General discussion


Todays views on WMD

By Oz_Media ·
Dr. Kay Had Maps with Coordinates of WMD Hiding Places in Syria.

Good article from Iraq:
US admits no WMDs in Iraq, but Bush unrepentant

Article from Channel News Asia (Singapore):

Report concludes Iraq had no WMD

New Zealad Herald:

(and good ole faithful)

"Iraq war justified, Bush insists again "

As my dad used to say: "Millions will believe you but I won't"

I guess that fits Bush too.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Today is no different than yesterday.

by tbragsda In reply to Todays views on WMD

For the faithful, this means nothing. The reason for war is as muddled as Bushes Guard record.

Nothing to see here OZ, keep moveing.

Collapse -


by TheChas In reply to Todays views on WMD

Hi Oz,

I was listening to the testimony on the analysis of Iraq's WMD capabilities this afternoon. At best, Saddam had a semi-operational chemical weapons program.

NPR followed up the testimony with a Bush administration proponent who basically said, see Saddam did want to harm us.

The current "spin" from the Bush administration is:

1. The world is better off without Saddam in power.
While this is hard to argue with, I am still of the opinion that we did not need to invade Iraq in order to limit the potential of Saddam.

2. Saddam had intentions and desires to harm the US.
The bulk of Saddam's intentions of harm were directed at the Bush family, not the US population.

3. War on terror.
While you can argue that Saddam terrorized the people of Iraq, there is no evidence that he or Iraq provided direct support for terrorist training or activities.
Yes, he did fund payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
I saw this as mainly a humanitarian gesture since most of these families had to start their lives over from scratch after the Israeli government demolished their homes.

You just can't stop terror by creating your own terror.

If our anti-terrorism policy is to attack and invade every country where the leader desires to aquire WMD's and harm the US, we need to start another baby boom to supply all the soldiers required to occupy 1/2 of the globe.

Listening to the rhetoric coming out of the Bush campaign, I suspect that they are starting to realize that the war against Iraq was a mistake.
However, since Bush has made no mistakes in office, the rhetoric is that we must stay the course in order to support our troops.

For the sake of the country, I pray that John Kerry is able to stay on the offensive and win the next 2 debates so we can get these madmen out of power.


Collapse -

Hear hear

by Oz_Media In reply to Incredible

Well said Chas, I certainly hope your vote is worth 100!

Regarding your commets on invading every country where the leader wants to harm the US or GWB for that matter (as in the case of Iraq) GWB better start invadig just about every country ad also elmiinating half of America, he's not exactly mr popularity today!.

Good luck!

Collapse -

Paying terrorists is a humanitarian gesture ??????

by maxwell edison In reply to Incredible

That's disgusting. There's no excuse or justification for terrorism or for those who support it - none.

Is it possible that I've had you all wrong?

Collapse -

After thinking about it - this is incredible

by maxwell edison In reply to Incredible

In the same message, you suggested that Saddam Hussein was a humanitarian in his sponsorship of terrorism, while George Bush is a mad man for trying to eradicate terrorism.

I think it's time someone got a reality check.

And it makes me wonder, what kind of propaganda are they spreading on NPR? And with taxpayer dollars, no less.

This is indeed absolutely incredible. I just can't believe what I've just read.

Collapse -

Yeah that's what I read into it.

by Oz_Media In reply to After thinking about it - ...

Actually it took a few minutes of rereading to see how you could possibly twist that conclusion out of Chas's comments, but in true Republican style, you were able to pull something out if it that had nothing to do with what Chas was saying. Damn you guys are good! If that's good.

Chas never suggested Saddam was a humanitarian in even the smallest way. Not even remotely close, how could someone POSSIBLY read this comments and derive such a ridiculous conclusion? NO wonder everyone is a liar, disingenious, stupid etc. in your books, you simply don't understand (or don't wish to understand) a single word people say unless it supports Bush.

He sees what Saddam did was probably done as a humanitarian gesture. In Saddam's eyes, it most likely WAS a humanitarian action, in the family's eyes it probably WAS a humanitarian action. Chas didn't say he THOUGHT it was a humanitarian action he said he SAW it as a humanitarian action from Saddam.

Why don't you try reading and actually looking for the meaning of the post, instead of just a way to wrangle the words into something he never meant as you always do, it's really not amusing anymore, if it ever was.

Collapse -

Read it a bit closer

by TheChas In reply to After thinking about it - ...

Read what I posted a bit closer.

I have not heard of any direct payments from Saddam to terrorists.

He did have a standing policy of making payments to the families of suicide bombers.

Now, here is how I make the statement that the payments to the families of suicide bombers "CAN" be seen as "humanitarian":

If the suicide bomber is a Palestinian living in Israeli controlled territory, the zero tolerance policy of the Israeli government requires that the home of the bomber be destroyed. No trial, little warning, no exceptions.

The money that Saddam offered allowed these displaced families an opportunity to recover and move on with their lives.

If you were to talk to these families, I suspect that the majority of them would much rather have their son or daughter back rather than the money from Saddam.
I also doubt that many of these families ever wanted their son or daughter to be an insurgent, let alone a suicide bomber.

The type of brain-washed fanatic that would commit a suicide bombing is not going to be deterred by the potential of the family home being destroyed.

To date, the only strategy that has worked to reduce suicide bombings in Israel is the strict lock down of the borders.

I fully agree that direct aid to terrorists is not humanitarian.

Aid to the family of a suicide bomber that lost their home and possessions in government sanctioned retribution "MAY" be humanitarian.


Collapse -

Read latest Forbes Article

by oboogie In reply to Read it a bit closer

Maybe Sadaam reimbursed the Islamic families of suicidist/martyrs, but so does a prominent banking entity out of Saudi Arabia (Forbes-10/18/040). Interesting to note that this entity was/is a subsidiary of CitiBank.
My take on the U.S. presidents' "spin"... substitute the words "Saudi Arabia' and "the Jewish State" whenever we hear "our country" and "the American people" in " " are safer without Sadaam Hussein in power.

Collapse -

Saddam supported terrorism - period

by maxwell edison In reply to Read it a bit closer

" an enticement for others to volunteer for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people."

".....But the timing of this clear signal that Saddam is stoking the Middle East conflict with his new $US15,000 bonus to encourage more suicide bombers - and exclusive pictures from the distribution ceremony, which was attended by the Herald - could make it more difficult for the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, to manage his already strained relationship with the United States."

He did it - period.

He did it to encourage the killing of innocent civilians - period.

He did it to support terrorism - period.

To suggest that this was a "humaintarian" gesture, in any sense whatsoever, is pure nonsense and absolutely disgusting.

More evidence that Saddam Hussein supported world-wide terrorism:

All quotes (except the Ramzi Yousef article) are from the following NRO article:**903.asp

"As I have noted before, Saddam Hussein had means, motive, and opportunity to be involved with global terrorism, and al Qaeda in particular."

" is becoming increasingly clear that Iraq provided terror groups with some forms of logistical, intelligence, transportation, training, weapons, and other support. The emerging evidence points to the conclusion that al Qaeda had a cooperative relationship ? that is, a strategic alliance ? with Iraq."

"The fact that he gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide terrorists and had a close working relationship with the PLO was well known, and something he admitted. The Iraqi regime maintained a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak near Baghdad where foreign terrorists were instructed in methods of taking over commercial aircraft using weapons no more sophisticated than knives (interesting thought that). Saddam also harbored Abu Nidal and other members of his international terror organization (ANO) in Baghdad. Abu Nidal died under suspicious circumstances in Baghdad in August 2002, an apparent multiple gunshot suicide. Abd-al-Rahman Isa, ANO's second in command based in Amman, Jordan, was kidnapped September 11, 2002, and has not been heard from since. Coalition forces did recently apprehend ANO member Khala Khadr al-Salahat, the man who reputedly made the bomb for the Libyans that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. He was hiding out in Baghdad. Another bomb maker, Abdul Rahman Yasin, was also a Baghdad resident. He was one of the conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing who had fled there after being detained briefly by the FBI. Recent document finds in Tikrit show that Iraq supplied Yasin with both money and sanctuary. The 1993 WTC attack was masterminded by Yasin's associate Ramzi Yousef, who received financial support from al Qaeda through Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a key 9/11 planner."

Who was Ramzi Yousef?

"ACCORDING TO THE presiding judge in last year's trial, the bombing of New York's World Trade Center on February 26, 1993 was meant to topple the city's tallest tower onto its twin, amid a cloud of cyanide gas. Had the attack gone as planned, tens of thousands of Americans would have died. Instead, as we know, one tower did not fall on the other, and, rather than vaporizing, the cyanide gas burnt up in the heat of the explosion. "Only" six people died."

"There is also the case of Abu Zubayr, an officer in Saddam's secret police who was also the ringleader of an al Qaeda cell in Morocco. He attended the September 5, 2001 meeting in Spain with other al Qaeda operatives, including Ramzi Bin-al-Shibh, the 9/11 financial chief. Abu Zubayr was apprehended in May, 2002, while putting together a plot to mount suicide attacks on U.S. ships passing through the straits of Gibraltar. He has allegedly since stated that Iraq trained and supplied chemical weapons to al Qaeda. In the fall of 2001 al Qaeda refugees from Afghanistan took refuge in northern Iraq until they were driven out by Coalition forces, and Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, an al Qaeda terrorist active in Europe and North Africa, fled from Baghdad during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He has reportedly been sent back to Iraq to coordinate al Qaeda activities there."

"Iraq made direct payments to the Philippine-based al Qaeda-affiliated Abu Sayyaf group. Hamsiraji Sali, an Abu Sayyaf leader on the U.S. most-wanted terrorist list, stated that his gang received about one million pesos (around $20,000) each year from Iraq, for chemicals to make bombs. The link was substantiated immediately after a bombing in Zamboanga City in October 2002 (in which three people were killed including an American Green Beret), when Abu Sayyaf leaders called up the deputy secretary of the Iraqi embassy in Manila, Husham Hussain. Six days later, the cell phone used to call Hussain was employed as the timer on a bomb set to go off near the Philippine military's Southern Command headquarters. Fortunately, the bomb failed to detonate, and the phone yielded various contact numbers, including Hussain's and Sali's. This evidence, coupled with other intelligence the Philippine government would not release, led to Hussain's expulsion in February 2003. In March, ten Iraqi nationals, some with direct links to al Qaeda, were rounded up in the Philippines and deported as undesirable aliens. In addition, two more consulate officials were expelled for spying."

"The most intriguing potential link is reflected in documents found by Toronto Star reporter Mitch Potter in Baghdad in April, 2003. The documents detail direct links between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime dating back at least to 1998, and mention Osama bin Laden by name. The find supports an October 2001 report by William Safire that noted, among other things, a 1998 meeting in Baghdad between al Qaeda #2 Ayman al Zawahiri and Saddam's vice president, Taha Yasin Ramadan. Other reports have alleged bin Laden himself traveled to Iraq around that time, or at least planned to. Former Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, Farouk Hijazi, now in custody, allegedly met with bin Laden before the 9/11 attacks."

My opinion:

Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and attempting to plant the seeds of democracy in Iraq was the right thing to do; the time to do it was not only correct, but a dozen years too late; and if the United Nations didn't want to be a party to it, the United States was right-on about doing it without their support. And to believe otherwise is, in my opinion, to be blind to the reality and severity of the real problem.

Collapse -

Oh, he supported terrorism.

by go_browns_01 In reply to Saddam supported terroris ...

"In fact, as recently as April 2002, Saudis raised almost $100 million in a national telethon for suicide bombers, particularly those sent into Israel by the radical group Hamas."

and yet, Saudi Arabia is our good friend.
Why? Is there something wrong with their oil?
Oh, it's because they say the money is for "humanitarian" purposes. And that works?

Related Discussions

Related Forums