NationStates Jolt Archive

"Osama bin laden has just named Al-Zarqawi his prime man in Iraq, if Bin Laden say's theres a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda, will the New York Times"- Joe Scarborogh (paraphrased)

C'mon... this is nothing but diffusion meant to support the misconception that iraq is responible for 9/11... some facts our friend joe neglected, a connection between OBL and Iraqi insurgents in no way suggests a connection between OBL and now deposed despot Saddam Hussein. Zarqawi (i think) is Jordanian, and that he has ties with Al-Queda has already been reported, i think i read something about that in the New York Times. Such wonderfuly unbiased reporting, espcialy if your going to harp on another news outlet's (not to mention the "media" as a whole) suposed liberal bias... now i remember why I don't routinely watch TV news, i stumbled upon this on my way to a Hockey game on ESPN2 (USAvs.SUI) :headbang:

There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

But now there is.

Meanwhile, Osama is still reportedly hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the troops who should be hunting for him are tied down in Iraq.

A work of genius.

This has to be worth a bump

[QUOTE=Smeagol-Gollum]There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

But now there is.

Meanwhile, Osama is still reportedly hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the troops who should be hunting for him are tied down in Iraq.QUOTE]

There is a connection. Saddam pretended to have a secular dictatorship while supporting islamic fundamentalist terror. UBL was an islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Saddam may not have been giving money to those directly responsible for 9/11, but he was giving money to palestinian terrorests who have killed Americans.

Bin Laden probably isn't in Pakistan any more. Iran is a safer bet. To the former Iraqi regime I say good riddance. The world is a better place now, and will be even better if Bush stops pussy-footing around and takes out the rest of the Theocrats.

Someone's trying to tell us something, maybe this is God just saying
we're responsible for this monster, this coward, that we have empowered
This is Bin Laden, look at his head nodding,
How could we allow something like this, Without pumping our fist
Now this is our, final hour
Let me be the voice, and your strength, and your choice
Let me simplify the rhyme, just to amplify the noise
Try to amplify the times it, and multiply it by six
Teen million people are equal of this high pitch
Maybe we can reach Al Quaida through my speech
Let the President answer on high anarchy
Strap him with AK-47, let him go
Fight his own war, let him impress daddy that way
No more blood for oil, we got our own battles to fight on our soil
No more psychological warfare to trick us to think that we ain't loyal
If we don't serve our own country we're patronizing a hero
Look in his eyes, it's all lies, the stars and stripes
They've been swiped, washed out and wiped,
And Replaced with his own face, mosh now or die
If I get sniped tonight you'll know why, because I told you to fight
Could'nt Say it Better...

Usama is a leader who claims to serve god but spreads nothing but blasphemy. Yes 9/11 was an awesome hit on the USA, and yes the quran states we can defend ourself... but i can assure you this was not the intentions of mr.bin ladem

Bush is a terrorist himself along with the USA too. Sponsoring israeli's attack on palestinians and invading iraq in the name of freedom...sounds familiar?

Seems the US is no better than any other terrorist, huh?

if there was a connection, im sure it would be all over the tv...

fact is: there really realy isnt... its just a misconception, and any political advisor can tell you that...

[QUOTE=Smeagol-Gollum]There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

But now there is.

Meanwhile, Osama is still reportedly hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the troops who should be hunting for him are tied down in Iraq.QUOTE]

There is a connection. Saddam pretended to have a secular dictatorship while supporting islamic fundamentalist terror. UBL was an islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Saddam may not have been giving money to those directly responsible for 9/11, but he was giving money to palestinian terrorests who have killed Americans.

Bin Laden probably isn't in Pakistan any more. Iran is a safer bet. To the former Iraqi regime I say good riddance. The world is a better place now, and will be even better if Bush stops pussy-footing around and takes out the rest of the Theocrats.

Bin laden hated Saddam. Something about Saddam letting infidels build buildings on holy land. Most Arab nations hated Saddam Hussein as well, saying it was a false Arab nation. These Arab nations wanted to bring him down, because his secular government is like a slap to the face to them. But after the U.S. invaded, every Arab nation liked Iraq because Iraq was fighting the U.S.

There is a connection. Saddam pretended to have a secular dictatorship while supporting islamic fundamentalist terror. UBL was an islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Saddam may not have been giving money to those directly responsible for 9/11, but he was giving money to palestinian terrorests who have killed Americans.

The world is a better place now, and will be even better if Bush stops pussy-footing around and takes out the rest of the Theocrats.[/QUOTE]

Sadamm gave money to the families of deceased suicde bombers, because like most middle eastern regimes he didn't aprove of isreal and supported the insurection. It mat be tacit support of terrorists (or from their perspective freedom fighters) however it's hardly unique,besides being unconnected to al-queda (how many widows in a statelet with little functioning economy do you supose give that money to international terrorists).

i'm curious do you recomend invading Iran? or since you oppose theocrats, how about Bhutan ;)

also how many americans have been killed by palistenians, it's not something i'v realy heard about.
:eek:

and will be even better if Bush stops pussy-footing around and takes out the rest of the Theocrats.

I find this extremely amusing.

Will Bush do away with himself then? After all, he has certainly pushed for theocratic tendencies in our own country.

[QUOTE=Smeagol-Gollum]There was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

But now there is.

Meanwhile, Osama is still reportedly hiding between Afghanistan and Pakistan, while the troops who should be hunting for him are tied down in Iraq.QUOTE]

There is a connection. Saddam pretended to have a secular dictatorship while supporting islamic fundamentalist terror. UBL was an islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Saddam may not have been giving money to those directly responsible for 9/11, but he was giving money to palestinian terrorests who have killed Americans.

Bin Laden probably isn't in Pakistan any more. Iran is a safer bet. To the former Iraqi regime I say good riddance. The world is a better place now, and will be even better if Bush stops pussy-footing around and takes out the rest of the Theocrats.
Yes, that's almost as direct a connection as when you bought some gum from a muslim-owned convenience store and some of the profits were funneled to an islamist organization.

There is a connection. Saddam pretended to have a secular dictatorship while supporting islamic fundamentalist terror. UBL was an islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Saddam may not have been giving money to those directly responsible for 9/11, but he was giving money to palestinian terrorests who have killed Americans.

Bin Laden probably isn't in Pakistan any more. Iran is a safer bet. To the former Iraqi regime I say good riddance. The world is a better place now, and will be even better if Bush stops pussy-footing around and takes out the rest of the Theocrats.

Saddam DID had a secular regime. Hell, the baathist party was almost communist, and communists are atheists. And dont forget that:
a) Saddam had a CHRISTIAN prime minister. That's right, Tarek Aziz was a christian. Could you please explain to me how would a christian be number2 in a islamic fundamentalist country?
2) One of the biggest enemies of Iraq was IRAN, which is a theocracy. Now, if Iraq was also a theocracy, it is expected that they would get along better, right?

Also, if Saddam gave money to the palestinians, that was because they shared a common enemy: Israel. Dont forget that israel bombed the shit out of the first iraq nuclear reactor back in the 80's.


And why the hell you say Iran is a better option? Why not freaking somalia or tahiti? You people are so blinded by your hatred, that you invent reasons to go to war. Hell, next war man, promise me something: You will volunter to the front line. Okay?

Bin Laden probably isn't in Pakistan any more. Iran is a safer bet. To the former Iraqi regime I say good riddance. The world is a better place now, and will be even better if Bush stops pussy-footing around and takes out the rest of the Theocrats.

Iran and bin Laden have conflicting ideologies. Iran is Shia, and bin Laden is sunni.
And if by "better", you mean less people, then yeah, you're right. There are much less people in Iraq then there was before the US "liberated" it.

There is a connection, there isn't a connection, it doesn't make a difference. At the time the war in Iraq began, there was no valid reason to suspect a link between Saddam and Osama.

If I kill a random guy on the street that's bad. If it's later found that the guy was a rapist, does that make what I did any better?

Iran and bin Laden have conflicting ideologies. Iran is Shia, and bin Laden is sunni.
And if by "better", you mean less people, then yeah, you're right. There are much less people in Iraq then there was before the US "liberated" it.

Years of murderous tyranny or a chance to create a tolerable society, which is better? I didn't support the way this war started or how it's being conducted but the end result will be better than it was before.

There is a connection, there isn't a connection, it doesn't make a difference. At the time the war in Iraq began, there was no valid reason to suspect a link between Saddam and Osama.

If I kill a random guy on the street that's bad. If it's later found that the guy was a rapist, does that make what I did any better?

And yet because of reporting like this, that many more people will belive that a. there was a connection, b. that it does make it better. granted this was MSNBC so not to many people from this particular report, but scarborough is hardly unique.

Years of murderous tyranny or a chance to create a tolerable society, which is better? I didn't support the way this war started or how it's being conducted but the end result will be better than it was before.

The murderous tyranny was supported by the USA for many years, particularly during the Iran-Iraq war.

The end result will be better for whom?

And at what cost?

And when?

Difficult to support with so much being so open-ended.

Years of murderous tyranny or a chance to create a tolerable society, which is better? I didn't support the way this war started or how it's being conducted but the end result will be better than it was before.

I agree, a democratic iraq with a functioning civil society would be better then what was there before... if it can be pulled off, which looks kind of douptful. at least better for the interests of the united states and anyone who supports western instittuions. givin time something better might develop out of the middle east, but in the mean time... well the other examples in the region don't look promising.

"Osama bin laden has just named Al-Zarqawi his prime man in Iraq, if Bin Laden say's theres a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda, will the New York Times"- Joe Scarborogh (paraphrased):
if anyone made that correlation, they are jackasses and are too stupid to be paid for a writing job and should be fired

The murderous tyranny was supported by the USA for many years, particularly during the Iran-Iraq war.

The end result will be better for whom?

And at what cost?

And when?

Difficult to support with so much being so open-ended.

Yes, the US has supported Iraq in the past. Sometimes you have to work with bad people to eliminate other bad people.

Consider this: the US doesn't invade Iraq. Saddam goes on for decades more killing his own people and supporting terrorists who kill others. Then he passes on the tyranny to his sons, who continue this path for who knows how long.

Yes, the immediate cost of life is horrible but in the long run this is for the best.

if anyone made that correlation, they are jackasses and are too stupid to be paid for a writing job and should be fired

Not at all.

I don't doubt that ther is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda - now.

I just doubt whether there was one before the invasion by the Coalition.

Yes, the US has supported Iraq in the past. Sometimes you have to work with bad people to eliminate other bad people.

Consider this: the US doesn't invade Iraq. Saddam goes on for decades more killing his own people and supporting terrorists who kill others. Then he passes on the tyranny to his sons, who continue this path for who knows how long.

Yes, the immediate cost of life is horrible but in the long run this is for the best.


Bush did the right thing by getting Saddam out of there, but we're bad because he did it for the wrong reasons. We know he was lying about that shit before the whole war began. If anything's going on between Iraq and Al-Quada, it's a direct result OF that. Come on, Iraq has some money, and they know Al-Quada hates the U.S. Works out great, doesn't it?

Yes, the US has supported Iraq in the past. Sometimes you have to work with bad people to eliminate other bad people.

Yes, I suppose like supprting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians was a wise move too.

Or supporting Saddam against Iran. Of course, that was needed due to the reaction of the Iranians to years of support for the oppressive regime of the Shah.

Oh what tangled webs have been woven by the US.

And situations created which will harm them in the furture.

Still, no point learning from such experiences is there? Gung ho, away we go.


Yes, the immediate cost of life is horrible but in the long run this is for the best.

I do not know how to do that sort of arithmetic I'm afraid. How many deaths, and how much destruction makes what worthwhile?

Please advise the basis of your calculations.

Note, all calculations need to be shown in full for top marks.

Yes, I suppose like supprting Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians was a wise move too.

Or supporting Saddam against Iran. Of course, that was needed due to the reaction of the Iranians to years of support for the oppressive regime of the Shah.

Well, that's kind of what I was referring to. Would you rather the US had let the Russians run over the Afgans? Revisionist history can make decisions seem poorer than they actually were.

Still, no point learning from such experiences is there? Gung ho, away we go.

Well ok, by that logic the US should squelch any country which mounts a strong army. I mean, those Nazis sure caused a ruckus.

I do not know how to do that sort of arithmetic I'm afraid. How many deaths, and how much destruction makes what worthwhile?

Please advise the basis of your calculations.

Note, all calculations need to be shown in full for top marks.

This is my basis: less deaths is better than more deaths.

A murderous tyranny which continues without a foreseeable end could continue creating more deaths until it is stopped. Therefore, in mathematical terms, the death is infinite.

However, by having this war, the death caused as a result is finite.

Finite < infinite, therefore this war is better than letting Saddam continue.

Submitted for your grading.