This is good stuff. I wish he would release more audio.
Ayman al-Zawahri", speaking to "Awakening Council" members (Iraqi Sunnis who have joined forces with the American military wrote:
Weren't these Awakening (Councils) supposed to hasten the departure of the American forces, or are these Awakenings in need of someone to defend them and protect them?
Al-Zawahri also slammed anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who has ordered his militia to halt attacks on American and Iraqi forces. He "has become the laughing stock of the world" and is a "toy" in Iran's hands, he said.
Sounds like Mr. al-Zawahri is getting frustrated with the Sunni rejection of AQ's demands. I hope he keeps up the intimidation and threats. Apparently Iraqis aren't too warm to the idea of daily market bombs.
Well, seeing as how Bush opened up Iraq for splinter groups of AQ to take have a presence and a means to kill American soldiers, I suspect they would love to see more Bush policies.
They would be thrilled if we invaded Iran. Is Obama or Hillary endorsing that idea?
Well, seeing as how Bush opened up Iraq for splinter groups of AQ to take have a presence and a means to kill American soldiers, I suspect they would love to see more Bush policies.
They would be thrilled if we invaded Iran. Is Obama or Hillary endorsing that idea?
They were in Baghdad before we were. And Bush isn't running.
Last edited by tampa_griz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Well, seeing as how Bush opened up Iraq for splinter groups of AQ to take have a presence and a means to kill American soldiers, I suspect they would love to see more Bush policies.
They would be thrilled if we invaded Iran. Is Obama or Hillary endorsing that idea?
They were in Baghdad before we were. And Bush isn't running.
Nope. There was no AQ activity of any kind in Iraq prior to our invasion. AQ and Saddam were enemies. This is common knowledge.
This has been proven to you numerous times from our own government's intelligence reports.
And McCain seems to be running on many of Bush's policies, unfortunately.
Well, seeing as how Bush opened up Iraq for splinter groups of AQ to take have a presence and a means to kill American soldiers, I suspect they would love to see more Bush policies.
They would be thrilled if we invaded Iran. Is Obama or Hillary endorsing that idea?
They were in Baghdad before we were. And Bush isn't running.
Nope. There was no AQ activity of any kind in Iraq prior to our invasion. AQ and Saddam were enemies. This is common knowledge.
This has been proven to you numerous times from our own government's intelligence reports.
And McCain seems to be running on many of Bush's policies, unfortunately.
Wrong. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was allowed to recoup in Baghdad from wounds sufferred in Afghanistan long before we were there despite no one else being allowed in or out of Baghdad without approval from the Hussein regime. This has been proven to you numerous times from our own government's intelligence reports....especially the parts you cut before posting them here.
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 2845 Location: Back where we all belong 3533 eGriz Bucks
Bay Area Cat wrote:
tampa_griz wrote:
Bay Area Cat wrote:
He wasn't a part of AQ at that time. He didn't become affiliated with AQ until after we invaded.
Oh, and there actually were AQ people in the U.S. prior to 9/11, so clearly the U.S. government was aiding and supporting AQ during that time.
I wasn't aware that the U.S. was housing AQ fighters wounded in Afghanistan in Washington. But nice try.
Sorry ... but the whole notion that Saddam supported AQ in any way, shape or form has been abandoned by virtually everyone.
It wasn't true. Bush was wrong.
It's now sitting at poker table with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
I think what tampa is saying is that even though he wasn't officially a part of AQ at the time, he was fighting in league with them in Afghanistan and was allowed to recouperate in Iraq by Saddam's leave - by extension this would have qualified Iraq as "a country who harbors them (terrorists)." This would have put them inviolation of the Bush doctrine on terror as articulated at that time.
He wasn't a part of AQ at that time. He didn't become affiliated with AQ until after we invaded.
Oh, and there actually were AQ people in the U.S. prior to 9/11, so clearly the U.S. government was aiding and supporting AQ during that time.
I wasn't aware that the U.S. was housing AQ fighters wounded in Afghanistan in Washington. But nice try.
Sorry ... but the whole notion that Saddam supported AQ in any way, shape or form has been abandoned by virtually everyone.
It wasn't true. Bush was wrong.
It's now sitting at poker table with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
I think what tampa is saying is that even though he wasn't officially a part of AQ at the time, he was fighting in league with them in Afghanistan and was allowed to recouperate in Iraq by Saddam's leave - by extension this would have qualified Iraq as "a country who harbors them (terrorists)." This would have put them inviolation of the Bush doctrine on terror as articulated at that time.
Exactly. Thank you for that. Powell spoke to this very issue at the U.N.
It's also why the 9/11 Commission Report and other reports consistently use the word "non-operational" to describe the relationship between AQ and Hussein.
But were all of the people fighting us in Afghanistan "terrorists?" Or were they merely an army fighting against us?
The people who blew up the WTC were terrorists. But the people fighting against us in Afghanistan (although not on the right side of the moral argument, in my opinion) were not necessarily terrorists (unless they actually committed acts of terrorism at some point).
But if anyone thinks that letting a guy into your country who fought against Americans is justification enough to start a war with that country, then I guess we have about 100 more countries that we need to invade. Oh bother.
Joined: 01 Nov 2004 Posts: 2845 Location: Back where we all belong 3533 eGriz Bucks
Your both correct, IMHO. It just depends on how you felt about Bush's position from the get-go. According to the policies Bush articulated regarding terror/those who harbor them - the war with Iraq is consistent with those policies: "we regard you as a terrorist when you offer safe haven to them just as much as we would if you are actively sponsoring attacks." I felt that policy was irresponsible to begin with. Like BAC, it's problematic because it's too open ended.
But were all of the people fighting us in Afghanistan "terrorists?" Or were they merely an army fighting against us?
The people who blew up the WTC were terrorists. But the people fighting against us in Afghanistan (although not on the right side of the moral argument, in my opinion) were not necessarily terrorists (unless they actually committed acts of terrorism at some point).
But if anyone thinks that letting a guy into your country who fought against Americans is justification enough to start a war with that country, then I guess we have about 100 more countries that we need to invade. Oh bother.
Here goes your "Zarqawi was not a terrorist" theory:
From wikipedia:
Quote:
Zarqawi's first major attempt at a terrorist attack occurred in 1999 after his release from prison. He was involved in an attempt to blow up the Radisson SAS Hotel in Amman in 1999 because it was frequented by many Israeli and American tourists.[7] He failed in this attempt and fled to Afghanistan and then entered Iraq via Iran after the overthrow of the Taliban in late 2001. From Iraq he started his terrorist campaign by hiring men to kill Laurence Foley who was a senior U.S. diplomat working for the U.S. Agency for International Development in Jordan. On October 28, 2002, Foley was assassinated outside his home in Amman. Under interrogation by Jordanian authorities, three suspects confessed that they had been armed and paid by Zarqawi to perform the assassination. U.S. officials believe that the planning and execution of the Foley assassination was led by members of Afghan Jihad, the International Mujaheddin Movement, and al-Qaeda. One of the leaders, Salim Sa'd Salim Bin-Suwayd, was paid over $27,858 U.S. dollars for his work in planning assassinations in Jordan against U.S., Israeli, and Jordanian government officials. Suwayd was arrested in Jordan for the murder of Foley.[26] Zarqawi was again sentenced in absentia in Jordan; this time, as before, his sentence was death.
There were a multitude of reasons to attack Iraq as laid out by President Bush and Sec. Powell to the U.N. One of those reasons was harboring a known terrorist and (at the very least) AQ-collaborator Abu Musab al-Zarqawi among others. The other reasons cited were non-compliance with U.N. Security resolutions (paid for in American blood), constantly attacking its neighbors, supporting terrorist organizations, attempting to assassinate former U.S. heads-of-state, trying to kill American military personnel every day for over 10 years, participating in genocide, conducting systemic human rights abuses, and a few other reasons.
Last edited by tampa_griz on Fri Apr 18, 2008 12:53 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
class 1996
