Tigermike 3,057 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Have the libs not been saying there was no link with Iraq & Al Qaeda? CAIRO — An audiotape purportedly from Usama bin Laden's (search) deputy in Al Qaeda, aired on Arab television Friday, warned that the terror group would target Americans "in their homeland" and would drive U.S. forces from bases in the region.The pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera broadcast excerpts from a 10-minute tape it said was recorded by Ayman al-Zawahri (search), the No. 2 figure in Al Qaeda. The speaker also denied that the resistance U.S. troops are facing in Iraq comes mainly from Saddam loyalists. He said the resistance fighters were "holy warriors." "It is a real and authentic holy war of the Iraqi people," he said. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106246,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Well, there's a link now that we've provided al Qaeda with a target rich environment in Iraq!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donutboy 0 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Have the libs not been saying there was no link with Iraq & Al Qaeda? CAIRO — An audiotape purportedly from Usama bin Laden's (search) deputy in Al Qaeda, aired on Arab television Friday, warned that the terror group would target Americans "in their homeland" and would drive U.S. forces from bases in the region.The pan-Arab satellite channel Al-Jazeera broadcast excerpts from a 10-minute tape it said was recorded by Ayman al-Zawahri (search), the No. 2 figure in Al Qaeda. The speaker also denied that the resistance U.S. troops are facing in Iraq comes mainly from Saddam loyalists. He said the resistance fighters were "holy warriors." "It is a real and authentic holy war of the Iraqi people," he said. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,106246,00.html So, we went to war in Iraq because we KNEW that Al-Queda would find our troops to be easy targets and invade Iraq right behind us? I assume that's what you're saying since Al-Queda had no connections to Saddam Hussein and still doesn't, even by that paragraph you quoted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,057 Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 So, we went to war in Iraq because we KNEW that Al-Queda would find our troops to be easy targets and invade Iraq right behind us? I assume that's what you're saying since Al-Queda had no connections to Saddam Hussein and still doesn't, even by that paragraph you quoted. No there was already a long standing link with Al-Queda and Iraq and you know it. This only proves they are sending men to Iraq now to fight rather than to be trained. Spin it any way you want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 So, we went to war in Iraq because we KNEW that Al-Queda would find our troops to be easy targets and invade Iraq right behind us? I assume that's what you're saying since Al-Queda had no connections to Saddam Hussein and still doesn't, even by that paragraph you quoted. No there was already a long standing link with Al-Queda and Iraq and you know it. This only proves they are sending men to Iraq now to fight rather than to be trained. Spin it any way you want. Mike, can you remind me of those al Qaeda/Saddam links? The only one I know about was the debunked Feith memo which I'm sure you're not talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,057 Posted December 20, 2003 Author Share Posted December 20, 2003 Are they there now fighting? Have they ever been there at terrorists training camps? The answer is yes to both and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 Are they there now fighting? Have they ever been there at terrorists training camps? The answer is yes to both and you know it. I'm sure they're there NOW!!! You tell me about the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger12 46 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 C'mon guts, you know that Saddam supported terrorism. From a philosophical standpoint, why would he not? He hated America just as much as Al-Qeada, so wouldn't it be natural for him to align himself witht them? Heck, my 5 year old son could put that together. TA, just like your other thread, you posted an article about some documents, but where are the documents this article talks about? You aske TigerMike for the same thing that your article failed to supply also. It does not take a genius to figure out Saddam supported terrorism, whether it be Al-Qeada or others. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the groups name. Heck, he was a terrorist in his own country and you might as well call the Baathists terrorists also. Look, we can't see the air we breathe, but we know it is there because we see its effects. Just because you have not "links" or hard evidence, does not mean it does not exist. On the other hand, there are times when there is hard evidence, but that evidence is not enough to condemn in some people's eyes. Take for instance O.J. Simpson. Heck, we all know he was guilty, but for some reason, they jury did not think so. Looking at Saddam, you know deep down inside that he has supported terrorists because of how much he hates the US. So, don't give me the where is the proof crap, because even the most guilty can get off free because of lack of evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Al 0 Posted December 20, 2003 Share Posted December 20, 2003 C'mon guts, you know that Saddam supported terrorism. From a philosophical standpoint, why would he not? He hated America just as much as Al-Qeada, so wouldn't it be natural for him to align himself witht them? Heck, my 5 year old son could put that together. TA, just like your other thread, you posted an article about some documents, but where are the documents this article talks about? You aske TigerMike for the same thing that your article failed to supply also. It does not take a genius to figure out Saddam supported terrorism, whether it be Al-Qeada or others. Terrorism is terrorism, regardless of the groups name. Heck, he was a terrorist in his own country and you might as well call the Baathists terrorists also.Look, we can't see the air we breathe, but we know it is there because we see its effects. Just because you have not "links" or hard evidence, does not mean it does not exist. On the other hand, there are times when there is hard evidence, but that evidence is not enough to condemn in some people's eyes. Take for instance O.J. Simpson. Heck, we all know he was guilty, but for some reason, they jury did not think so. Looking at Saddam, you know deep down inside that he has supported terrorists because of how much he hates the US. So, don't give me the where is the proof crap, because even the most guilty can get off free because of lack of evidence. ranger12, we were TOLD that there WAS hard evidence to back up all the claims the administration made for going into Iraq. If you send Americans to fight and die and you know civilians will be killed too, then you'd better have evidence instead of a "gut feeling." Bush didn't think that anybody'd ask any questions but would, instead, just wave their little flags and cheer him on like you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.