Wacka Posted November 19, 2004 Share Posted November 19, 2004 Saddam set up insurgency cells in 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Uh Uh... Saddam didnt have anything to do with 9/11 No Blood for Oil Daddy's War Halliburton contracts France ISNT ON BOARD so the war isnt legit! Where are the WMDs that never existed except when Democrats say they did? Nosepick Flight Suit! Outsourcing capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora! Why are US Troops shouldering all the load (The Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced dont count thilly)? And the last liberal talking point; WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CRUSADES DAMMIT????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 Saddam set up insurgency cells in 2001. 125595[/snapback] ?? What are you trying to get at here? So Saddam set up insurgency cells to counter a possible invasion. So what. I think that would be fairly standard practice for anyone facing the possibility of an invasion from a vastly superior military power. Nowhere in that article does it suggest that these people were sent abroad to attack other countries. Are you somehow trying to suggest that the fact that these cells were set up to defend against a foreign invasion somehow justifies invading?! That would be a bizarre feat of logic. The following quote is interesting: "At a news conference in Baghdad, on Nov. 16, Al Naqib said the great majority of insurgency casualties in Fallujah were Iraqi nationals. He said only 24 foreigners were found dead among the more than 1,250 reported killed in 10 days of fighting in Fallujah." This is what I have been saying all along - the vast majority of the insurgents are Iraqi, not Syrian, Iranian etc... Forget the bs talked by the politicians, who constantly try to play up foreign involvement for their own purposes, when you check the actual statements by US commanders on the ground this is confirmed time and time again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 No, no, no! No country is allowed to have a defensive defense system anymore. It has to be an offensive defense now. Can't they keep up with these things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 And you don't think insurgency cells would spring up in this country if we were invaded? Off the top my head... It seems like a lot of wacked out groups here in the states are predicated on the same thing we are accusing Iraq of doing? You are trying to prove a point after the fact to fit the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 20, 2004 Share Posted November 20, 2004 And you don't think insurgency cells would spring up in this country if we were invaded? Off the top my head... It seems like a lot of wacked out groups here in the states are predicated on the same thing we are accusing Iraq of doing? You are trying to prove a point after the fact to fit the cause. 126036[/snapback] You mean like in the movie "Red Dawn"? WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 You mean like in the movie "Red Dawn"? WOLVERINES!!!!!!!!!!!! 126150[/snapback] I know that I am "thick"... I must of missed something? So here goes, I am not too proud... What does the Wolverine thing signify?... AD also mentioned it... So it has got something to do with a nasty little animal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 I know that I am "thick"... I must of missed something? So here goes, I am not too proud... What does the Wolverine thing signify?... AD also mentioned it... So it has got something to do with a nasty little animal? 126707[/snapback] It's what the band of "Freedom Fighters" in the movie "Red Dawn" called themselves. WOLVERINES! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 It's what the band of "Freedom Fighters" in the movie "Red Dawn" called themselves. WOLVERINES! 126861[/snapback] Damn good movie B) If you've played GTA3 San Andreas and gone into the gun store Ammunation, you hear the announcer in there talk about killing commies and he says there's a free screening of the documentary "Red Dawn" i believe Red Dawn was even listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as the 'most violent movie' for a while because of all the on camera killings/shootings Because we live here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Damn good movie B) If you've played GTA3 San Andreas and gone into the gun store Ammunation, you hear the announcer in there talk about killing commies and he says there's a free screening of the documentary "Red Dawn" i believe Red Dawn was even listed in the Guiness Book of World Records as the 'most violent movie' for a while because of all the on camera killings/shootings 126921[/snapback] "Red Dawn" had plenty of cowbell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Saddam set up insurgency cells in 2001. 125595[/snapback] OMG!!! A country setting up special forces to protect itself!!! That's gotta be the WEAKEST argument I have seen yet to try and defend our invasion of Iraq. I suppose now you are going to call every country that defends themselves with a network of defenders 'terrorist states'. Good one... now you can label just about EVERY major foreign nation, including ours, as one that harbors terrorists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 What exactly is "Fatal Error?" Does it apply here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Uh Uh... Saddam didnt have anything to do with 9/11 still valid Daddy's War MORE than valid Halliburton contracts The truth hurts, doesn't it? France ISNT ON BOARD so the war isnt legit! Good to know France is by FAR the only nation not on our side. Uding France as your rallying cry gets old in itself, when we are hardly a firm coalition! Where are the WMDs that never existed except when Democrats say they did? They could only go by what your Bushie administration TOLD THEM.. duh! Outsourcing capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora! Bin Laden still on the loose... hmmm.. who's in charge again? BUSH! Why are US Troops shouldering all the load (The Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced dont count thilly)? Just the OPPOSITE, as usual... we're taking almost all the casualties for another concocted reason. And the last liberal talking point; (totally your opinion; 48% of Americans are liberal? HAHAHAAAAAA delusional are we? ) WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CRUSADES DAMMIT????? All Islamists are evil, unless they help us fight, and then if they are found to be bad guys all of a sudden, we label them as evil again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Uh Uh... Saddam didnt have anything to do with 9/11 still valid Daddy's War MORE than valid Halliburton contracts The truth hurts, doesn't it? France ISNT ON BOARD so the war isnt legit! Good to know France is by FAR the only nation not on our side. Uding France as your rallying cry gets old in itself, when we are hardly a firm coalition! Where are the WMDs that never existed except when Democrats say they did? They could only go by what your Bushie administration TOLD THEM.. duh! Outsourcing capturing Bin Laden at Tora Bora! Bin Laden still on the loose... hmmm.. who's in charge again? BUSH! Why are US Troops shouldering all the load (The Coalition of the Bribed and Coerced dont count thilly)? Just the OPPOSITE, as usual... we're taking almost all the casualties for another concocted reason. And the last liberal talking point; (totally your opinion; 48% of Americans are liberal? HAHAHAAAAAA delusional are we? ) WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CRUSADES DAMMIT????? All Islamists are evil, unless they help us fight, and then if they are found to be bad guys all of a sudden, we label them as evil again! 128304[/snapback] You show yor true ignorance... Haliburton had no bid contracts under Clinton.... Yet you rant against Bush. "They could only go by what your Bushie administration TOLD THEM.. duh![/" Who is responsible for oversight of the Intelligence the President recieves? Maybe the Senate Intelligence oversight commitee? Wasn't John Kerry on that commitee? Oh I forgot he could not be blamed because he was never there.. Also those WMD's that the UN had cataloged don't count do they.... as no-one knows what happened to tthose documented WMD we can only guess huh? Get a clu and stop posting the GOO... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Get a clu and stop posting the GOO... 128758[/snapback] I love it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 ?? What are you trying to get at here? So Saddam set up insurgency cells to counter a possible invasion. So what. I think that would be fairly standard practice for anyone facing the possibility of an invasion from a vastly superior military power. Nowhere in that article does it suggest that these people were sent abroad to attack other countries. Are you somehow trying to suggest that the fact that these cells were set up to defend against a foreign invasion somehow justifies invading?! That would be a bizarre feat of logic. 126014[/snapback] Exactly. Gotta be prepared to execute female aid workers. Gotta always be prepared for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Exactly. Gotta be prepared to execute female aid workers. Gotta always be prepared for that. 128925[/snapback] I somewhat doubt that Saddam's planning was so detailed as to specify that female aid workers were to be executed. Who knows who actually killed Margaret Hassan? (I presume that is who you are referring to). If the statement released is to be believed, even Zarqawi was in favour of her being released. It is something of an assumption to automatically believe she was murdered by ex-Baathists and even more of a leap of faith to assume that this sort of tactic was planned by Saddam three years of ago. Still, if it helps your argument, what the heck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 22, 2004 Author Share Posted November 22, 2004 I somewhat doubt that Saddam's planning was so detailed as to specify that female aid workers were to be executed. Who knows who actually killed Margaret Hassan? (I presume that is who you are referring to). If the statement released is to be believed, even Zarqawi was in favour of her being released. It is something of an assumption to automatically believe she was murdered by ex-Baathists and even more of a leap of faith to assume that this sort of tactic was planned by Saddam three years of ago. Still, if it helps your argument, what the heck. 129355[/snapback] Why not? He let his sons grab whatever woman they wanted, rape and torture her. Not too much different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicot Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Why not? He let his sons grab whatever woman they wanted, rape and torture her. Not too much different. 129596[/snapback] I'm not saying he wouldn't do it because of moral scruples, rather that such an act is entirely counter-productive. Even compared to other kidnappings and murders in Iraq, the Margaret Hassan one is particularly horrible. She had lived in Iraq for 30 years, was married to an Iraqi and was herself a muslim. In addition, she had spent her life helping the Iraqi people and was opposed to sanctions and the war. There were demonstrations in Baghdad calling for her release. No one wants to claim responsibility for this, not even Zarqawi who has hardly been backwards in coming forwards to claim responsibility for other killings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman's Helmet Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I somewhat doubt that Saddam's planning was so detailed as to specify that female aid workers were to be executed. Who knows who actually killed Margaret Hassan? (I presume that is who you are referring to). If the statement released is to be believed, even Zarqawi was in favour of her being released. It is something of an assumption to automatically believe she was murdered by ex-Baathists and even more of a leap of faith to assume that this sort of tactic was planned by Saddam three years of ago. Still, if it helps your argument, what the heck. 129355[/snapback] Yeah and Bin Laden denied involvement in the 9/11 attacks shortly afterwards too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts