[firestar]

I was just thinking that this whole Iraq war thing reminds me of Waco. We don't have a real clear idea why we are going in but we are going to go in. We are sure that something is going on, whether we have any evidence or not. Also, we surrounded the place and it is costing us a lot of money and we are getting bored so lets go get him.:rolleyes:

I'm NOT saying the two situation are the same but there seems to be similarities in the way our goverment is so ready to use force. Maybe our military and police forces are too large and they need to justify the budget or they are simply bored and looking for something to do. There is a quote that sums it up, "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nial".

[Vladimir Berkov]

The way I see they are similar is that the attacking force (either the Feds or Bush) built up the perceived threat, and their planned response, so much that backing down was no longer an option.

[Drjones]

We don't have a real clear idea why we are going in but we are going to go in.

Speak for yourself.


We are sure that something is going on, whether we have any evidence or not. I guess satellite photos, recorded conversations, and other material evidence isn't enough for you.

Nothing will be enough for you.

our goverment is so ready to use force.

You have been asleep since 9/11?

You have been asleep for the last decade?

You are unaware of the last 16 UN resolutions calling for Saddam to disarm?

You are unaware he's had 12 years to do so?

You are unaware that every form of diplomacy has failed?

You are unaware that history is repeating itself?

You don't know who I'm referring to with "history repeating," do you?

Maybe our military and police forces are too large and they need to justify the budget or they are simply bored and looking for something to do. There is a quote that sums it up, "when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nial".

See my comments above.

[S_O_Laban]

Ah, Drjones, LOL let not confuse this issue with facts or logic:D

[JohnBT]

I see no connection.

John

[MitchSchaft]

I'm with Docta Jones.

[Smoke]

DrJones and JohnBT,

I have nothing to add.

[Sodbuster]

Maybe our military and police forces are too large
I don't know specific percentages, but reservists make up a significant part of the military. Also, in 1991, troop strength approached 500,000 personnel. Troop strength in Gulf region today is 250,00. More being done with less.

[Raymond VanDerLinden]

You got the X ring DRJones

Very very well said

[KMKeller]

Echo smoke.

[2dogs]

Iraq war, Waco TX., anyone see a connection?

No.

[Hkmp5sd]

Also, we surrounded the place and it is costing us a lot of money

I think 12 years (with no end in sight) of troops in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, continuous air coverage of 2 no fly zones, periodic missile shots and the Iraq's assistance to terrorism cost far more than this attack will cost.

[rugersbro]

Drjones
Amen to this man's thoughts. He is dead on!

[DeltaElite]

Ahhhhhhh, no.
There is no rational similarity between the two, but please do continue. :D

[Edward429451]

Even stretching the imagination, the only similarities I see is that Delta force will be there, and it'll largely just be a training mission.

Koresh wasn't any Saddam Hussien, and Hussien aint no Koresh.

[dev_null]

Iraq war, Waco TX., anyone see a connection?
No.

[Skunkabilly]

Not really, but if we need Janet Reno to smoke Saddam out of him compound, why not get her involved?

And if we can't find Saddam, we can get the IRS involved...heck they can find ANYONE :D

[cheygriz]

DRJones,

Thank you for a refreshing bit of common sense.

[D_Burchfield]

Absolutely not!

LOL The good Drjones has got the prescription for what ails you, Firestar. Take two tablets and call back in 48 hours :D

[Monkeyleg]

Sounds like you've got a new-found friend in Janet Reno:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_031803/content/stack_a.guest.html

[gryphon]

Firestar,

Are you serious when you ask this question or are you just trying to increase your post count? :rolleyes:

[suvdrvr]

Yeah, I see a simularity. The media will probably tip off the BG that we're coming!

[DeltaElite]

Hey I found the connection.
They both take place on planet earth. :D
I am so glad I figured it out. ;)

[seeker_two]

Iraq war, Waco TX., anyone see a connection?

Yep. Both support kicking that murderous tyrant Saddam Hussein out of Iraq & into the hell he's so rightly earned...:evil:

(Guess where I live near...:D )

[Mike Irwin]

Hum...

Let's see...

Waco - Piss poor training, planning and preparation.

Iraq - Excellent training, planning, and preparation.


Waco -- Koresh invited officers in at any time to inspect his so-called "arsenal."

Iraq -- Interfered with inspectors for years, then kicked them out. When they came back, interfered with them again, with Saddam's gov't maintaining a seriously agressive stance.


Waco -- Federal participation on EXTREMELY flimsy charges, with no hard evidence ever presented.

Iraq -- Federal participation on claimed flimsy charges, but hard evidence was dropped on the Khurds.


Waco -- Branch Dividians perfectly happy to stay on their little compound and ignore the world.

Iraq -- Perfectly happy to invade its neighbors, and to finance the exportation of terrorism abroad.


Waco -- Allegations of violations of laws. Nothing proven.

Iraq -- 12 years of violations of international laws.


Waco -- Claims of child abuse (and that's a Federal concern how?)

Iraq -- Claims, and proof, of mother abuse, father abuse, uncle abuse, aunt abuse, child abuse... You name it, Iraq's abused it.



Waco -- Led by a charismatic, but by all accounts relatively benevolent, odd ball.

Iraq -- Led by a charismatic, but by all accounts, murderous and vicious nutcase.


Hum...

Nope, don't see too many commonalities at all.

Care to enlighten us?

[Hkmp5sd]

Well said, Mike! :)

[.45FMJoe]

I'm gonna go with that was one of the most asinine things I've read all day, may I please have my 30 seconds of life back?

[JShirley]

Damn it, Mike! When I make Grand Poobah, I'll retain you to answer all my questions.

Nice analysis. Since "Mr. Smith" has encapsulated the incontrovertible differences, I will just entertain you with my finger puppets...:scrutiny:

[firestar]

There is no evidence that Iraq has any meaningful links to terrorism. The U.N. weapons inspectors have not found anything that violates the mandates. If there is some evidence that contradicts this, I would love to hear it. Come forth with the evidence that links Saddam to Bin Laden or come forth with the evidence of the nukes that Saddam is supposed to have.

[Drjones]

There is no evidence that Iraq has any meaningful links to terrorism.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/13/112209

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

The U.N. weapons inspectors have not found anything that violates the mandates. If there is some evidence that contradicts this, I would love to hear it.
And I'm gonna love showing you...

See the second link above and also:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56050-2002Oct7?language=printer

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/2/13/134858.shtml

Hmmm, in addition to the fact that the French helped Saddam build a nuclear reactor, he has been acquiring many specially designed aluminum tubes that are used to enrich uranium.

Firestar, WHY would a country with as much oil as Iraq need a nuclear reactor?
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/isis-alumtubes-092302.htm


Come forth with the evidence that links Saddam to Bin Laden or come forth with the evidence of the nukes that Saddam is supposed to have.

See above.

It was fun.

Thanks!

[Mike Irwin]

You asked for a comparison between the two situations.

I was giving you one.

But...

Given that Iraq had used chemical weapons not once, but at LEAST twice that we know if, and to great effect, please provide your rational for the expectation that Iraq has, as it claims, destroyed its stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

I don't believe that anyone has claimed that Iraq has nuclear weapons, only that Iraq continued to pursue a nuclear program after the 1991 Gulf War, in violation of UN mandates that Iraq accepted.

The UN inspectors have not found anything that violates the mandates, that is true.

But at the same time, Iraq has had 12 years in which to disburse and hit its chemical and biological weapons programs in a very large land mass.

Given Iraqi's documented performance over the last 20 years, starting with the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, its intransigence in meeting the mandates laid out by the UN, its continued violation of the mandates regarding the No Fly Zones, etc., give us your rational for accepting Iraq's claims that it's pure as driven snow.

It's pretty evident that war is going to happen.

Am I happy about that? Nope.

Would I like to have seen international backing of military actions? Yes.

Do I have any illusions about what the United States and Britain are going to find in Iraq? Not at all.

[firestar]

dr.jones,
Thanks for providing the info that proves my point.

Taken from the second link:

"Was Saddam involved in the September 11 attacks?
There is no hard evidence linking Saddam to the attacks, and Iraq denies any involvement. However, it didn’t express sympathy for the United States after the attacks. Some Iraq watchers still suspect Saddam was at least indirectly involved, but by the fall of 2002, the Bush administration had stopped arguing that Iraq had strong links to al-Qaeda.

Does Iraq have ties with al-Qaeda?
The Bush administration insists that hatred of America has driven the two closer together, although many experts say there’s no solid evidence of such links and argue that the Islamist al-Qaeda and Saddam’s secular dictatorship would be unlikely allies."

It goes on and on but basically it is just saying what I said, Iraq has not been proven to have any meaningful links to terrorism.

[Thumper]

The U.N. weapons inspectors have not found anything that violates the mandates.

Firestar, I have a question...and I mean no disrespect...Have you read ANY of the resolutions? Have you read ANY of the various official reports from inspectors?

Please, answer honestly; it might help some here understand some of your questions.

[firestar]

Mike Irwin,
Of course I don't believe that Iraq is as pure as the driven snow. I know that they must have have some weapons of mass destruction but what is the real threat to us? Are we going to invade every country that has chemical weapons?

Like you said, it is all a moot point now. We can't do anything about it. Lets all just hope that things don't turn out as bad as most of us fear. It is not the war that I fear, it is the aftermath and the backlash of world opinion. I think we are creating more terrorists and more enemies by our actions. Also it is not out of the realm of possibility that Bush may face prosecution in the world court. This is an illegal war, period. Bush knows this, he just doesn't care. Can we afford to be this beligerant?

[Drjones]

*sigh*

Firestar, you said:

There is no evidence that Iraq has any meaningful links to terrorism. (Not Al Quaeda specifically)

I said: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsideco...003/3/13/112209

http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

Though you seem to be unable to read the information you request, so I will post excerpts here.

Does Iraq sponsor terrorism?

Yes. Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship has provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as to hard-line Palestinian groups. During the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam also commissioned several failed terrorist attacks on U.S. facilities. The State Department lists Iraq as a state sponsor of terrorism.

What type of terrorist groups does Iraq support?

Primarily groups who can hurt Saddam’s regional foes. Saddam has helped the Iranian dissident group Mujahedeen-e-Khalq and the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a separatist group fighting the Turkish government. Moreover, Iraq has hosted several Palestinian splinter groups that oppose any peace agreement with Israel, including the mercenary Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader, Abu Nidal, was found dead in Baghdad in August 2002. Iraq has also supported other Palestinian groups, including the Islamist Hamas movement, and reportedly channels money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
***

Iraq undoubtedly played a role in training the 9/11 hijackers to carry out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, former CIA Director James Woolsey said last month, in comments that were largely ignored by the mainstream press.

***

Firestar, is Al Quaeda the ONLY terrorist organization in the world?

[Thumper]

The U.N. weapons inspectors have not found anything that violates the mandates.

Vs.

I know that they must have have some weapons of mass destruction

Ah...you answered my question.

Do yourself a favor and read the Resolutions, OK?

[firestar]

Thumper,
What are you saying? Are you saying that they did find something? Lets see it. Come up with some proof people. It is really simple, we all have our own opinions and beliefs but facts are facts.

[Drjones]

Firestar, this link: http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html
says Iraq probably doesn't have ties with Al Quaeda.

It DOES clearly state (I quoted it above) that Iraq DOES have ties with OTHER terrorist organizations. (Al Quaeda isn't the only terrorist organization in the world, believe it or not...)

Please read this: (Oh, heck, I'll post the excerpt again) And this is a more recent article.

I could not find a date on the first site.


Iraq undoubtedly played a role in training the 9/11 hijackers to carry out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, former CIA Director James Woolsey said last month, in comments that were largely ignored by the mainstream press.

From: http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/3/13/112209

[firestar]

Iraq undoubtedly played a role in training the 9/11 hijackers to carry out attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, former CIA Director James Woolsey said last month, in comments that were largely ignored by the mainstream press.

Drjones, there is a reason those comments were ignored.:neener:

I ask for proof, you give me a guy making statments based on his assumptions. I ask for evidence, you give me opinions.

[Drjones]

What are you saying? Are you saying that they did find something? Lets see it. Come up with some proof people.
:banghead:
http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/isis-alumtubes-092302.htm

There are even two pictures for you.

Drjones, there is a reason those comments were ignored.

I ask for proof, you give me a guy making statments based on his assumptions. I ask for evidence, you give me opinions.

Yes, there is a reason those comments were ignored, though we clearly have different opinions as to why.

If the word of the former director of the CIA isn't enough for you, I don't think anything will be.

Again, even IF (BIG IF) Iraq doesn't have ties to Al Quaeda, they DO have ties to MANY OTHER terrorist groups.

:banghead:

[Thumper]

firestar,

know that they must have have some weapons of mass destruction
VS.
What are you saying? Are you saying that they did find something? Lets see it. Come

Kid...seriously...I'm actually laughing. I'm trying to think of a nice way to say this...

The international argument isn't over whether or not he has WMD...we all know he does. The argument is over what "serious consequences" in 1441 means. Wait...I just realized you have absolutely NO idea what I'm talking about.

Your ignorance and self-contradiction defeat your point.

Dr J, ignore him...he doesn't want to be confused with the facts.

[Drjones]

Thumper and firestar:

I was going to repost those two quotes of yours, but Thumper beat me to it, and its clearly moot anyway.

Thumper:

You can stun them with logic, but you can't make them think.

:rolleyes: :banghead:

I'm going to bed. Hope you are well.


Firestar:

"I've already made up my mind! Don't confuse me with the facts!"

:banghead:

[Mike Irwin]

"The aftermath and backlash of world opinion."

That will change drastically when the United States and Britain expose the breadth and depth of the Iraqi chemical and biological arsenal.

It will TRULY change if Iraq actually deploys chemical or biological weapons against American or British troops. We're now even seeing that the French will jump into the conflict if Iraq deploys WMDs.

I'd say that there's a 50/50 chance of that actually happening.

"This is an illegal war."

That's your interpretation, one shared by many others, that is true.

There are others who have made a convincing case that the previous UN Security Council resolutions in fact sanction armed intervention in Iraq.

Obviously, though, the governments of upwards 30 nations don't hold that view.


"Can we afford to be this beligerant?"

Good question, but one which begs a counter question.

Can we afford NOT to be this belligerent? It's interesting that two nations that should know all too well the effects of appeasement and colaboration are on opposite sides of this issue -- France and Britain.

It's obvious that the British have taken the lesson of how to deal with dangerous nations to heart, but that the French have not.

For the past 10 years the French have been attempting to reduce and/or eliminate many of the sanctions that have helped keep Iraq in check, even though Iraq has continuously pushed the envelope.

For example, Iraq refused to allow unlimited inspections of potential WMD sites, as required by UN mandates (to which Iraq agreed).

The French response? Reduce the sanctions, I guess in the theory that if Iraq is given a carrot, it will magically start to comply.

Iraq continually tests the limits of the No Fly Zones, attempts to plan the assassination of Pres. George Bush (the first), etc. The French response? Let's drop the sanctions totally.

Now it's come out that French companies have apparently, in violation of the UN mandates, been supplying Iraq with weapons and equipment banned under the provisos of the original UN sanctions.

What the hell is up with that?

As for Iraq's links to terrorism, I believe that it's been pretty clearly shown in the past that Iraq and Hussein has solid links to the PLO and Hezbolah (sp?), among other terrorist groups.


We, as a nation, need to get used to a simple fact of life right now.

No matter what we do, what action we take, what diplomatic avenue we approach, it is painfully clear that the United States is going to be hated and feared by a substantial portion of the world's population.

There's nothing, absolutely NOTHING, that we can do that will ever counter totally those feelings.

It is in our best interests, then, to eliminate to the greatest degree the ability of these groups to coalesce, gain support, backing, and training, and to, as necessary, eliminate the members of the groups themselves, as well as their governmental sponsors.

As President Bush has repeatedly stated, we've been at war since September 11, 2001.

I'd counter that argument, though, and say that we've actually been at war a LOT longer than that, only that we finally got around to really taking notice.

If taking that war to the enemy means toppling a few dictators and pissing off those who believe that a position of weakness and vascilation is actually a position of strength, then so be it.

[fallingblock]

I was debating about posting as I read down this thread, but your post said most of what I wanted to, so I'll just add a 'well done'.:)

In discussing these issues with others, I find that some people are blinded by their unreasoning hatred of G.W. Bush, and others are seemingly oblivious to the situation which the U.S. currently finds itself in. Bush is doing his job. Is he doing it well/correctly?
I guess we'll have to wait for that answer, but I'm sure pleased this Administration is NOT asking itself: "But what will (insert name of nation<s> here) think of us?"
:scrutiny:

[firestar]

Mike Irwin wrote:
"No matter what we do, what action we take, what diplomatic avenue we approach, it is painfully clear that the United States is going to be hated and feared by a substantial portion of the world's population.

There's nothing, absolutely NOTHING, that we can do that will ever counter totally those feelings.

It is in our best interests, then, to eliminate to the greatest degree the ability of these groups to coalesce, gain support, backing, and training, and to, as necessary, eliminate the members of the groups themselves, as well as their governmental sponsors. "

I agree. Some countries hate us and nothing we can do will solve this. They hate us for many reasons. Some of them hate us because we are a rich and powerful nation, some of them hate us because of religious differences, some of them hate us because of our policies.

We can't get everyone to like us but we really should try to limit our international policies to what is best for America. I think the actions we are taking are not going to help us in the long run. I think that we are hurting ourselves more than we are helping ourselves. I may be wrong and this war may prove to be the smartest move we have ever made but I just worry it may cost us more than we had expected. I truly hope I am wrong. I hope you guys are right and everything is going to be just fine and dandy. I hope people will not resort to terrorism against us for our actions, I hope this war does not give America a black eye, I hope this war really does limit the ablity of our enemies to harm us. I just know better and that is what bothers me.

[Thumper]

I hope people will not resort to terrorism against us for our actions

Man, that would be awful...imagine if we were victims of terrorism. :rolleyes:

I can't think of anything more pathetic than someone who doesn't realize that they're in a fight.

Never mind...yeah I can...

The guy that knows he's in a fight (were you awake on 9/11), but doesn't hit back out of blind cowardice as to the other guy will do.

"Waaaah, please don't hurt me..."

Pathetic.

[Scott Evans]

Firestar,
Iraq is a clear and present danger to the US in that Sadam intends to do grave harm as and when he is capable. Of the many actively pursued venues being developed by Iraq to accomplish this bio and nuclear weapons are potentially the most devastating. Sadam currently has Bio capability and is continuing to refine such and he is nearing a capable status with the nuks. I could care less about UN resolutions or coalitions in this.

If a man aims a firearm at your head, all the while he is proclaiming “I won’t shoot I have no bullets”, then what you do next depends entirely upon what you believe to be true. If you believe the man intends you no harm who refuses to take the aim of his weapon away from your direction ; or you think such is “not so bad” because you believe he has no bullets … then you might just choose to turn your back and go about your business. However; and regardless of what the man says or even despite the actual facts concerning loaded or unloaded a prudent individual who is thinking clearly must recognize that the aimed weapon is a grave and real threat. Deadly force in such a case is justified and is reasonably the only sensible course.

So don’t ask that Iraq detonate a nuke or cause a plague or that we be able to put our hands on such items prior to our responding with force. The fact that he has taken aim and may have WOMD is justification enough for war. Diplomacy has not worked and will not work any time soon.

So get your head out of the sand and buck up to do what is necessary.

[igor]

As President Bush has repeatedly stated, we've been at war since September 11, 2001.

Mike, no doubt about either (i.e. that you've been at war since 9/11 nor that pres. Bush has repeatedly stated that).

But against whom? Wars are declared and waged between nations, with armies that can be fought. This War on Terrorism looks like the War on Drugs or... say... War on Surrealism. It's not a war, it should be something entirely different.

A terrorist "organization" with a bearded face to give it some shape and identifiability did a terrible deed back then and... vanished, if there indeed was anything left of it besides the face and name.

Off to War it was then, first ... ahem... let's see... ok, Afghanistan sounds good, it's close to Absurdistan, there are some bad ragheads too, let's hit'em good.

Dang, no responsible parties for the attack found nor any future threat eliminated. Next?

Well, there's this sociopathic murderer Iznogoud there in the Gulf area, he messed with our oil before and is a general PIA, let's finish what we started there, shall we. Put an end to the uncertainty about his Kill-a-Kurd gear too. And liberate the poor peoples he's been oppressing and torturing for the past decades too, then all the world will be fine with freedom and justice for all.

Could President Bush possibly be this a) stupid b) altruistic c) helpless? What is THIS all about then?

[2dogs]

firestar

9-11 mastermind Iraqi agent?
Author questions identity of captured al-Qaida operative

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: March 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern



© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Senior al-Qaida operative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is not the man he says he is, according to author Laurie Mylroie, who claims if U.S. authorities would do a little digging, they'd discover Mohammed is an Iraqi intelligence agent – a fact that would serve as smoking-gun evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the terror of Sept. 11.

Mylroie, an adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the book "The War Against America," laid out her claim in an editorial published by the Wall Street Journal.

Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, March 1 and has been providing interrogators with critical information about al-Qaida operations and ongoing attack plots, according to U.S. officials.

WorldNetDaily has reported that Mohammed is being subjected to ''stress and duress''-style interrogation techniques at the Bagram U.S. military base in Afghanistan and has been told that his sons are being held by the U.S.

As the operational leader of the al-Qaida terrorist network, Mohammed is said to be the mastermind of the Sept. 11 terror attacks and is thought to have planned the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings and the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

Mylroie maintains Mohammed is a Pakistani Baluch, along with Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. The two collaborated with a third Baluch in 1995, Abdul Hakam Murad, in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes. The plot, called "Project Bojinka," involved ramming a fuel-laden airliner into the Pentagon.

Baluchs are Sunni Muslims who live in the desert regions of eastern Iran and western Pakistan – Baluchistan – and have longstanding ties to Iraqi intelligence. Wafiq Samarrai, former chief of Iraqi military intelligence explains that Iraqi intelligence worked with the Baluch during the Iran-Iraq war.

WorldNetDaily also reported that information gleaned from the Mohammed interrogations sparked a major new hunt for al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden that was centered around the Baluchistan region. Mohammed said he recently met with bin Laden in the area, and there reportedly have been numerous sightings of bin Laden in the area on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border.

Mylroie said Mohammed, Yousef and Murad, are part of a tight circle.

Their identities are based on documents from Kuwaiti files that predate Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi occupation. These documents form the basis of Mylroie's false-identity theory. When Iraq occupied Kuwait in 1990 and 1991, it used some Kuwaiti files to create false identities for key agents, according to Mylroie.

There is evidence Yousef's file was tampered with. The front pages of his passport, including his picture and signature are missing. Extraneous information was also inserted: The notation that Yousef and his family left Kuwait on Aug. 26, 1990 – during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait – and traveled through Iraq on their way to Pakistani Baluchistan in Iran.

Mylroie points out people don't provide authorities with itineraries when crossing a border.

She concludes Yousef is an Iraqi agent who assumed the identity of Abdul Basit Karim, a Kuwaiti who disappeared during Iraq's occupation. Records show Yousef entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, but fled on a passport in the name of Abdul Basit Karim.

According to Mylroie, New York FBI – particularly its director, Jim Fox – believed that the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was an Iraqi intelligence operation.

The Los Angeles Times uncovered critical family ties between Mohammed and Karim.

"What little is known about the sister [of Mohammed]," reports the paper, "includes one compelling piece of information: She is thought to be the mother of Abdul Karim Basit, better known as Ramzi Ahmed Yousef."

Mylroie deduces that Mohammed would know if someone was falsely passing himself off as his nephew, and therefore, must be an Iraqi operative as well.

According to documents, Mohammed was born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents on April 19, 1965. That puts Mohammed just under 38 years of age.

In a final point, Mylroie suggests the graying sideburns and heavy jowls in Mohammed's arrest photo circulated by federal agents belong to someone substantially older than 38.

Mylroie's deduction is in keeping with what she has argued for years: Saddam Hussein is likely behind the terrorism against U.S. interests that has occurred throughout the world since the 1991 Persian Gulf War.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click here to read WorldNetDaily's stories on the link between Iraq and al-Qaida

[2dogs]

And, since I'm bound to get the "oh World Net Daily consider the source blah blah blah..........................check here and several other places.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/COMMUNITY/10/29/mylroie/

Laurie Mylroie: Is Iraq involved with U.S. terror attacks?
October 29, 2001 Posted: 2:36 PM EST (1936 GMT)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Laurie Mylroie is the author of "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War," which outlines her case that Iraq had a central role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. She served as an adviser on Iraq to the 1992 Clinton presidential campaign. Mylroie is currently vice-president of "Information for Democracy," and the publisher of "Iraq News."

CNN: Thank you for joining us today, Laurie Mylroie, and welcome.

LAURIE MYLROIE: Hi, and thank you all for coming to the chat room.

CNN: You believe that Saddam Hussein was involved in both attacks the 1993 and September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. Why?

MYLROIE: You can demonstrate to the high legal standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is used for criminal conviction, that Iraq was behind the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, by showing that Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of that bomb, was an Iraqi intelligence agent. I do that in "Study of Revenge." That bomb, in 1993, aimed to topple the north tower onto the south tower. Eight years later, someone came back and finished the job. Since Iraq was behind the first attack, it is suggestive of the point that Iraq was behind the second attack.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Is there any proof at all that Hussein is involved in the anthrax scares?

MYLROIE: There is no proof that Saddam is involved in the anthrax scares, but proof is different from evidence. Proof, according to the dictionary, is conclusive demonstration. Evidence is something that indicates, like your smile is evident of your affection for me. There is evidence that Iraq is behind the anthrax scares. First, it takes a highly sophisticated agency to produce anthrax in the lethal form that was in the letter sent to Senator Daschle. Not many parties can do that. Second, there is an additive in that anthrax, bentonite, which is used to cause the anthrax to not stick together, and float in the air. Iraq is the only party known to have produced anthrax with bentonite.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Should the U.S.take action against Iraq?

MYLROIE: Yes. It is necessary for the United States to take action against Iraq. The 1991 Gulf War never ended. We continue it in the form of an economic siege whose origins lie in the Gulf War. And also, we bomb Iraq on a regular basis, and Saddam continues his part of the war in the form of terrorism. It is unlikely that that anthrax will remain in letters. It is likely that it will be used at some point, for example, in the subway of a city, or in the ventilation system of a U.S. building. Saddam wants revenge against us. He wants to do to the U.S. what we've done to Iraq. One way he can do that is terrorism, particularly biological terrorism.

CHAT PARTICPANT: What is the connection between bin Ladden and Saddam?

MYLROIE: Bin Laden and Hussein work together. The contact between the two was made in the 1990s when bin Laden was based in Sudan. Iraq intelligence also had a major presence in Sudan then. There were other widely reported contacts between bin Laden and Iraq intelligence, such as in December, 1998 when Farook Hajazi traveled to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Hajazi is a senior intelligence officer. Bin Laden provides the ideology, he recruits the foot soldiers, and he provides a smokescreen. Iraqi intelligence provides the direction and training for the terrorism.

CNN: You hold the Clinton administration responsible for Hussein's involvement in all of these attacks. Why?

MYLROIE: Iraq is a difficult problem, and has been since the Gulf War. Many mistakes have been made, because it's inevitable that in human endeavor there are mistakes. Under the Clinton administration, specifically in February 1993 with the first attack on the Trade Center, Clinton dealt with the issue dishonestly. New York FBI believed in 1993 that Iraq was behind the Trade Center bombing. That was accepted by the White House, that New York FBI might well be right. In June, 1993, Clinton attacked Iraqi intelligence headquarters. He said that that was punishment for Saddam's attempt to kill George Bush when Bush visited Kuwait in April, but Clinton also believed that it would deter Saddam from all future attacks of terrorism, and that it would address the WTC bombing, too, so that Saddam would not think to carry out further attacks against the U.S.

And then the Clinton administration put out a false and fraudulent explanation for terrorism, saying that terrorism was no longer state-sponsored, but carried out by individuals. That false and fraudulent explanation was accepted and allowed Saddam to continue to attack the U.S. The reason Clinton dealt with terrorism in that fashion was because he did not understand the kind of threat that Saddam could pose, and by taking care of the terrorism in New York in that fashion, he avoided riling American public opinion, which might have demanded then, back in 1993, that he do a great deal more.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Do you believe this will eventually escalate into a much broader conflict as other states are identified as helping terrorist organizations?

MYLROIE: I believe that it is necessary to shift the war to Iraq and to do so as soon as possible, because Iraq is a primary threat, the primary terrorist threat to the United States, and as the anthrax shows, that threat can become very, very great. It's necessary to get rid of Saddam.

CNN: The George W. Bush administration publicly focuses on Osama bin Laden and remains internally at odds over whether to implicate Hussein and Iraq in the current war. Is that a mistake?

MYLROIE: Yes, it is a mistake to avoid implicating Iraq, or to be unable to reach a decision about that. If we do not say that we suspect Iraq in the anthrax attacks, then Saddam will have no reason not to escalate to the next step. The next step could be that anthrax used in another fashion which is more deadly, or it could be anthrax that is resistant to antibiotics. We won't be able to treat it, as we can now.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Have you spoken with officials about this information?

MYLROIE: Yes I have spoken with officials, in particular in the Pentagon. The Pentagon shares this view.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: You mentioned the bentonite in the anthrax, and yet we hear that the CIA and FBI are looking at home sources of that anthrax? Why are they not also viewing that as from Iraq rather than a U.S. source?

MYLROIE: That is a good question. Bob Bartley in the Wall Street Journal takes on that question. While one might say it is not impossible that an individual who is very knowledgeable, with access to a good lab, could have produced that in the U.S., it is also extremely unlikely. Iraq is a much more likely candidate. Bartley compares it to the situation of the elephant in the room that some people just don't want to see, including, apparently, the FBI and the CIA. But the American people can see the elephant in the room, and Iraq is a much more likely suspect than an individual in the U.S.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Is it possible that perhaps Iraq is waiting for us to accuse them and then take anthrax to the next level?

MYLROIE: We are in a very, very difficult situation. If we say clearly that it is Iraq, and we're going to get Saddam, then it is likely that he will do his best to bring his enemies down with him. It is true that we face the danger then of more deadly attacks, including anthrax attacks. If we do not say it is Saddam, we will also face the danger of more deadly attacks. This is a terrible situation. Yet I prefer to deal with the losses that will come by taking on Saddam than to be subject to the losses that will occur if we remain sitting ducks. It would seem that some ambiguity in the beginning is the best thing. If we shift the focus from Afghanistan to Iraq, we are indeed at war, and during war, extreme measures may have to be taken. For example, we might think to get children and all non-essential personnel out of U.S. cities while this war goes on, which we will carry out very quickly, or to have people remaining in U.S. cities where they are a target, wearing masks pretty much all the time, in order to deal with this problem which we should address quickly rather than slowly.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Is the reason behind the government not admitting to Iraq's involvement over the oil situation?

MYLROIE: I don't think that the oil situation is a factor. I think that at least two things are at work. First, there is a great confusion because for eight years Clinton treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue, with the emphasis on arresting individuals and bringing them to justice, trying and convicting them. That had the effect of obscuring the role of states in terrorism, particularly Iraq. But in addition, those who went along with his view of terrorism are now personally invested in it, and they are reluctant to give up that view. That would include George Tenet, a Clinton appointee who still heads the CIA, and I believe, the intelligence coming from the CIA is skewed. It may also be that there is an influence of former President Bush and Bush's top advisors from the 1991 Gulf War on President Bush. Some of those people, including former President Bush, Brent Scocroft, his national security advisor, Colin Powell, have not acknowledged that it was an error to end the war in 1991 with Saddam in power, and that may color their judgment now.

CHAT PARTICIPANT: Laurie, is your book still in print? I have been trying to find it in book stores without success.

MYLROIE: The book is still in print. It is now available in hardcover as "Study of Revenge," and it will soon be available in paperback as "The War Against America." Both are listed on Amazon now.

CNN: Do you have any closing comments to share with us?

MYLROIE: I would like to thank everyone for participating in this discussion today, to remind you to emphasize that we face a very, very serious problem. We must deal correctly with it, or the loss of American lives may be very large. And again, I'd like to let people know about my book. It's currently out as "Study of Revenge," and will be available shortly as "The War Against America," published by Regan Books.

CNN: Thank you for joining us today.

MYLROIE: My pleasure. Thank you.

Laurie Mylroie joined the chat via telephone from Washington DC. CNN provided a typist for her. This is an edited transcript of the interview, which took place on Monday, October 29, 2001.

[Double Naught Spy]

I've read some really bizarre conspiracy theory and anti-government parallels, but linking Waco and Iraq in terms of how US Government authorities/forces operate(d) has got the be one of the most bizarre ones I have read.

[Scott Evans]

Igor,
Your head is in the sand too … Nothing of what you said is on the mark.

Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists. NO MORE


What is THIS all about then?

1. Reducing the number of living breathing terrorist there by reducing the possibility of more attacks. If they’re dead they can’t plan anything else.

2. Elevating the cost of being a terrorist or supporting such to the point that NO government on earth will support such nor turn a blind eye.

3. Retribution so that others may fear our wrath when we are wronged. i.e. this is deterrence.

4. Minimizing the availability of Weapons of Mass Destruction that are available to would be terrorist.

5. US national sovereignty. It’s about a leader who with honor and integrity and courage is performing his sworn duty to protect our nation FIRST, above all else, against all enemies foreign or domestic.

The rest of you just benefit from it without cost.

[igor]

Scott,

1. I'd think there is quite a significant number of alive and planning terrorists elsewhere than waiting to be decimated in Baghdad. Could you tell an Arab from a usual casual wanderer over your southern border? Not many needed.
2. This is a never-ending road as a principal. I'd say terrorist organizations have become independent enough from national governments and boundaries, much the same way as global businesses.
3. Having sensed the to us westerners crazy defiance inherent in these cultures, this could prove counterproductive.
4. Minimizing the availability of WMD in the world by leveling one rogue nation that could have some?
5. National sovereignty'r'us. But which nation's? Or which stakeholders' and where?

And, the rest of us benefit just what? :scrutiny:

[Mike Irwin]

Igor...

"But against whom? Wars are declared and waged between nations, with armies that can be fought. This War on Terrorism looks like the War on Drugs or... say... War on Surrealism. It's not a war, it should be something entirely different."

I disagree that wars are necessarily waged against nations, or are declared. The concept of war is so much more than just a struggle between nations, and that's the situation in which we're in.

Would you say that being under siege means only that your walled city is surrounded by Knights Templars?

The term War is used because it is an easy concept to understand for most people, as opposed to, say "A geopolitical, religiously based antagonism with moral, racial, and economic overtones."

I also disagree that "this is something else" completely.

While it doesn't "look" like a traditional war, it still has many of the same underpinnings and overtones.

Was World War II more a war because large armies were employed in the field?

Or was it less of a war because much more than just fighting your enemy in the field was considered, things such as political, economic, and social ramifications that were felt to be as important, if not more important in some cases, than actual combat operations?


"We can't get everyone to like us but we really should try to limit our international policies to what is best for America."

Uh... OK.

I suppose, then, that you think that America has actively and consciously pursued international policies that are seen to be in America's WORST interests?

Yow.

OK.

First off, I can't see how anyone could ever consider that removing Hussein/Iraq's ability to produce and distribute chemical, biological, or perhaps even nuclear weapons as anything OTHER than being in America's best interests.

Secondly, I would hope that no American leader has ever gotten up first thing in the morning and said "I think I'm going to float something today that I know to be absolutely counter to America's best interests. Who knows, maybe I can get lots of Americans killed just for my own amusement."

It's pure fantasy to believe that choosing the solutions that are most beneficial to America would generate anything other than animosity towards our nation.

For example...

It has long been seen to be in America's best interests to support the governments of Israel as well as those of numerous Arab nations.

An action in America's best interests, one that promotes parity, with just a little brinksmanship, as a means of promoting greater overall stability in the Middle East.

Stability in the Middle East is certainly a top notch candidate for something that is in America's best interests.

Yet, in the Arab world, we're hated for the support we give Israel.

In Israel, we're hated for the support we give to the Arabs.

Support no one? Just pull out? Now how is that in America's best interests? It will just engender MORE hatred, because we'll have "abandoned" our friends.

Diplomacy is nothing more than a series of Catch 22s that you balance as best you can.

But here's the ugly, ugly, truth.

It's not a question of IF there will ever be an NBC attack on American soil.

It's a question of when.

Definitive actions taken now to interdict rogue states that have the capability to supply these weapons and fund and recruit those who would use them, will go a long way toward reducing the probability of an attack in our life time, the severity of such and attack, and the cost in American lives.

Six months ago I was adamantly opposed to war in Iraq. You only need to go over to The Firing Line and search on some of my messages from the last half of last year to see where I stood on the issue.

I'm still conflicted about the necessity for war.

But I'm a LOT more comfortable with the concept now than I was 6 months ago.

The evidence exists, in my opinion, to support the forced disarmament of Iraq.

The potential consequences are simply too great to ignore.

[firestar]

Somebody made the analogy of Iraq as a guy with a gun pointed at our head. Let me take this further. Suppose there are three bad guys, one who has shot and irjured us (Al Quada), one with a cocked and loaded gun pointed right at our face (N. Korea) and one guy who doesn't have a gun yet but when he does get around to getting one, we are pretty sure he is going to use it on us (Iraq). Which one of these three guys should we go after? We are going after the guy that shot us so that is being taken care of, so who is next? Hmmm? I wonder. Lets go get the guy who is the smallest threat. That makes perfect sense to me. I am joking of course but I that is the logic we are useing.

On another point, lets face it, the War on Terrorism is a joke. Its like declaring a war on hate. At no point in time will we be able to say that we have won. We will never get them all. We will never be free of people that hate us and want to harm us via terrorist action. It is a war that we can never win and a war with no end.

I am not against the war on Iraq, I just think we have more pressing problems right now. I don't think it is the right time. If nothing else, we should at least try to get more countries behind us so we don't end up paying the entire bill. Bush is clearly not the diplomat that his father was. Still, I think we should not "misunderestimate" his people skills. :rolleyes:

[Hkmp5sd]

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/south/03/06/bin.laden.alive/story.ksmohammed.ap.jpg

[DRC]

This is a transcript of an Iraqi defector that was also a captain at Salman Pak a secret terrorist training camp in Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

Perhaps hearing from one of the horses mouths will help.

"Somebody made the analogy of Iraq as a guy with a gun pointed at our head. Let me take this further. Suppose there are three bad guys, one who has shot and irjured us (Al Quada), one with a cocked and loaded gun pointed right at our face (N. Korea) and one guy who doesn't have a gun yet but when he does get around to getting one, we are pretty sure he is going to use it on us (Iraq). Which one of these three guys should we go after? We are going after the guy that shot us so that is being taken care of, so who is next? Hmmm? I wonder. Lets go get the guy who is the smallest threat. That makes perfect sense to me. I am joking of course but I that is the logic we are useing."

Your basing your arguement on an assumption with no fact attached. Most of the counterpoints on this thread have cited evidence after evidence and fact after fact. So to be fair let me ask some questions. If Iraq doesn't have a "gun" then why are they destroying them? If Iraq doesn't have chemical and biological components then why were they found? If Iraq has no intention of hurting the US then what is Salman Pak there for? If there is no link between Al Queda and Iraq then why did Usama say there was in the last video? Also why does Iraq train terrorists of all nationalities? If Iraq couldn't launch these weapons into the US then how did the fellas from 9/11 get here. No, they didn't have a rocket strapped to their backsides nor were they carrying a biological, chemical or nuclear payload but they certainly did a lot of damage, plus Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capabilities to launch missiles into the US but they sure did a good job with the hijackers. Saddam is better equipped than Saudi Arabia so just think of all the things he could do if given the chance besides training terrorists.

"On another point, lets face it, the War on Terrorism is a joke. Its like declaring a war on hate. At no point in time will we be able to say that we have won. We will never get them all. We will never be free of people that hate us and want to harm us via terrorist action. It is a war that we can never win and a war with no end."

First your implication is that by the War in Iraq we've given up on looking for Al Queda and Bin Ladin, but we haven't. We've capture at last count some 3,000 Al Queda and suspected Al Queda including a king pin all while this war planning has been going on. Can we do two things at once? Evidently we can and quite well I might add. Can we win the war on terroism? Yes. How long will it take? I don't know about you but I'll fight it for as long as I have to because I'm just that kind of guy :) A war with no end? Aren't they all?

"I am not against the war on Iraq, I just think we have more pressing problems right now. I don't think it is the right time. If nothing else, we should at least try to get more countries behind us so we don't end up paying the entire bill. Bush is clearly not the diplomat that his father was. Still, I think we should not "misunderestimate" his people skills."

GW is an intresting conundrum "because" of his father not "despite" his father. Basically Bush 41 was a softer spoken easier going person and thus was seen as being very diplomatic and good at putting others at ease where GW is seen as more brash, blunt and direct. The one thing taken out of the equation and so often over looked by people such as yourself is the times and circumstances that present themselves. During GW's fathers presidency we had not been attached on our own soil and liberating Kuwait was done for our allies. Today we face attacks on our own soil, attacks on our allies and the proliferation of weapons for indiscriminant purposes. All of this amid an air that has been poisoning this country for some time now called pasivity. Being passive is a weakness not a strength when using it to deal with people such as Saddam and his ilk.

For people such as Saddam if you want to sit for a hunger strike not only will he let you but he'll even take your food away so you can't change your mind in the future. Think of it this way, if I were Saddam and you decided to stand unarmed in front of my tank, I would run you over, but if you moved out of the way I would shoot you. Why? Because you came to fight a battle unarmed. So what you have are two people fighting for the same goal but fighting two completely different battles. Diplomacy with Saddam won't work. 12 years plus of diplomacy haven't worked with Saddam. Another problem that GW faces because Saddam expects us to be weak and expects the president to back down because that is what has happened for so many years. Now that we're not backing down it's a whole new ball game. No one except us knows what to do so, caos and confusion are what's guiding some of our allies presently. They talked tough but once it came down to it they weren't prepared for actually having to do anything and never expected to have to honestly.

Well, that's about all I can add for now but don't worry about not having the necessary information to make an educated assessment of the situation. Unless you spend as much time as some of us do looking at news and current events or perusing politics you might not ever be privy to this information.

Take care,

DRC.

[firestar]

Can we win the war on terroism? Yes. How long will it take? I don't know about you but I'll fight it for as long as I have to because I'm just that kind of guy A war with no end? Aren't they all?

When I wrote that we could never win the war on terrorism, I never thought ANYONE could possibly question that statment. Apparently you found a way.:rolleyes: I'm just curious, how exactly are we ever going to win the war on terrorism? When will there be no more terrorist to threaten us? Bush said it might take as much as 50 years to win it. I would be VERY surprised if sometime in the next 50 years we can say we have finally won.

Well thats the last of em. Got them all, everybody loves us now. No more terrorists. Yeeeehaaaw! :rolleyes: Come on! You can't seriously believe that crap.

[Intune]

igor, you said: “Could President Bush possibly be this a) stupid b) altruistic c) helpless?”

Other than being insulting and condescending towards our President, you omitted the correct choice- d) right on target and backed by the best advisors and military in the world.

I didn’t care for your term “ragheads” either. Is that how people in Scandinavia refer to anyone without blonde hair and blue eyes? Sounds hauntingly familiar. Auslanders?

Ask the Afghanis how they feel about liberation from Taliban rule.

I was going to do an a, b, c, analogy regarding people from Scandinavia but I’ll refrain, High Road, don’tcha know…

[Intune]

firestar, you seem to disagree with quite a few of our current administration’s policies. Please render a few of your salient points in dealing with the evil that faces us if you were leading our country. How do YOU deal with people who are trying to kill you and your loved ones?

[Thumper]

It's obvious, intune...he'd leave them alone so they wouldn't hurt him anymore....

It's not cowardice... :barf:

Seriously...it's starting now...the only thing firestar can possibly do is undermine support for those in harm's way.

Speaking as a guy who was in the sand last time, I'm absolutely sickened..and more than a little angry.

I'm guessing he's about twelve and just doesn't know any better.

Peter Arnett is saying he's hearing sirens and seeing anti aircraft fire.

God bless our pilots and navigators.

[fallingblock]

"Well thats the last of em. Got them all, everybody loves us now. No more terrorists. Yeeeehaaaw! Come on! You can't seriously believe that crap."
****************************************************
Well, no, that's YOUR 'crap'.

"Everybody loves us now"? What the heck does that have to do with winning the WoT?

If the enemy is dead and/or is too terrified to attack us, we've won:D

[firestar]

fallingblock,
So your solution is to kill everyone that disagrees with us? When we have either killed eveyone or scared them into hiding then we have won? Think about what you are saying! Come on man, thats just nuts! I bet you wish you were in charge right now. You could kill me because I have a different opinion than you do. :rolleyes: What a wonderful society you could make.

:uhoh:

[Mike Irwin]

"On another point, lets face it, the War on Terrorism is a joke. Its like declaring a war on hate. At no point in time will we be able to say that we have won. We will never get them all."

Incredible. You've missed the point of the entire War on Terrorism.

You're correct, we never will be able to root out every terrorist.

That's not feasible.

But that's also NOT the point of the War on Terrorism.

What is feasible, and what the point of the War on Terrorism is, though, is to break the organized groups that are able to plan, finance, coordinate, and carryout the kind of attacks that we saw on September 11 and the bombings of the embassies in Africa.

Those attacks required a high degree of planning, large sums of money, centralized control, and a well defined, quasi-military heirarchy in order to operate.

You kill that organization, you chase its operatives down, you cut off its funding, and you go a LONG way toward crushing its ability to strike out.

How can anyone not understand that concept?

[fallingblock]

You are misquoting-again;)

"So your solution is to kill everyone that disagrees with us? When we have either killed eveyone or scared them into hiding then we have won? Think about what you are saying! Come on man, thats just nuts! I bet you wish you were in charge right now. You could kill me because I have a different opinion than you do. What a wonderful society you could make."
****************************************************
I wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If the enemy is dead and/or is too terrified to attack us, we've won.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

See the difference?

No mention of any "wonderful society", that is an irrelevant term in this discussion.

Nothing about "scared them into hiding"...nope, I want them to realize that if they attack us, we'll get them...period! They can be out in the open, as long as they know to be terrified of the consequences of an attack on us.

You may say "that's just nuts", but it is the way of the world...check your history if you doubt it. Wanting it to be otherwise makes not a whit of difference.

Your opinion is yours, firestar...why would I want to harm you for it? Is it just possible that you frequently harbor such feelings for the opinion of others and choose to 'project' it this way?:scrutiny:

[guitar7272]

Firestar,

Opinions and actions are two different things. You have your opinions, as does everyone else here on this board... BUT no one on here is opinionated to the point that were busy hijacking planes, blowing up night clubs, and/or martyring ourselfs. Think about what YOUR saying, because drawing that inference is JUST NUTS.

Consider this a conditioning of the terrorist mind. If we can show them that every time they rear their ugly heads and take innocent lives, we will come back at them with a vengance with everything we've got, they might, just might think twice. If that prevents them from acting, great, if it doesn't at least well have our revenge. We are a freedom loving people, and Ill be damned if I'm gonna let some two-bit, cave-dwelling, bitter, jealous terrorist hold this nation in the grip of fear.

God bless this great country, and God damn those who would do us harm.

[Scott Evans]

quote by firestar:
When I wrote that we could never win the war on terrorism, I never thought ANYONE could possibly question that statment.

let's see ...

5000 hate crazed, arrogant, well funded terrorist with little intervention from the US, who are well organized, well trained and in constant communication = much in the way of the damage they can do and this encourages others to join their numbers.

As oppose to …

3000 already dead, 2000 intimated, on the run, in deep hiding, actively pursued, little funded, unorganized, rarely able to risk communication, 24 hours a day in fear of their now miserable hate filled less and less significant lives = not much time or capability to actively engage in destructive efforts or in the recruitment or training of would be new members.

We can, and will, significantly reduce their impact to the point of near irrelevance.

Connect the dots … will-ya please!?

[DRC]

"When I wrote that we could never win the war on terrorism, I never thought ANYONE could possibly question that statment. Apparently you found a way. I'm just curious, how exactly are we ever going to win the war on terrorism? When will there be no more terrorist to threaten us? Bush said it might take as much as 50 years to win it. I would be VERY surprised if sometime in the next 50 years we can say we have finally won."

Bush didn't commit to a set number of years. What he said was it could take years, 50 or even longer. I too would be surprised if we could say that as well, but then lets wait and see if there is a Democrat or a Republican in office first. If its a Republican they won't say it, but if it's a Democrat they would probably plaster it all over the place.

Yup I found a way to argue it. Just as many have said, an ongoing deterant will win the war on terrorism. I never said it would rid the world of terrorists. Think of it this way, why do terrorists not hijack planes in Isreal? Because Isreal does not negotiate with hijackers, they blow the plane up. The intresting thing is that the first and last time a hijacker took over a plane in Isreal they thought that isreal was bluffing when they said there would be no negotiations. The hijacker was given ample time to relenquish command of the plane and come out with his hands in the air to be arrested. He did not do as order and the plane was blown up with passengers aboard when the Isaid it would be. Now, did this rid the world of terrorists or hijackers? No, but guess what it did do? It eliminated the threat of it being done again because a wouldbe hijacker or terrorist knows they would die before accomplishing their goal. In otherwords there is a consequence to their action that they cannot get around. Isreal is still terrorised but when a bomb goes off and kills Isrealis the Isrealis kill some of theirs.

"Well thats the last of em. Got them all, everybody loves us now. No more terrorists. Yeeeehaaaw! Come on! You can't seriously believe that crap."

Why can't I? You believe yours. :)

To be fair lets take a hypothetical situation for a minute, if you walked up to a stranger and pulled a knife on them but didn't know how to use it as well as the stranger and the stranger managed to get the knife away from you and stabbed you with it, would you try it again if you lived? I would seriously doubt you would, plus you proabably wouldn't try it again on anyone because you would then understand that you don't know what the other party is capable of. Risks become too great at that point and yes, even terrorists sworn to allegence with promises of vestal virgins will still use judgement inorder to accomplish their goals.

If you, me and everyone else is always on the lookout for possible problems then it makes it harder for things like 9/11 to happen. It was easy for those on 9/11 because we were too compacent and weren't watching for these things because we never thought it could happen to us. Now we know it can and we will fight to the death to make sure it doesn't happen again. I'll keep my eyes and ears open, you do the same and we will win the war on terrorism. If they can't get it by you without you seeing it or saying and doing something about it they cannot succeed and lives are saved.

Keep up the good work even though you may not know you're doing any.

DRC

[TexasVet]

________________________________________
quote:
"The U.N. weapons inspectors have not found anything that violates the mandates. If there is some evidence that contradicts this, I would love to hear it."
________________________________________

I guess you loved the news about the Scud launch into Kuwait last night. Especially since Scuds are one of those "violates the mandates" weapons that Iraq is not allowed to have and that the inspectors somehow couldn't find.:rolleyes:
Of course, we are ignoring the other three launches, because they were the type of short range rockets that they "were destroying" last week or two. While they kept the assembly line running, making more.)
Nope, no evidence here, keep moving...