Did you see those explosions on the news yesterday and today?

If that's not a weapon of mass destruction I don't know what is.

Right NOW, what matters more, the legal definition of WMD or the common sense definition? Come on, use your noggin!

70%-80% of all terrorist attacks are committed with high explosives. The bombing in Iraq the other day and on so many other days only serves as proof that Iraq is a cornerstone in the Global War On Terror. Whether we attract(ed) the terrorists or whether they were there to begin with, it makes no difference. Fact: Terrorists are in Iraq and they target inoccent children, women and men in Iraq.

If you are FOR the Global War On Terror you have a tough argument to make, that Iraq is irrelevant in it.

The theory that our actions 'make terrorists' is dangerous and naive. Leon Klinghoffer didn't do anything to 'make' the terrorists who threw him overboard in the early 1980s. Neither did America. Those evil bastards had that much hate in their hearts long before they ever got off their mother's milk. The assumption that we can just withdraw all our influence in the world and then terrorism will simply dry up is unfounded and has no supporting evidence. There is no correlation between our measure of western influence (higher/lower) and the measure of middle eastern terrorist activity (higher/lower)against us in the last thirty(30) years.

Deal with it! Terrorism is something we MUST confront WITH violence. We've already proven that non-violence against terrorism hasn't worked for over thirty(30) years. In fact violence against us has risen after we have witheld violent responses (USS Cole 2000, Lebannon 1982). But violence committed against inoccent U.S. citizens has lessened (in the U.S. for sure) since we have responded violently (Afghanistan/Iraq) since late 2001.

Make your case!!

What, no takers?

We are all sick of playing whack-a-troll.
Sorry, try with a new name.

We had them on the run in Afghanistan but we stopped and pulled a large portion of our troops out to send to Iraq. We only have control of 25% of Afghanistan and there are still warlords to deal with. Before we invaded there were 3 provinces making heroine and now there are 24 thus we have increased Taliban funding. We had Osama cornered and we let him go, why? 9/11 happened because of a base we had in Saudi Arabia and GW shut that base down after 9/11. What happened to “We don’t back down” or “we don’t negotiate with terrorists”?

We then proceed to take a country that was holding the #1 terrorist nation in the world Iran at bay and turn it into an ally of Iran. Yes that’ a great plan now we have big Iran and little Iran.

Because of this administrations incompetence and thirst for oil the terrorists are better trained, better funded, and people are rushing to join them so recruitment is up.

If you want to fight terrorism then do so but Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 so why are we there? The terrorists were not in Iraq until we invaded!

To say that there has been no progress over the last 30 years is rather ignorant. Under Clinton terrorist organizations were shut down in more than 20 countries and we had driven Osamas followers back to the Middle East. Just because you don’t see bombs going off does not mean progress is not being made.

Everybody was 100% on board with Afghanistan although we should have gone in over a year earlier like Clinton told Bush to do and 9/11 would have never happened, but you know George he don’t hear too well.

Get it through your head, not one terrorist was from Iraq NOT ONE! This is a corporate war for profit only and all you have to do is look at the corruption and the fact that the administration is openly supporting that corruption to see the truth.
Your post screams of ignorance,
Jim

Yes, it does make a difference if we attracted the terrorists there or not. I recently read an article that the US was inciting terrorist attacks somewhere else in the world but as soon as we left the terrorist attacks stopped. I'll see if I can find that article.


I disagree. Only 10% of the insurgents in Iraq are foreign fighters. They weren't about to go out and kill Americans before the invasion. These home-grown Iraqi's are fighting back because their country was invaded and (in the case of the Sunnis and Baathists) their rule was overthrown. This is nationalism pure and simple. Heck, I'm not a Bush fan, but if the Chinese (for example) invaded the US to "overthrow" the Bush regime, I'd pick up a gun and fight to defend my nation.

But, to your other point... Whether the US makes terrorists or not depends on the terrorist group. al Queda's main beef with the US was our foreign policy (Troops in Saudi Arabia, Support for Isreal, Sanctions against Iraq etc...). You should learn a little more about al Queda's history. It's fascinating how we've helped them. In a nutshell, from the late 80's through 1998, al Queda's main goal was to try and overthrow pro-western middle-eastern governments and set up Islamic theocracies. They failed in every attempt except Afghanistan (which fell into Taliban control because some idiot thought that the best way to fight against the Russians was to let all of the religous zealots out of jail, give them weapons and tell them to fight against infidels.). The jihadist movement was falling apart in the middle-east in the 90's because the population turned against them because of their brutal tactics and their willingness to kill fellow Muslims. In 1998 al Queda realized that they were never going to defeat pro-western governments in the middle east and turned to reducing the influence of the west by threatening to attack the US. They managed to do that on 9/11. You may not remember this, but the entire Middle-East (except Afghanistan) was on our side on 9/12. There were pro-US marches in Iran. We were supported in going after al Queda and the Taliban.

Then we invaded Iraq. This was exactly what bin Laden had been telling the Muslim population. "The US wants to invade and conquer Middle-Eastern countries and take the oil and spread their decadent culture.." (paraphrased). We turned Osama bin Laden into a prophet and our actions threw popular support behind a man and a movement that had previously been reviled.



I disagree. You can't defeat terrorism with the force of arms. Did the IRA stop because of the military? Have the Isreali's stopped the suicide bombers with their military counter attacks? Have the Russians stopped the Chechen rebels with their military?

Jihadism and Wahabism is an idea. You can't defeat an idea with a gun. Like I've said before, using arms against terrorists is akin to swatting mosquitoes. You can swat all you want, but as long as there's a swamp nearby, you'll never eliminate the mosquitoes. To eliminate the mosquitoes, you need to drain the swamp. Draining the swamp in terms of terrorism is eliminating the support for terrorist attacks from the population at large.

I saw my name mentioned.......I do live on in the hearts of those who love FREEDOM and democracy. I spit in the face of terrorists.

Did you see those explosions on the news yesterday and today?

If that's not a weapon of mass destruction I don't know what is.

Right NOW, what matters more, the legal definition of WMD or the common sense definition? Come on, use your noggin!



It is not and was not a WMD. You need to go look up the definition of a WMD. The definition of a weapon of mass detruction is a weapon that will and can flatten a small city or a good portion of a very large city or inflict casualties in the tens of thousands....not 10 or 20 and blow up a gate and shake a few buildings.



70%-80% of all terrorist attacks are committed with high explosives. The bombing in Iraq the other day and on so many other days only serves as proof that Iraq is a cornerstone in the Global War On Terror. Whether we attract(ed) the terrorists or whether they were there to begin with, it makes no difference. Fact: Terrorists are in Iraq and they target inoccent children, women and men in Iraq.



Instead of making a statement like this ,you might consider the question of"where are they getting these high tech explosives...since most of those being used are under military and government controls?"

And yes we have and did attract the so called terrorist or insurgents by invading illegally a sovereign country whose leader we installed just as we have installed the current leader.

We for that matter have recruited and used the so called insurgents as the Iraqi police arrested BRITISH SPECIAL FORCES that were dressed as insurgents and were caught with explosives and were getting ready to use them. This was put out by almost all the news agencies and no one was paying attention.

As I have said before in other post,people need to realize that there is more at play here than what is visable or is shown to the public....and the evidence that abounds points it out.



The theory that our actions 'make terrorists' is dangerous and naive. Leon Klinghoffer didn't do anything to 'make' the terrorists who threw him overboard in the early 1980s. Neither did America. Those evil bastards had that much hate in their hearts long before they ever got off their mother's milk. The assumption that we can just withdraw all our influence in the world and then terrorism will simply dry up is unfounded and has no supporting evidence. There is no correlation between our measure of western influence (higher/lower) and the measure of middle eastern terrorist activity (higher/lower)against us in the last thirty(30) years.


A few facts for you:

1.) WE made Osama via "daddy"Bush and WE had him on the payroll up to 1996 at the CIA. This has been publicly verified as true.

WE via the CIA gave him all through the years the latest and the greatist in the way of communications,weapons etc as well as TRAINING.

2.) Via the CIA we put Saddom in power.

3.) The Afgahnistan invasion was not so much about removing a regime because we deemed it as "evil" as it was about the said regime renegging on a pipeline deal. Now if you do a check you will see that a lot of mining and oil companies with the help of HALLIBURTON and Kellog Brown and Root,a subsidery of HALLIBURTON are buying up the oil and mineral rights as fast as they can. You will also find out that the CARLYLE GROUP (daddy Bush) is one of the leaders in the pipeline that is at this time being built to cross Afgahnistan.




Deal with it! Terrorism is something we MUST confront WITH violence. We've already proven that non-violence against terrorism hasn't worked for over thirty(30) years. In fact violence against us has risen after we have witheld violent responses (USS Cole 2000, Lebannon 1982). But violence committed against inoccent U.S. citizens has lessened (in the U.S. for sure) since we have responded violently (Afghanistan/Iraq) since late 2001.


The Cole incident has some unanswered questions that nobody has either asked or those who have asked were either ignored or told to shut up and they are:

1.) Since ship movements are kept secret,who and how did the "terrorist" get the information on the Coles visit? I am ex-Navy and know this for a fact that it is a standing order as well as operation that when in hostile waters all ship movements are to be kept classified with the only notice given at the time of arrival.

2.) It was common practice in my time that when in hostile waters all refueling will be done via unrep vs port rep. Why was the Cole ordered to a known hostile port for refuel?

3.) In a busy seaport why was a personal launch being loaded to the max with boxes not attracting the scrutiny of ANYONE?

4.) It was hi tech explosives used....how did they get ahold of them since the really hi tech stuff is under military and government control?


THere are a lot more questions that have yet to be answered and yet this incident and the surrounding questions has been swept under the rug so to speak and any inquirey is defelected in all directions.


You should know that as in business there is no such thing as a coincidence in government....everything that happens has either been planned for or set up.


mutt

Yeah, now these are POSTS!!!

I thought you DIED a few years ago.

[QUOTE]It is not and was not a WMD. You need to go look up the definition of a WMD. [/QUOTE]

If you think that an explosive is not a weapon of mass destruction tell that to the 3,000 who died in the WTC or the 17 who died on the USS Cole. This a big problem with our society. We let legal definitions of things divert us from what is right and wrong. Plainly put, an explosive IS a weapon of mass destruction when made with power and placed properly. I don't need some lawyer to tell me that. Legal does not equal correct or morally right. At this point I could care less what some U.N. definition of WMD is. It's truly meaningless unless we're in some international court of law. We are not. We are at war.

[QUOTE]...you might consider the question of"where are they getting these high tech explosives...since most of those being used are under military and government controls?"[/QUOTE]

Only for tactical purposes. But if you're implying a notion that guns or WMD kill people instead of people killing people, I disagree. Weapons can be had anywhere and in that region it makes little difference as the Syrians, Iranian mullahs and so many others wouldn't blink an eye in providing explosives. By the way, whether they are high tech or low tech, they still kill. A lot of the stuff the terrorists in Iraq are using is leftover munitions from Saddam's old regime. There was so much of it in the country when we invaded that it was completely impractical to round all of it up before others could get their hands on it, and after others already had possession. In addition the French and Germans provided much of Iraqs munitions, even some DURING the sanction years (91-2003).

[QUOTE]And yes we have and did attract the so called terrorist or insurgents by invading illegally a sovereign country whose leader we installed just as we have installed the current leader.[/QUOTE]

And this is a problem? That's precisely part of the plan. Of couse we attracted them, that's a big reason why we haven't been attacked on U.S. soil since 2001. Back in on Sept 12th 2001 nobody, not you, not me, nobody would have predicted that we would not have been attacked in the U.S. for the next four(4) years. But either way, whether we attracted them or whether they were already there, it makes not difference.

[QUOTE]We for that matter have recruited and used the so called insurgents as the Iraqi police arrested BRITISH SPECIAL FORCES that were dressed as insurgents and were caught with explosives and were getting ready to use them. This was put out by almost all the news agencies and no one was paying attention.[/QUOTE]

Please provide an objective source or link.

[QUOTE]As I have said before in other post,people need to realize that there is more at play here than what is visable or is shown to the public....and the evidence that abounds points it out.[/QUOTE]

This is a general statement that no one can disagree with. Of course there's more to the eye. Of course there have been things that don't make the news, like new schools in Iraq, local governments forming, hospitals opening up, opinion surveys that show Iraqis are optimistic and thankful for their chance at reforming their country. But I doubt there is much information that is not making the news that paints a bad picture of Iraq. The news pounces on it quickly for either ratings, or to get their digs into the President, depending on what suits them at the moment.


[QUOTE] 1.) WE made Osama via "daddy"Bush and WE had him on the payroll up to 1996 at the CIA. This has been publicly verified as true. [/QUOTE]

We made Stalin too, to help get rid of Hitler. So what. Previous mistakes shouldn't and haven't prevented us from taking the right course of action now. But if you think it's useful show me your objective sources that prove Osama was on the payroll up to 1996. I'll read them.

[QUOTE] WE via the CIA gave him all through the years the latest and the greatist in the way of communications,weapons etc as well as TRAINING.[/QUOTE]

I don't know where you formed the opinion that we gave him teh "latest and the greatist" in the way of anything. Stinger missile technology hasn't been the latest greatest since the early 1980s, however effective they have remained. Nonetheless many of them have died as a result of their shelf life expirations, maintenance issues. A key reason why the Stinger missile scare/hysteria never really came true as a good means of launching terrorists attacks. But then again, if Osama has all this high tech at his disposal, why would he use all the crude methods like Planes into the WTC, failing shoe bombings, simple explosives on the USS Cole, Bali, Spain? It's kind of silly to imply that we gave Osama such high technolody when we don't even give Israel the fully equiped F-16 fighters when we sell them. Stripped down versions aren't the same. But nonetheless, please provide an objective source for your claim and I'll be glad to look at it.

[QUOTE]2.) Via the CIA we put Saddom in power.[/QUOTE]

This is simply not true. I've read about how Saddam took power. We had nothing to do with it. Not that it matters today anyway. So what, I'm glad he was in power to keep Iran's more dangerous government occupied. Were you predicting that Saddam would invade Kuwait back in the mid 1980s or something. Not sure where all this crystal ball thinking goes, but anyway. Once again, provide an objective source please.

[QUOTE]3.) The Afgahnistan invasion was not so much about removing a regime because we deemed it as "evil" as it was about the said regime renegging on a pipeline deal. Now if you do a check you will see that a lot of mining and oil companies with the help of HALLIBURTON and Kellog Brown and Root,a subsidery of HALLIBURTON are buying up the oil and mineral rights as fast as they can. You will also find out that the CARLYLE GROUP (daddy Bush) is one of the leaders in the pipeline that is at this time being built to cross Afgahnistan.[/QUOTE]

This has been discounted many times over. The deal was a Clinton era proposal that was dropped by Unocal back in 1998. http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-D...renheit-911.htm
On the same article look for the heading "Carlyle Group Deceits 20-22" and you'll see why your claims are a result of a distortion of th truth. That is, unless you wish to attack David Kopel's reputation. I do have other sources but I suppose you might attack them too.


[QUOTE] 1.) Since ship movements are kept secret,who and how did the "terrorist" get the information on the Coles visit? I am ex-Navy and know this for a fact that it is a standing order as well as operation that when in hostile waters all ship movements are to be kept classified with the only notice given at the time of arrival.[/QUOTE]

Where does it say that the terrorists knew any information on ship movements. The terror cell in Yemen was probably instructed to wait for a time when a U.S. Navy shipped arrived. The U.S. Navy had a history of refueling there. BTW - I visited the Cole a year before the bombing. My buddy was on that ship and was reassigned 7-8 months prior to the attack.

[QUOTE]2.) It was common practice in my time that when in hostile waters all refueling will be done via unrep vs port rep. Why was the Cole ordered to a known hostile port for refuel?[/QUOTE]

This was a result of the fleet reduction done during the Clinton era. He reduced the fleet dramatically and support vessels like tankers were dry docked. In place they contracted with foreign countries to provide refueling. Where did you get your information that Aden was a "known hostile port" at the time they were using it? I've never heard that.

[QUOTE]3.) In a busy seaport why was a personal launch being loaded to the max with boxes not attracting the scrutiny of ANYONE?[/QUOTE]

The policy in the Navy has since changed. That's how it works, whether you're a cop, fireman or in the military. People and then these changes happen. You could say the same thing about 9/11. It's just reality. It's easy enough to answer.

[QUOTE]4.) It was hi tech explosives used....how did they get ahold of them since the really hi tech stuff is under military and government control?[/QUOTE]

I'm not even sure why it makes a difference that they were high tech or not. I'm also not sure how you're so certain that the U.S. is the only source for such explosives. Let's see, Germany, France, Russia, China, Britain, and probably many others could have provided either willingly or illegally against their nation's will/laws.

[QUOTE]THere are a lot more questions that have yet to be answered and yet this incident and the surrounding questions has been swept under the rug so to speak and any inquirey is defelected in all directions.[/QUOTE]

This sounds more like the JFK thing. So we're supposed to sit with all these unanswered questions and assume that the answers are only in favor of your cynical mind? Don't give me questions, give me answers. Until then this is just meaningless rhetoric.

[QUOTE] You should know that as in business there is no such thing as a coincidence in government....everything that happens has either been planned for or set up.
mutt [/QUOTE]

That statement must be a joke. From what I know of the government almost nothing is planned well. And when it is it goes bad anyway. I don't know what government you're looking at but the one I have been intimately involved with for many years is not the one you describe. I have my criticisms of the government, that's for sure, regardless of who is in office. But I don't consider them to be a good source for effective cover-ups and good planning. After all, they can't even keep leaks from happening at the highest levels, correct?

Yep, thousands of USA people are getting killed in Iraq, looking for weapons that never existed. Isn't is time to call off the search? Angel108

Am I going to have to spank you again? The US Air Force PFE defines a WMD as either a "Nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon designed to kill or injure thousands of people within the proscribed radius of action". Oops, did we talk out of our ass again? ROTFLMAO!!! Your ignorance is showing dude!

MSgt Mark

so it seems that were looked at as weapons of mass DDDDDDs? all the lives ?!all the blood ??!all the lies what for ??? we and a lot off things have opened Pandoras Box and the lid is blown off !and no way can we get the box back on the shelve so how many men and woman do you think we have do they grow on trees??? all the talk isnt going to fix it you know what they say dont break it if it wasnt fixed????are is it dont fix it if it isnt Broke i think its smashed in the trash .super glue any one???!!!

WMDs are "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
Most rational, sane persons agree this refers to CBR weapons (chemical, biological, radiological) capable of destroying CITIES with a single bomb.

I offer the following proof that Iraq did not have WMDs.

Look in the skies over Iraq.
Did you see any Israeli bombers?
No?
Then there was no imminent threat of Saddam having WMDs.

If you need further proof, it's engraved on the interior walls of your colon.
Just open your eyes and read it.

Mac