NationStates Jolt Archive

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

What do you predict would be the reaction from both sides?

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?

Would we all wise up and blame the Bin Laden Administration?

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

What do you predict would be the reaction from both sides?

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?

Would we all wise up and blame the Bin Laden Administration?Firstly I think there would be huge reprisal attacks on Arab nations. Then Bith parties would join together to "fight terrorism", before a period of flame waring between them over who is responsable. It would end with some kind of emergency powers legilsation.

"We" meaning America right?

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

What do you predict would be the reaction from both sides?
It all depends. Bush loyalists would certainly rally around him and argue that al-Qaeda was afraid we were winning and was trying their own tet offensive of sorts. People who don't trust Bush would argue that we have diverted our attention away from the war on al-Qaeda with this incursion into Iraq and that we would be safer if we had stuck to the more important job. The second group would be correct, of course. :lol:

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?No, because al-Qaeda and Iraq aren't related, at least they weren't before the invasion.

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?Well, they can't exactly blame the Clinton's for it by now, can they? Look--when you're in charge, if things go well, you get credit whether you deserve it or not. If things go bad, you get the blame. In this case, Bush would deserve it, but that's another argument.

Would we all wise up and blame the Bin Laden Administration?Oh sure--Bin Laden gets the blame for launching the attacks, Bush gets the blame for not properly defending us. That's fair.

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

'We' being America? Righty then.

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

No, because if it was an attack by al Qaeda then Iraq wouldn't come into the equation. Jebus! How many times:

Iraq: Country.

al Qaeda: Terrorist organisation

SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQ HAVE NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?

Yes, and vice versa. All political parties would, again, use a national tragedy to score political points and slander the opposite team - just like post-9/11.

If the terrorists were caught or identified and linked to Syria and the residue from the bombing were ID'd as being Iraqi in origin, then you'd see the end of Syria and a free-er reign in Iraq.. that's my guess. Any WMD can be traced, the blame will accompany the origin.

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

'We' being America? Righty then.

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

No, because if it was an attack by al Qaeda then Iraq wouldn't come into the equation. Jebus! How many times:

Iraq: Country.

al Qaeda: Terrorist organisation

SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQ HAVE NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?

Yes, and vice versa. All political parties would, again, use a national tragedy to score political points and slander the opposite team - just like post-9/11.Come on man, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but to say they have no ties to Al-Qaeda is just naive... there's way too much to support it.

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

'We' being America? Righty then.

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

No, because if it was an attack by al Qaeda then Iraq wouldn't come into the equation. Jebus! How many times:

Iraq: Country.

al Qaeda: Terrorist organisation

SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQ HAVE NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?

Yes, and vice versa. All political parties would, again, use a national tragedy to score political points and slander the opposite team - just like post-9/11.Come on man, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but to say they have no ties to Al-Qaeda is just naive... there's way too much to support it.

Shhhhh.... those weren't 2 terrorist training camps our Marines fought to destroy on their way to Baghdad.. those were just Syrian/Saudi/Jordanian/etc. Club Med vacationers.. they just forgot their wives and kids.. :wink:

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

'We' being America? Righty then.

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

No, because if it was an attack by al Qaeda then Iraq wouldn't come into the equation. Jebus! How many times:

Iraq: Country.

al Qaeda: Terrorist organisation

SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQ HAVE NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?

Yes, and vice versa. All political parties would, again, use a national tragedy to score political points and slander the opposite team - just like post-9/11.Come on man, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but to say they have no ties to Al-Qaeda is just naive... there's way too much to support it.

Saddam Hussien - Secular Pan - Arabian nationalist (Ba'ath Party) who fears religious fundamentalist, such as, yes, you geussed, Al - Qaeda. Why do you think the US supported him all those years in the 80's? It was because he was the exact opposite of the Ayatollah in Iran. Saddam Hussien had as much, if not more, to fear from religous extremist than the US did, they were his political rivals. Let me geuss, you have got all your 'evidence' from the US media? Invading Iraq has only made it a better place for your terrorist enemies to operate and has turned allot of the worlds opinion against you. It sure as hell hasn't made anyone anywhere safer from WMD's.

OK, with the recent streak of blamethrowing, like accusing Bush of 9/11, and all that crap, what would happen if we get bombed by an Al-Q WMD?

'We' being America? Righty then.

Would the blame fall on the democrats who insisted that there were no WMDs in Iraq?

No, because if it was an attack by al Qaeda then Iraq wouldn't come into the equation. Jebus! How many times:

Iraq: Country.

al Qaeda: Terrorist organisation

SADDAM HUSSEIN AND IRAQ HAVE NO CONNECTION TO AL QAEDA

Would the democrats somehow manage to blame Bush Administration for it?

Yes, and vice versa. All political parties would, again, use a national tragedy to score political points and slander the opposite team - just like post-9/11.Come on man, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but to say they have no ties to Al-Qaeda is just naive... there's way too much to support it.

Saddam Hussien - Secular Pan - Arabian nationalist (Ba'ath Party) who fears religious fundamentalist, such as, yes, you geussed, Al - Qaeda. Why do you think the US supported him all those years in the 80's? It was because he was the exact opposite of the Ayatollah in Iran. Saddam Hussien had as much, if not more, to fear from religous extremist than the US did. Let me geuss, you have got all your 'evidence' from the US media?

For a guy who "feared" religious fundamentalis, he sure funded enough of it.. besides using it himself when it suited him. I still haven't heard anyone explain those 700 Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. that we killed halfway to Baghdad, camped out in bunkers with computers and training manuals.. or the 25 grand Saddam promised the suicide bombers in Israel, or the other northern camps occupied by known terrorists.. :wink:

I think Bush called it a "war on terror," not just a "war on Al-Queda." :)

"For a guy who "feared" religious fundamentalis, he sure funded enough of it.. besides using it himself when it suited him. I still haven't heard anyone explain those 700 Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. that we killed halfway to Baghdad, camped out in bunkers with computers and training manuals.. or the 25 grand Saddam promised the suicide bombers in Israel, or the other northern camps occupied by known terrorists..

I think Bush called it a "war on terror," not just a "war on Al-Queda." "

Maybe those 700 foriegn fighters (what is your source?) were let into Iraq once it became blantantly obvious that the US was going to invade, regardless. Prehaps US actions drove Saddam Hussien closer to the people you are actually trying to fight. On the other hand, maybe they just volunteered to help a fellow Arab country fight off an unwanted invader. I'm sure if someone invaded New Zealand would find a few Aussies there helping out. Was it confirmed they were Al - Qaeda members?

Almost every head of state in the Middle East wants Isreal out of there, and I know Saddam Hussien was one of them and that he offered money to suicide bombers families (well, I haven't looked it up for myself, I have just heard it in the press). Not all suicide bombers are religious extremist in the Palestinian case, they are more nationalist fighting to get their homeland back, not set up a pan Arabian fundamentalist state such as Al - Qaeda. There is a difference

Come on man, I know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, but to say they have no ties to Al-Qaeda is just naive... there's way too much to support it.

If I'm naive, show me some evidence. In no way did Hussein support al Qaeda.

Now there are operatives in Iraq, but only because there are now a whole lot of people pissed off in Iraq with the occupation. With Saddam gone, al Qaeda have more freedom to entice people to their cause, and with the heathen oppressors marching up and down the streets--making it look like occupation rather than liberation--they have lots of willing ears to listen.

"For a guy who "feared" religious fundamentalis, he sure funded enough of it.. besides using it himself when it suited him. I still haven't heard anyone explain those 700 Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. that we killed halfway to Baghdad, camped out in bunkers with computers and training manuals.. or the 25 grand Saddam promised the suicide bombers in Israel, or the other northern camps occupied by known terrorists..

I think Bush called it a "war on terror," not just a "war on Al-Queda." "

Maybe those 700 foriegn fighters (what is your source?) were let into Iraq once it became blantantly obvious that the US was going to invade, regardless. Prehaps US actions drove Saddam Hussien closer to the people you are actually trying to fight. On the other hand, maybe they just volunteered to help a fellow Arab country fight off an unwanted invader. I'm sure if someone invaded New Zealand would find a few Aussies there helping out. Was it confirmed they were Al - Qaeda members?

Almost every head of state in the Middle East wants Isreal out of there, and I know Saddam Hussien was one of them and that he offered money to suicide bombers families (well, I haven't looked it up for myself, I have just heard it in the press). Not all suicide bombers are religious extremist in the Palestinian case, they are more nationalist fighting to get their homeland back, not set up a pan Arabian fundamentalist state such as Al - Qaeda. There is a difference

Nah, they'd been there for years going by the complexity of their bases. This story has been buried since it first came out, during the invasion. I've seen it a few times in the L.A. Times, and in a History Channel documentary like 3 weeks ago. Either way, Saddam harbored terrorists in the literal sense. Several denominations, in fact.

Get real.
Forget your silly hypotheticals.

The US is currently in a monster mess of its own making.

Instead of chasing Al Qaeda, it invaded Iraq, with the "reasoning" that Iraq posed a threat because it had Weapons of Mass Destruction. None of these has been found.

Now the administration is claiming that they were "misled" by their intelligence services.

So, they then claimed that they have "liberated" Iraq from a brutal dictatorship (true) and would help install democracy (questionable). This is the same dictator that was allowed to retreat relatively intact by Bush snr.

And the democracy is being helped along by closing down opposition newspapers, and employing shadowy mercenary troops.

Please wake up and look at the real world.

Its so ugly that I can almost understand your desire to retreat into a pleasant little fanatsy world where the US is right and just all the time, but it just ain't so. People of any sort of moral belief need to speak out.

"For a guy who "feared" religious fundamentalis, he sure funded enough of it.. besides using it himself when it suited him. I still haven't heard anyone explain those 700 Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. that we killed halfway to Baghdad, camped out in bunkers with computers and training manuals.. or the 25 grand Saddam promised the suicide bombers in Israel, or the other northern camps occupied by known terrorists..

I think Bush called it a "war on terror," not just a "war on Al-Queda." "

Maybe those 700 foriegn fighters (what is your source?) were let into Iraq once it became blantantly obvious that the US was going to invade, regardless. Prehaps US actions drove Saddam Hussien closer to the people you are actually trying to fight. On the other hand, maybe they just volunteered to help a fellow Arab country fight off an unwanted invader. I'm sure if someone invaded New Zealand would find a few Aussies there helping out. Was it confirmed they were Al - Qaeda members?

Almost every head of state in the Middle East wants Isreal out of there, and I know Saddam Hussien was one of them and that he offered money to suicide bombers families (well, I haven't looked it up for myself, I have just heard it in the press). Not all suicide bombers are religious extremist in the Palestinian case, they are more nationalist fighting to get their homeland back, not set up a pan Arabian fundamentalist state such as Al - Qaeda. There is a difference

Nah, they'd been there for years going by the complexity of their bases. This story has been buried since it first came out, during the invasion. I've seen it a few times in the L.A. Times, and in a History Channel documentary like 3 weeks ago. Either way, Saddam harbored terrorists in the literal sense. Several denominations, in fact.

I wouldn't exactly say the Discovery Channel and LA Times are independant realiable sources to back an argument on. Do some independant research on the topic.

"For a guy who "feared" religious fundamentalis, he sure funded enough of it.. besides using it himself when it suited him. I still haven't heard anyone explain those 700 Syrians, Egyptians, Saudis, etc. that we killed halfway to Baghdad, camped out in bunkers with computers and training manuals.. or the 25 grand Saddam promised the suicide bombers in Israel, or the other northern camps occupied by known terrorists..

I think Bush called it a "war on terror," not just a "war on Al-Queda." "

Maybe those 700 foriegn fighters (what is your source?) were let into Iraq once it became blantantly obvious that the US was going to invade, regardless. Prehaps US actions drove Saddam Hussien closer to the people you are actually trying to fight. On the other hand, maybe they just volunteered to help a fellow Arab country fight off an unwanted invader. I'm sure if someone invaded New Zealand would find a few Aussies there helping out. Was it confirmed they were Al - Qaeda members?

Almost every head of state in the Middle East wants Isreal out of there, and I know Saddam Hussien was one of them and that he offered money to suicide bombers families (well, I haven't looked it up for myself, I have just heard it in the press). Not all suicide bombers are religious extremist in the Palestinian case, they are more nationalist fighting to get their homeland back, not set up a pan Arabian fundamentalist state such as Al - Qaeda. There is a difference

Nah, they'd been there for years going by the complexity of their bases. This story has been buried since it first came out, during the invasion. I've seen it a few times in the L.A. Times, and in a History Channel documentary like 3 weeks ago. Either way, Saddam harbored terrorists in the literal sense. Several denominations, in fact.

I wouldn't exactly say the Discovery Channel and LA Times are independant realiable sources to back an argument on. Do some independant research on the topic.

I've got plenty of evidence, it's a known fact. And there's nothing wrong with the L.A. Times for non-political stories. A friend of mine was their either way, not during the battle but shortly afterwards, and it happened.

For a guy who "feared" religious fundamentalis, he sure funded enough of it.. besides using it himself when it suited him.
Like the US. Lending a helping hand to the Mujahedin back in the days when they were needed to fight the evil commies. Cause without them Rambo wouldn't have gotten Colonel Trautman out.

"I've got plenty of evidence, it's a known fact. And there's nothing wrong with the L.A. Times for non-political stories. A friend of mine was their either way, not during the battle but shortly afterwards, and it happened."

Did this friend of yours question or even speak to the foriegn fighters? How would he know what they were there for or what organisations they did or didn't belong to?

That opening sentence dosen't inspire confidence, no offense. It was a 'known fact' that Iraqi soldiers threw pre-mature babies out of incubators in Kuwait during the first Gulf War, it never happened.

Saddam Hussein was totally anti Al-Qaeda when he was in charge. He fought a pro-fundamentalist guerrilla called Ansar-Al Islam based in the NE of Iraq (they later were bombed by the USAF).

Bin Laden didn't like Saddam very much, either. He called him a "secular and heretic leader" and asked iraqi people to revolt against him.

Iraq invasion was the worst thing Bush administration has done to fight terrorism. It has fueled anti-western feelings in all the arab world and has put the country in the brink of a civil war. It's now a free-haven for all kind of islamic terrorists.

Congratulations, mr. Bush!

"I've got plenty of evidence, it's a known fact. And there's nothing wrong with the L.A. Times for non-political stories. A friend of mine was their either way, not during the battle but shortly afterwards, and it happened."

Did this friend of yours question or even speak to the foriegn fighters? How would he know what they were there for or what organisations they did or didn't belong to?

That opening sentence dosen't inspire confidence, no offense. It was a 'known fact' that Iraqi soldiers threw pre-mature babies out of incubators in Kuwait during the first Gulf War, it never happened.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89186,00.html

"I've got plenty of evidence, it's a known fact. And there's nothing wrong with the L.A. Times for non-political stories. A friend of mine was their either way, not during the battle but shortly afterwards, and it happened."

Did this friend of yours question or even speak to the foriegn fighters? How would he know what they were there for or what organisations they did or didn't belong to?

That opening sentence dosen't inspire confidence, no offense. It was a 'known fact' that Iraqi soldiers threw pre-mature babies out of incubators in Kuwait during the first Gulf War, it never happened.

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages/826.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89186,00.html

You're not getting the point. Don't worry about it. I sure as hell don't trust fox news.

Roy Del Fruego, thats like looking into an Iraq newspaper during the gulf war and expecting to find an unbiased article. I mean seriously the government can't afford to look anymore stupid.