View Full Version : Iran and Syria Aiding Terrorists
Conservinator
12-15-2004, 08:41 AM
IRAN AND SYRIA AIDING TERRORISTS
Yesterday, Iraq's Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan accused Iran and Syria of supporting terrorists in his country. He also says they also have information that Iran is the #1 supporter of terrorism in Iraq. Big surprise, right? Hardly.
He also said that Syrian intelligence agents are cooperating with Al-Zarqawi's group in Iraq and causing problems. Al-Zarqawi's group is an Al-Qaeda organization. But wait...according to the left, Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq! Guess they never got the memo.
But the Iraqi Defense Minister also said something very telling. When asked why the insurgents were fighting in Iraq, he hit the nail on the head: "They are fighting us because we want to build freedom and democracy and they want to build an Islamic dictatorship and have turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq." Too bad the anti-American media around the world and in this country doesn't want to see it.
Here's an idea. Remember when Bush said you were either with us, or you were with the terrorists? Why don't we just start bombing Iran and Syria in 5 minutes? Maybe the answer to the problems in the Middle East is just to start over.
Link (http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12152004.html#terrorists)
IRAN AND SYRIA AIDING TERRORISTS
Yesterday, Iraq's Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan accused Iran and Syria of supporting terrorists in his country. He also says they also have information that Iran is the #1 supporter of terrorism in Iraq. Big surprise, right? Hardly.
He also said that Syrian intelligence agents are cooperating with Al-Zarqawi's group in Iraq and causing problems. Al-Zarqawi's group is an Al-Qaeda organization. But wait...according to the left, Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq! Guess they never got the memo.
You keep getting it wrong, no one has ever claimed that Al-Qaeda was never in Iraq. The facts are, as stated by the Whitehouse, that we have no evidence whatsoever that links Iraq with 9/11. In addition to that there is no evidence that Iraq under Saddam had a working relationship with Al-Qaeda. Al Qaeda is most certainly there now, but that situation is our own creation.
But the Iraqi Defense Minister also said something very telling. When asked why the insurgents were fighting in Iraq, he hit the nail on the head: "They are fighting us because we want to build freedom and democracy and they want to build an Islamic dictatorship and have turbaned clerics to rule in Iraq." Too bad the anti-American media around the world and in this country doesn't want to see it.
That is a gross over simplification of the situation. Not everyone in Iraq is fighting for the establishment of a theocracy. In fact the area we are having the most trouble with, the Sunni Triangle, has no interest in building a theocracy at all. They are former members of Saddam's government who resent our taking the power out of their hands. They are also ordinary Sunnis who fear that the new government will be dominated by the Shi'ites and that they will visit upon them the same abuse the Shi'ites suffered under Saddam. The people who want a theocracy are the Shi'ites and considering the makeup of the electorate they will probably get what they want with our help.
Here's an idea. Remember when Bush said you were either with us, or you were with the terrorists? Why don't we just start bombing Iran and Syria in 5 minutes? Maybe the answer to the problems in the Middle East is just to start over.
Link (http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12152004.html#terrorists)
That's what i love about Boortz, there's no need to make him look like an idiot. He does it all on his own. ;D
Lazarus
12-15-2004, 02:09 PM
Jafo, you have outdone yourself.
To suggest that al Qaeda was in 60 countries around the world but NOT in Iraq before we got there is pure Leftist lunacy.
Again, the Clinton Administration used the links between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Sudan and potential chemical weapons as the justification for bombing the aspiran factory in Sudan.
::) ::) ::)
There is no reason to think that--whatever aide Iraq supplied to al Qaeda--that it was not helpful to that terror network and not useful in attacking the U.S. before, during and after 9-11-2001.
Jafo, you have outdone yourself.
To suggest that al Qaeda was in 60 countries around the world but NOT in Iraq before we got there is pure Leftist lunacy.
Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that "no one ever said that Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq." What was said is that there is no evidence that they had a working relationship.::)
Again, the Clinton Administration used the links between Iraq, Al Qaeda and the Sudan and potential chemical weapons as the justification for bombing the aspiran factory in Sudan.
Why should I give a damn what the Clinton administration did, and what does it have to do with the current subject? They bombed that factory in Sudan because they thought it was a front for manufacturing chemical weapons. From what I remember there was quite a furor over that because they turned out to be wrong. Have you ever heard the saying 'two wrongs don't make a right', I think it applies here.
Why is it that people like you think that saying Clinton made the same mistake is some sort of mitigating circumstance. This isn't the Clinton Presidency we're talking about here, it is the Bush Presidency and his decisions that are in question.
There is no reason to think that--whatever aide Iraq supplied to al Qaeda--that it was not helpful to that terror network and not useful in attacking the U.S. before, during and after 9-11-2001.
Somehow I think it would be cold comfort indeed to tell the victims of the war in Iraq that they are suffering because Iraq may or may not have done things that might have been usefull to Al-Qaeda. ::)
Do you specialize in being dense, or is this just a hobby?
Lazarus
12-15-2004, 03:03 PM
Maybe you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said that "no one ever said that Al-Qaeda wasn't in Iraq." What was said is that there is no evidence that they had a working relationship.::)
Its not my reading comprehension thats suffering. Sorry.
Why should I give a damn what the Clinton administration did, and what does it have to do with the current subject?
They put forward the proposition that Iraq and Al Qaeda and a working relationship. Then, used that as justification for using military force by bombing that aspirin factory.
Was the Clinton Administration wrong? It would seem to me that they must be if--as you assert--there was no working relationship betwixt Iraq and al Qaeda.
They bombed that factory in Sudan because they thought it was a front for manufacturing chemical weapons.
Supplying Iraq, and involving bin Laden and al Qaeda.
From what I remember there was quite a furor over that because they turned out to be wrong. Have you ever heard the saying 'two wrongs don't make a right', I think it applies here.
What makes you think they were wrong?
Wag the dog? (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/896vuqjv.asp) ;D
Clarke told the Washington Post in a Jan. 23, 1999, story U.S. intelligence officials had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, which was hit with Tomahawk cruise missiles in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Africa.
The sample contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, which Clarke said when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.
Clarke told the Post the U.S. did not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it.
"But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan," the paper reported. (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37704)
Or bullshit artist?
Why is it that people like you think that saying Clinton made the same mistake is some sort of mitigating circumstance. This isn't the Clinton Presidency we're talking about here, it is the Bush Presidency and his decisions that are in question.
What makes you say that Clinton made a 'mistake'?
Somehow I think it would be cold comfort indeed to tell the victims of the war in Iraq that they are suffering because Iraq may or may not have done things that might have been usefull to Al-Qaeda. ::)
Wake up and smell the coffee. Baghdad was a place where terrorists could find sanctuary and receive medical treatment under the protection of Saddam's regime. Are you saying that such assistance did not amount to 'support'?
Do you specialize in being dense, or is this just a hobby?
I am not the person making the claim here. I am the skeptic who doubts your claim that there was no relationship between the regime of Hussein in Iraq and al Qaeda over the MANY years and MULTIPLE contacts which were at least partially documented in the 9-11 commision report.
I am not the one jumping to conclusions, but [i]you[/i[ are when you assert that there was no working relationship.
You may not have EVIDENCE of a 'working relationship' but the LACK OF EVIDENCE proves exactly nothing.
Thus, you have proceeded to jump to a faulty conclusion. That's all.
Enjoy.
;D
Link (http://boortz.com/nuze/200412/12152004.html#terrorists)
What makes you think anyone would take Boortz's "intelligence" seriously?
reisei
12-15-2004, 06:33 PM
What makes you think anyone would take Boortz's "intelligence" seriously?
People do.
Which is a frightening thing to contemplate.
People do.
Which is a frightening thing to contemplate.
Here's an idea. Remember when Bush said you were either with us, or you were with the terrorists? Why don't we just start bombing Iran and Syria in 5 minutes?
Can you believe this idiot?
reisei
12-15-2004, 06:53 PM
Here's an idea. Remember when Bush said you were either with us, or you were with the terrorists? Why don't we just start bombing Iran and Syria in 5 minutes?
Can you believe this idiot?
No, I have never been able to.
But others do.
Be afraid. Be very afraid...
Conservinator
12-16-2004, 12:28 PM
Pepsi:
What makes you think anyone would take Boortz's "intelligence" seriously?
What makes you think anyone would take your sources seriously?
You are, after all, a liberal...
LanceALott
12-16-2004, 12:41 PM
Frankly, I would be damn surprised if they were not supporting terrorist,
Because they should be.
Flyrod
12-16-2004, 09:32 PM
Frankly, I would be damn surprised if they were not supporting terrorist,
Because they should be.
Nah, I don't believe in supporting terrorists as libbies like you have been doing!!! I support our troops!!!
Nah, I don't believe in supporting terrorists as libbies like you have been doing!!! I support our troops!!!
::)
Unca Walt
12-17-2004, 09:41 AM
Just note, however, Pepsi... who you have toadying your position...
<<gag>>
You pore slob.
Unca Walt
Its not my reading comprehension thats suffering. Sorry.They put forward the proposition that Iraq and Al Qaeda and a working relationship. Then, used that as justification for using military force by bombing that aspirin factory.
Was the Clinton Administration wrong? It would seem to me that they must be if--as you assert--there was no working relationship betwixt Iraq and al Qaeda.Supplying Iraq, and involving bin Laden and al Qaeda. What makes you think they were wrong?
Because the evidence they were using has since been refuted and largely discredited, but you already knew this.::)
Wag the dog? (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/896vuqjv.asp) ;DOr bullshit artist?What makes you say that Clinton made a 'mistake'?Wake up and smell the coffee. Baghdad was a place where terrorists could find sanctuary and receive medical treatment under the protection of Saddam's regime. Are you saying that such assistance did not amount to 'support'?
You just described the entire Middle East. 'Support' in the way you describe it does not amount to a 'working relationship.' Syria, Saudi Arabia and iran all have much better proven 'working relationships' with Al-Qaeda than Iraq did.
I am not the person making the claim here. I am the skeptic who doubts your claim that there was no relationship between the regime of Hussein in Iraq and al Qaeda over the MANY years and MULTIPLE contacts which were at least partially documented in the 9-11 commision report.
The possible multiple contacts in the 9/11 report weren't even proven, they were all conjectured. My standards of proof are obviously much higher than yours are, especially where the Bush administration is concerned. It amazes me how someone like you can pick apart every action that Clinton made and yet give Bush a free ride just because you are in the same political party.
I am not the one jumping to conclusions, but [i]you[/i[ are when you assert that there was no working relationship.
My assertion is that there is no evidence of a working relationship. There may have been one, but until I see evidence of it there is only an assertion that they had a working relationship. I find the idea that we have sacraficed over 1.000 of our soldiers over an assertion to be repulsive.
You may not have EVIDENCE of a 'working relationship' but the LACK OF EVIDENCE proves exactly nothing.
Thus, you have proceeded to jump to a faulty conclusion. That's all.
Enjoy.
;D
You would make a great prosecutor, if all the people in the jury were brain dead. Imagine standing in front of a jury and saying that even though we have no evidence proving that the defendant is guilty that doesn't mean anything. ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) (I added all of these because you seem so fond of them)
Lazarus
12-17-2004, 01:44 PM
Jafo,
If there is no evidence, it doesn't mean your claim can be sustained. You claimed (as a matter of fact) that there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
You offer no evidence to support that claim.
Thus, there is nothing to support your claim unless and until you supply some.
Still waiting... ;D
Jafo,
If there is no evidence, it doesn't mean your claim can be sustained. You claimed (as a matter of fact) that there was no relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda.
You offer no evidence to support that claim.
My claim is that I have seen no evidence of a working relationship between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. I have seen some evidence that there were overtures made by Al-Qaeda to Iraq, but I have thus far seen nothing to suggest that any sort of working relationship developed because of those overtures. In fact what little I have seen points to the idea that there was very little going on between the two.
Thus, there is nothing to support your claim unless and until you supply some.
Still waiting... ;D
Logically it isn't up to me to support my claim, my claim is based on the fact that I have not seen any credible evidence of a relationship. If anyone can show me such evidence then I will have to change my view. Because you are the one claiming that a relationship existed it is up to you to come up with evidence that supports your claim.
If a scientist claims that there are little green men living on an asteroid that is secretly orbiting the earth, and that these little green men are responsible for the disinformation about the health affects of eggs over the last several years. Is it his responsibility to prove his theory, or is it up to the other scientists to prove him wrong?
I am the one waiting for evidence, and if history is any guide I will be waiting for a long time indeed. :P
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.