Saddam's Iraq a Training Ground for Terrorists

Yeah, see, documents - secret documents - that pro-admin Hayes somehow got access to prove that Saddam supported the gasp! Sudanese Islamic Army.

Well, that's interesting in it's own leaky way, I guess, but wake me when the documents are disclosed and verified.

 

Saddam's Iraq no longer exists. There is no shortage of Iraqi's who are quite happy with that fact.

 

Umm, it didn't occur to me, but... okay, sure. Sounds good.

Can I go get my caffiene free diet coke now?

 

Why would you say such a thing?

Do you think that a secret document selectively leaked is proof of anything? It's not even good evidence.

 

Of course, it can, but can is not is. Furthermore, that the article was written by someone "pro-admin" was not my objection, but that it was based on a secret document, selectively leaked which no one can fact-check. Such things always smell fishy.

Of course not - that's a foolish thing to say.

And what is my "agenda" and who gets to decide? If you would, please keep to the OP and slack off the insults and insinuations. My comments have been about the topic. If your entire defense of what is posted is simply to attack me on a personal level, then I assume that you have nothing of substance to say, but "Is too!"

First, what report? The article by Hayes? I presume that it is correct in the details, but misleading in what it leaves out. But if you mean the secret documents are correct in their entirety, well, that bet will be a long time in settling.

Second, do you think Saddam's support of the Sudanese Islamic Army is really justification for wrecking Iraq? Who are they and what have they done in this world? How does his support of them compare to our support of the Taliban and mujahadeen in terms of danger to the USA and the stability of the MidEast?

Third, and I repeat as you declined to answer before, do you think that a secret document selectively leaked is proof of anything? Do you think it is really important news or admin spin?

 

We'll see, but it looks like mere spin.

You seem not to have understood the argument if that is the conclusion you've drawn. Much of the impetus for the Iraqi invasion was gained by the admin's deft linking of Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden (who?) when there was little connection between them or between Saddam and al Qaeda. However, it was well-known and rarely denied that Saddam was connected to Palestinian terrorism and the Hamas. The Hamas are still around, actually gaining some legitimacy in the recent elections. They never posed much threat to the US.

The Sudanese Islamic Army posed even less threat to the US.

Yeah, but which terrorists - ones who posed a threat to us or ones who did not? Remember, much was made of it being a "pre-emptive strike" with the US being under threat of an imminent attack and force to defend herself. This really has not turned out to be the case.

The administration could verify & release the secret document whenever it choses. The antiwar nabobs have always maintained that there was more to Iraq than the WMDs - namely oil (which has not turned out to expectations) and a strategic military-political base in the Mideast (which has also turned out rather badly).

Is there anything new in this secret information? What is the information contained in the secret document? How can anyone judge the worth of the document or the information it contains while it remains secret? All we have is an article about some selectively leaked information which may stand or which may be contradicted by other information in the secret document.

The first we heard of what? I never heard of the Sudanese Islamic Army before.

Covered up? It's a SECRET document - if anyone is covering it up, it would have to be those who keep it secret. Ignored? The White House leaked it to a nationally known pundit who wrote about it. Suppressed? Well, it is secret, but hardly suppressed.

[ January 13, 2006, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: Daisy ]

 

That links to an interesting site. Here is Dr. Poontz's take on Bert and Osama (who?) and anthrax, back when Bert was evil:

In the first paragraph of the article you link to:

However, our own government says that he was not in Prague at that time; he was in the US.

At the very least, it is disputed.

 

No, it seems like mere spin because the source is from the administration which is in a position to make the secret documents in question available for scrutiny but won't, not even heavily redacted.

Exactly. We invaded Iraq, which posed no real threat to us, on the pretext that it did, on the cynical pretext that one group was exactly the same as another.

As for sponsoring "outlaws and killers of innocence" take a gander at Reagan's policies in Central American and the Mideast. Look at the history of the mujahadeen. Look at Secretary of State Rumsfeld's 1983 trip to Iraq, after Saddam gassed his own people.

 

Hmm selective targeting of terrorists? That's profiling. And that's wrong.

I really wasnt aware that a distinction should be made of which terrorists are bad and which arent so bad, - okay, arent so bad 'today'.

Saddam has never thought of the Kurds as 'his people'. And the ones I met? Well, lets just say the feeling was mutual.

 

**sigh** Racial profiling is wrong because it it too broad and unspecific - too many innocent people will be targetted for simply being the wrong race. I'm surprised that you would make that mistake.

Then Bush's message has succeeded with you.

I try to make that point from time to time, but I doubt most people care to understand - perhaps because the phrase is so catchy.

 

Not sure which phrase is so catchy. I am sure the Kurds within the Iraqi borders didnt like Saddam because they were constantly the targets of his own brand of terrorism.

As far as being a terrorist goes, there should be no distinction made. If you are a terrorist, then you get what you get. In any land on any sea. I have no idea what the 'Bush message' is, but having seen enough of those scourges of the earth, I have arrived at that conclusion all on my own.

You have no idea when someone is laughing at your posts, do you? I am pretty sure I know what racial profiling is, but it is quite evident that you dont. Thanks anyway. LOL

 

"His own people"

You're saying we should not distinguish between those who attack us, who pose a threat, and those who do not?

How about between those we sponsor and those we do not?

Often it is hard to tell when a person who consistently posts ignorant, thoughtless and inflammatory stuff is sincere and when they are not.

Like I said, it is hard to tell when certain people are feigning ignorance given the general tenor of their posts. Since you claim to know what I do not, please inform me on the difference between racial profiling and criminal profiling.