captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
So when we IDed them as Saudis, they weren't Saudis but Iraqis, even though the 9/11 Commission IDed them as Saudis? And you have better intel I presume?
Lefties, your last chance to learn something about Conservatism:
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
I have not heard that rumor. Please provide a credible link. In the meantime, terrorists are as bad as, or worse than WMD. Figure that out for yourself.
Who attacked NY on 9/11/01?
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
Haha, you're very funny Vitas, always providing a good laugh. You make up your own definition, saying that terrorists are the equivalent of WMD. Funny, no one in the Bush administration has even said that one. So you're telling me, that the terrorists who attacked on 9/11 did equal to, or more damage than a WMD? They killed more people than a nuke, bio bomb, or chemical arty shell would do? Really, very amusing my dear Vitas.
As for this 'rumor', you ought to try reading your own government's 9/11 Commission documents instead of making up your own data.
Mohammed Atta- Egyptian National, see chp. 5, 9/11 report, pg. 16
Ramzi Binalshibh- Yemeni National, ", pg. 17
Marwan al Shehhi- UAE, Ibid
Ziad Jarrah- Lebanese, Ibid.
Said Bahaji, Zakariya Essabar, Mounir el Motassadeq, Abdelghani Mzoudi,- Moroccan, Ibid.
Hani Hanjour, Omar Bakarbashat, Nawaf al Hazmi, Khalid
al Mihdhar- Saudi Arabia, Chp. 7, pg. 11
"Twelve of the 13 muscle hijackers (excluding Nawaf al Hazmi and Mihdhar)
came from Saudi Arabia: Satam al Suqami,Wail al Shehri,Waleed al Shehri,
Abdul Aziz al Omari, Ahmed al Ghamdi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Mohand al
Shehri, Majed Moqed, Salem al Hazmi, Saeed al Ghamdi,Ahmad al Haznawi,
and Ahmed al Nami." Chp. 7
Really, go read it yourself.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
You tell ANYONE that 9/11 was a joke. I would like to see the web broadcast of that.
If you think that 9/11 was a "joke" I would hope that other people disagree with you. And now you have buried yourself.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
I do hope you're under the age of 18, because your reading comprehension could use some work. Otherwise it's downright embarassing.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
Would you like a dictionary link, or is it impossible for you to find by yourself?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
It really doesn't matter to me what country they were from. Since Saddam has been shown to have ties to Al Qaeda, it's rather easy to connect the dots.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
As a matter of fact, it's easier for us to connect the dots from Saddam to Al Qaeda than it is for the liberals to connect the dots, for example, from Bush to Abu Ghraib, or from Bush to Katrina, or from Bush to Valerie Plame, yet the liberals continue to assert these wild claims. So by their definition, it should be simple to connect Saddam and Al Qaeda.
In addition to that, liberals routinely forget that the U.N. passed several resolutions over several years that condemned Saddam's malfeasance relating to WMDs and, in fact, called for military action. It just so happens that Bush was the first (but not the only) leader who had the guts to act on that call.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html
As a matter of fact, it's easier for us to connect the dots from Saddam to Al Qaeda than it is for the liberals to connect the dots, for example, from Bush to Abu Ghraib, or from Bush to Katrina, or from Bush to Valerie Plame, yet the liberals continue to assert these wild claims. So by their definition, it should be simple to connect Saddam and Al Qaeda.
In addition to that, liberals routinely forget that the U.N. passed several resolutions over several years that condemned Saddam's malfeasance relating to WMDs and, in fact, called for military action. It just so happens that Bush was the first (but not the only) leader who had the guts to act on that call.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
fossten said:
How convenient of you to quote links that use speculative evidence and were dated in 2003. Why not use the 9/11 Commission report? Dated July 2004, it has the most comprehensive information. The links between Saddam and Al-Q are tenuous at best. The reason give by Bush to go to war was for WMDs, not terrorists, and there is little evidence to show of any Al-Q-Saddam link.
I like your hand-waving arguments without examining the details. So convincing! Resolution 1441 never authorized the use of force, unless there was a revival of the use of force in Resolution 678 (passed by the UNSC in 1990). To use force would require a vote by the UNSC, but the US didn't wait for that.
Oh, and where are those WMDs?
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
-lol-
I hope I can stop laughing at some point in the near future.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
It helps to read the source documents, rather than make things up.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
I quote Jane's Intelligence Digest, April 15, 2005. Jane's is a premier, non-partisan, resource regarding defense matters.
JANE'S INTELLIGENCE DIGEST - APRIL 15, 2005, 'Assessing WMD Intelligence'
The US based all their intelligence on one guy, an Iraqi defector named 'Curveball', who it turns out, was not internally trusted. Even so, Bush made the case for war based on his 'intel', who we know "fabricated the information he supplied in an attempt to gain permanent asylum and to avoid being returned to Iraq."
Here's the link: www.janes.com, go to intelligence digest, and go through their articles.
Please do quote me a dictionary link that says WMD = terrorists.
As Bush says, 'Bring it on'.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Where's that dictionary link I was promised?
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
Don't fall for his tactic's. You clearly disproved his 'Iraqis attacked on 9/11' skit by posting the report. Now he's just trying to turn around what little he can.
That would be funny to hear though, if Bush came out and said that the WMD's were in fact terrorist all along and not nukes or bio-chem weapons. I don't think he or his cabinet would be that stupid though.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
TheDude
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
So the 9/11 commission report was wrong? Just answer me that.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
Give me the link to the definition. I was courteous enough to provide you the links, articles, dates, and citations.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
Why does the 9/11 Commission hate America?
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
95DevilleNS said:
95DevilleNS said:
Please show me where I said 'Iraqis attacked on 9/11.' If you cannot find that, please retract your statement.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
You are throwing me for a loop here. You said that you could not understand my grammar, or something like that, I offered you a link to a dictionary. And I gave it to you.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
'or something like that'. Go back and read the posts; you said that WMD = terrorists, and could provide a dictionary link stating so.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
Please go back and see exactly what I offered to provide a dictionary link to. Let's be precise here. I will deal with the entire subject later, when I feel like it, and find the time to do so. That may be a week from now. In the meantime, I want you to acknowledge EXACTLY what I offered you for a dictionary link, and what I gave you.
I have been through this many times over the years in political discussions. I spend a full hour or two answering the issue in detail, and the wise guy leftocrat responds with a one liner, "oh, your guy is stupid." Show me some good faith here.
captainalias
Dedicated LVC Member
Vitas said:
In 'detail'? haha. You never got back to me about the 9/11 Commission report, or the Jane's article.
A simple question- was the 9/11 Commission wrong? And if so, state your 'detailed' evidence.
Vitas
Dedicated LVC Member
captainalias said:
It is obvious that you are a "rookie" at political discussion.
Perhaps Barry may be able to give you some advice.