ground is a dangerous rationalisation that ignores an important principle of human nature... our territorial nature. If you're trampling about my yard I'm gonna get mad, if you're trampling about your yard, I dont care. We've been in his yard for decades playing politics with the lives of Muslims for oil and Israel, so if he starts attacking us because we have troops on holy land, I'll take him at his word before I'll believe he did 9/11 because Bush says he hates my freedom. Dont blame me, Bush!

W only admitted that we now know they weren't building WMDs at the time. That isn't the same as possessing material that was to have been destroyed under supervision. Nor is it the same as Saddam pursuing WMDs, which he clearly was.

Bush told us Saddam reconstituted WMD programs, not that he might in the future. His son-in-law defected to the west around '95-96 and he said the inspectors eliminated nearly everything. This was Scott Ritter's assessment as well, and he said the CIA was using the inspections to set up coup attempts and thats why the Iraqis started limiting where the inspectors could look until the UN pulled them before an attack on Saddam. This was turned into "Saddam kicked the inspectors out" by the GOP propaganda machine along with the smearing of Ritter. We didn't invade Iraq because Saddam had leftover shells from the war with Iran. We invaded because he had WMD, was building WMD, and was pursuing nukes.

[Straybow]

What was his rationale for attacking the Russians in Afghanistan? Russian boots on the ground? Why did he stop attacking them when they left? Oh yeah, no more boots on the ground...and he looked west and saw US boots on the ground in Saudi Arabia and started attacking them. Kinda strange behavior for someone who doesn't really care about what boots are where, true?

You missed the point. The ruling Wahabbis in SA weren't Wahabbish enough for him. He was informally expelled at some point. He went to Afghanistan because he felt the call to jihad (as long as somebody else did the actual dying), not because he gave a spit about the Afghans. Nope, most of them weren't Wahabbish enough either.

To argue that he'd be attacking the US and the Russians "anyway" if all those boots weren't on the ground...

You're not paying attention. I said that boots on the ground are only the rationale for choice of target. If it weren't for Saddam invading Kuwait and the US et al invited to defend SA, OBL would be causing trouble for somebody else.

If OBL chose to champion a traditional anti-Semite platform he might well decide that US support for Israel made us a good target.

BTW, why is it that we don't deserve to have boots on "Islamic" land, as he perceives it? Because we don't do things his way. In the West you're free to be Muslim, or not. So, yes, OBL hates our freedoms.

Bush told us Saddam reconstituted WMD programs, not that he might in the future.

Again, pay attention. "...we now know they weren't building WMDs at the time." But Saddam did have WMD programs, which were forbidden. Even if their progress was trivial (which is possible) it was still forbidden.

Bush told us Saddam reconstituted WMD programs, not that he might in the future. His son-in-law defected to the west around '95-96 and he said the inspectors eliminated nearly everything.

As above, this was accurate. Bush also told us that Saddam was building bio and chem WMDs, which appears to be false, but was a fully reasonable interpretation of Saddam's words and the intel.

The defector said inspectors eliminated nearly everything, but the terms of surrender weren't for "nearly everything." After that Saddam continued to work on WMD programs while shuffling those materials away from inspectors' prying eyes. Again, in defiance of terms of surrender.

This was Scott Ritter's assessment as well, and he said the CIA was using the inspections to set up coup attempts and thats why the Iraqis started limiting where the inspectors could look...

Ah, yes. Scott Ritter, the quitessential "betrayed" whiner turned "whistleblower" (sans proof, of course). No doubt the CIA had agents in the inspection teams. But "setting up coup attempts" is stretching credibility far beyond the any person or group's capabilities. If you believe that, I've got some Florida land to sell you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Straybow
W only admitted that we now know they weren't building WMDs at the time. That isn't the same as possessing material that was to have been destroyed under supervision. Nor is it the same as Saddam pursuing WMDs, which he clearly was.

See, this is were you are utterly wrong. The admin stated that there were no WMD's in Iraq. That means, no active materials that could be used as weapons.

But then, what is the point of arguing with you on this point, when its obvious that you have decided to have your own set of "facts" on the issue.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Straybow
BTW, why is it that we don't deserve to have boots on "Islamic" land, as he perceives it? Because we don't do things his way. In the West you're free to be Muslim, or not. So, yes, OBL hates our freedoms.

Nope,
he didn´t hate you because of some kind of "Freedom"
but rather because your society is based on the christian religion and not on Islam and you were therefore unbelievers in his eyes (and yes, your society can be called a christian society, no matter if muslims are allowed to do their religious duties in it and no matter if there might be actually muslim soldiers within your aremd forces)

[Straybow]

Originally posted by GePap
See, this is were you are utterly wrong. The admin stated that there were no WMD's in Iraq. That means, no active materials that could be used as weapons.

No physical materials for manufacture of WMDs, yes. Of course, you like to claim that W knew it all along and lied. He didn't.

And Saddam did have WMD programs, just no physical weapons components.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Nope, he didn´t hate you because of some kind of "Freedom" but rather because your society is based on the christian religion and not on Islam and you were therefore unbelievers in his eyes (and yes, your society can be called a christian society, no matter if muslims are allowed to do their religious duties in it and no matter if there might be actually muslim soldiers within your aremd forces)

Except for that sticky little point in the Koran that says "people of the book" were OK, unlike idolatrous pagans. OBL seems to have confused the two.

[KrazyHorse]

And Saddam did have WMD programs, just no physical weapons components.

[Berzerker]

You missed the point. The ruling Wahabbis in SA weren't Wahabbish enough for him. He was informally expelled at some point. He went to Afghanistan because he felt the call to jihad (as long as somebody else did the actual dying), not because he gave a spit about the Afghans. Nope, most of them weren't Wahabbish enough either.

The point is he has consistently attacked foreigners occupying Muslim lands, to suggest that aint his motive flies in the face of the evidence.

You're not paying attention. I said that boots on the ground are only the rationale for choice of target. If it weren't for Saddam invading Kuwait and the US et al invited to defend SA, OBL would be causing trouble for somebody else.

If OBL chose to champion a traditional anti-Semite platform he might well decide that US support for Israel made us a good target.

London (homegrown terrorists) and Madrid were hit for sending troops to Iraq...and if we are hit for supporting Israel, how does that disqualify what I said? We'd still be getting attacked for being over there. But everyone knows when someone declares war they throw in the kitchen sink along with the main reason - the straw that broke the camel's back. And that main reason was boots on the ground. What he'd be doing if foreigners weren't invading the Muslim world? Dont know, dont care...

BTW, why is it that we don't deserve to have boots on "Islamic" land, as he perceives it? Because we don't do things his way. In the West you're free to be Muslim, or not. So, yes, OBL hates our freedoms.

I dont have the freedom to set up bases on Muslim holy lands, much less invade countries over there. And our Constitution does not allow such adventurism based on deceit. And he didn't attack us because he hates our freedoms, dont give me that Bu****.

Again, pay attention. "...we now know they weren't building WMDs at the time." But Saddam did have WMD programs, which were forbidden. Even if their progress was trivial (which is possible) it was still forbidden.

Bush said Saddam reconstituted WMD, that means he was making WMD, not that he could mix up a batch of mustard gas or sarin.

As above, this was accurate. Bush also told us that Saddam was building bio and chem WMDs, which appears to be false, but was a fully reasonable interpretation of Saddam's words and the intel.

What intel? Curveball?

The defector said inspectors eliminated nearly everything, but the terms of surrender weren't for "nearly everything." After that Saddam continued to work on WMD programs while shuffling those materials away from inspectors' prying eyes. Again, in defiance of terms of surrender.

First, the terms of the ceasefire were made on behalf of the United Nations, not the US. The US received authorisation from UN resolutions, the war was fought on behalf of the UN, and only the UN had the authority to make decisions about future actions in response to Saddam's behavior. Second, the defector and Scott Ritter said they got nearly everything and it wasn't Saddam that stopped inspections, we did when we wanted to bomb him. And the inspections were corrupted by the CIA trying to set up coups and assassination attempts. All I can do is if you want us to believe we invaded because of old artillery shells from the Iran War. Reconstituted WMD means new weapons being made, and we were told this included a nuke program.

Ah, yes. Scott Ritter, the quitessential "betrayed" whiner turned "whistleblower" (sans proof, of course). No doubt the CIA had agents in the inspection teams. But "setting up coup attempts" is stretching credibility far beyond the any person or group's capabilities. If you believe that, I've got some Florida land to sell you.

If you're going to smear Ritter, produce something more than an attempt to Hannitise us. You call him a liar, prove it. And it does not stretch my definition of credibility to believe we were trying to get Saddam and working with other Iraqis to take his place should we get him.

No physical materials for manufacture of WMDs, yes. Of course, you like to claim that W knew it all along and lied. He didn't.

Not quite right, W didn't need to know one way or the other and still lie about it. He did. Here's one of his lies: everyone thought Saddam had WMD. We hear that lie alot, still do.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The point is he has consistently attacked foreigners occupying Muslim lands, to suggest that aint his motive flies in the face of the evidence.

No, OBL targetted the US almost exclusively for eight years when there were some twenty other non-Muslim nations with military in SA and neighboring Islamic lands in connection with Desert Shield/Storm.

London (homegrown terrorists) and Madrid were hit for sending troops to Iraq...and if we are hit for supporting Israel, how does that disqualify what I said?

Thanks for showing you don't actually read what I wrote. I didn't say we were attacked for supporting Israel. I said OBL and AQ would seek out another rationale if our troops weren't present, and gave a hypothetical example of how that might work.

And thanks for showing that you don't understand these terrorists. AQ doesn't give a rip about Iraq. Doesn't give a rip about who "defiles" their holy lands. They weren't attacking the evil, secular dictatorship right next door for not being Wahabbish enough.

Shouldn't sinful, hypocritical "Muslims" be more of an offense to Allah than foreign "mercenaries" present at the behest of the Wahabbist King of SA? Mohammed himself sought the protection of an unbelieving King, so non-Muslim mercenaries and alliances can't be that bad. Evidently all this counts for nothing, and OBL's motivation is not what you think.

The desire for martyrdom supersedes any other goal in the minds of these terrorists. They're looking for an excuse, a venue. It is narcissistic. They want to be remembered as martyrs and have their pictures carried in parades. Make momma proud.

I dont have the freedom to set up bases on Muslim holy lands, much less invade countries over there. And our Constitution does not allow such adventurism based on deceit.

Yes, you do when the King invites you into his Kingdom to invade the belligerant nation that conquered a peaceful neighbor. You keep saying it was deceit, but again you have no proof. Only your bias.

Bush said Saddam reconstituted WMD, that means he was making WMD, not that he could mix up a batch of mustard gas or sarin.

Pay attention, now. Saddam said he had some, said he wanted more, and was trying real hard to hide something. The inspectors only got "nearly everything" and there had been years of opportunity since then. No deceit involved, just logic.

If you were honest you'd say you don't think the logic was sufficient to merit kicking Saddam out. But that's not enough, you have to smear anyone who disagrees.

Reconstituted WMD means new weapons being made, and we were told this included a nuke program.

WMD programs include all the background work. Research. Blueprints. Training scientists and workers. Apparently you scoffers have never been involved in a project that requires more work than a 3-ring binder and a PowerPoint slideshow.

If you're going to smear Ritter, produce something more than an attempt to Hannitise us. You call him a liar, prove it. And it does not stretch my definition of credibility to believe we were trying to get Saddam and working with other Iraqis to take his place should we get him.

Ritter is the one who made accusations without a single shred of proof. He just says it, and you believe it. Funny how that double standard comes out every time.

Have you actually thought about what those accusations mean?

The inspection teams were spending their time searching through filing cabinets and dusty warehouses under the constant scrutiny of Saddam's 20,000 man secret police. Not the ideal cover for an agent who wants to get in touch with people who are already on Saddam's shytlist and likely in hiding from those same secret police goons.


Finally, if you want to understand Ritter just look at our own Ted Striker's transformation from right-wing zealot to conspiracy kook.

[Straybow]

bump

[Cort Haus]

It's easy to prove that Ritter was a liar. One day he says Iraq have WMD. Next day he says they haven't. So he's either lying on Day 1 or he's lying on Day 2.

[RGBVideo]

It's funny how Straybow still believes the talking point of how weapons inspectors' were somehow obstructed in their jobs by Hussein before the invasion, full three years after Hans Blix, the head of the inspector team, said that he was convinced that there were no WMD and lashed out against the "bastards" and "liars" of the US administration pressuring them to find something...

[Straybow]

There are two (2) parts to the WMD issue. This makes it a very complex issue that so many people have difficulty grasping. Two parts, not one, not one and a half.

1. Iraq was not permitted any WMD materials (whether physical or data).
2. Iraq was to surrender all existing WMD materials (physical and data), which were then to be destroyed under UN supervision.

Are you with me so far? Can Hans Blix tell you how much WMD materials were handed over and destroyed under supervision? Yes, he can. Nothing. Not one file or report, not one piece of hardware. Zero. Zilch. Nada. I'd say it in Finnish to make sure you get it, but I don't know how.

Now Hans Blix knows that neither he nor any member of his inspection teams ever set foot in any of almost 100 "Presidential Palaces," many of which were little more than hardened safe houses and bomb shelter complexes. Can Hansie tell you how much WMD materials were hidden in those sites? No.

Hansie also knows that everywhere the inspection teams went they found evidence of filing cabinets, workstations, lab equipment, etc that had been removed before the inspectors' arrival. But somehow, he knows there were no WMD materials among the things he didn't see.

Blix is a buffoon if he truly thinks the UN inspection mission was "successful." He conflates his own personal feelings about the war with his own personal feelings about the job he was assigned and carried out to the best of his abilities and resources. He refuses to admit that inspection was a losing game from the start because from the start it completely lacked component #2 listed above.