MASTERCAPPER: "No terrorists in Iraq until Bush invaded" LOL!
- Thread starter CHARLESMANSON
- Start date
See the juvenille level one must stoop to to debate Kosar? This guy is priceless.
This is gay. Hey Kosar, not going anywhere for a while? Have a Snickers bar. :mj07:
SADDAM THE "NON-TERORIST" DID THIS
This is gay. Hey Kosar, not going anywhere for a while? Have a Snickers bar. :mj07:
SADDAM THE "NON-TERORIST" DID THIS
CHARLESMANSON said:
If Saddam was blazing across Europe about to take over the continent, i'd be right wit' ya bro.
Where's Palehose been, anyways? He's totally clueless but you two dullards make him look like Einstein. You guys are boring me.
kosar said:
but your point was to nullify saddams threat by making the point that saddam didnt attack america....... skirt the issue and follow it up with a personal attack. (on someone whos not even posting in here right now :mj07:
spibble spab said:
Prove Bush doesn't blow Cheney. Fuvk off and have a great night. It's been fun.
How immature....you had to resort to that?? When you are losing a debate and tripping over your own words, you tell people to Fukk off???
RUN KOSAR RUN!!! :142smilie
RUN KOSAR RUN!!! :142smilie
Last edited:
spibble spab said:
One last one to you guys.
How can I make this simple: Saddam did not attack anybody. Hitler was trying to take Europe.
Saddam has no ties to terrorists that have attacked America.
I'd like to think you guys were just messing around, but I have to believe that you really are this moronic.
How about firing anti-aircraft fire at U.S. fighter jets while they patrolled the no fly zones. This went on for years. That's messed up. That alone is an act of war.
Hillary Clinton said Saddam was seeking nukes and harboring Al Qaida terrorists. If he did get nukes then the U.S. would be threatened severely. Thank god Bush removed this genocidal tyrant. Sorry Kosar, I know how you like to defend terrorists like Saddam. You gonna join his defense team?
Hillary Clinton said Saddam was seeking nukes and harboring Al Qaida terrorists. If he did get nukes then the U.S. would be threatened severely. Thank god Bush removed this genocidal tyrant. Sorry Kosar, I know how you like to defend terrorists like Saddam. You gonna join his defense team?
Last edited:
They have no sources to link Saddam to any known terrorists group! If anything they need to try and grasp the different religious groups that exist in the Middle East and then they might understand why Saddam wanted nothing to do with Bin Laden and if anything Saddam feared Bin laden.
kosar said:
Again, Kosar completely embarrasses you guys, you continue to hold hands and tell each other you are winning the argument. I, too, am starting to believe his last comment. I think you guys may actually believe some of the drivel you post in frustration when called on to do something besides post quotes from liberals.
The simple FACT is, there is no way to show proof of something that did not exist or occur. You cannot prove something that did not happen that did not happen. The thing is, in the way most sane people look at things, you kind of have to prove something DID happen, not something that DIDN'T happen. You're argument, Spibble-Dribble is ludicrous and embarrassing.
Charles, you attempt, feebly, to equate Hitler and Saddam. The simple fact is, the WORLD was praying for us to join WW2. Hitler made no secret of his plan to take over the world. Had we not gone there, invited, to stem that tide, he WOULD have attacked us here. By the way, we joined the war officially, full time, as I recall it, because Japan bombed us. Which proved to be really stupid, didn't it?
Most liberals, democrats, et al, understand why we joined WW2. They also understand why we went into Kuwait (invited) to stem the advances of Hussein the first time. They also understand why we went into Afghanistan because we were attacked by Bin Laden.
Many do not agree with the attack on the country of Iraq under this administration. Many more are trying to figure out a way we can save the lives of our troops every day moving forward. I think saving the lives of American soldiers to be a little patriotic, too.
I think 99% of the world thinks what Saddam did to "his people" in your genocide references was horrible. But to continually single him out and say we don't think it was a good thing to stop that does not compute. It also was not the reason we went there.
Do you support the US military going into every other country that hurts its people and putting a stop to the horrors that go on every day? Do you support us going into even one of them? If so, which ones do you support us going into? Or, are you merely a scrambling hypocrit, grasping for explanantions and reasons to support this administration.
You two are complete jokes. Now post another quote from Hillary, and say crickets.
Claim of al-Qaida ties to Iraq called coerced
?Captive made false statements the U.S. heeded to avoid being treated harshly, some say
By DOUGLAS JEHL
New York Times
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on detailed statements made by a prisoner in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of al-Qaida members and others detained as part of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Libi recanted after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the CIA in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But U.S. officials had not previously acknowledged either that Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.
A government official said that some intelligence provided by Libi about al-Qaida had been accurate and that Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.
A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and al-Qaida was based in part on the knowledge that Libi was no longer in U.S. custody when he made the detailed statements and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the CIA's decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.
At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking al-Qaida leader in U.S. custody.
?Captive made false statements the U.S. heeded to avoid being treated harshly, some say
By DOUGLAS JEHL
New York Times
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida on detailed statements made by a prisoner in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and al-Qaida only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration's heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of al-Qaida members and others detained as part of U.S. counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Libi's accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and al-Qaida included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Libi recanted after the U.S. invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the CIA in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But U.S. officials had not previously acknowledged either that Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.
A government official said that some intelligence provided by Libi about al-Qaida had been accurate and that Libi's claims that he had been treated harshly in Egyptian custody had not been corroborated.
A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Libi's credibility on questions related to Iraq and al-Qaida was based in part on the knowledge that Libi was no longer in U.S. custody when he made the detailed statements and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the CIA's decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Libi's claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.
At the time of his capture in Pakistan in late 2001, Libi, a Libyan, was the highest-ranking al-Qaida leader in U.S. custody.
this war against Iraq should never have been spear-headed by the US and UK alone...instead we should have collected more evidence to persuade other nations to join us. I do believe however, that our war in Iraq, for whatever the main reasons are...was the right thing to do. Like the president said, nations whom harbor terrorists whether directly tied to them are not...are terrorists themselves. The US taking Saddam out of power only did the world a service, anyone who disputes this must be insane. Even tho OIL may have been the main reason we went in there in the 1st place, whats wrong with protecting American interests...without stabilizing oil prices...who knows what would have happened to economies around the globe...soaring oil prices could have led to a global depression...eventually leading to more terrorism from desperate ppl...
just a few rambling thoughts, don't usually look in this part of the forum...but this one caught my eye and only read the last few posts....
just a few rambling thoughts, don't usually look in this part of the forum...but this one caught my eye and only read the last few posts....
