bin laden iraqi link??

[DrBenway]

I've not been sure whether war with Iraq is indicated or not. The strongest argument in favor, in my opinion, is the fact of Iraq's breach of the UN resolutions. War then would be a police action to ensure Iraq has been disarmed.

But I'm now embarrassed by my government's attempt to interpret bin laden's recent tape as evidence of an al qaida/Iraqi link, in order to justify war. I read the transcript of the tape. Bin laden is appealing to the Muslim people within Iraq who *oppose* the "infidel" Sadam, and encouraging them to also oppose the U.S. I think al qaida would be *happy* with a war that removed Saddam from power. That event would set the stage for a populist, Islamic revolution.

There has never been an alliance between Saddam and al qaida, beyond the “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Al qaida is an Islamic movement with very clear goals: to establish governments which recognize and abide by Qu’ran. This purpose is hardly something Saddam would embrace.

Even if Saddam might use the Islamists to his own ends at times, and even if al qaida might use Saddam, they are still enemies, not allies. To state or imply otherwise is to completely miss the point of what al qaida is about.

Some of the interviews with Iraqis I’ve read have expressed support of Saddam, because they feel he has the strength to keep a lid on the Islamists who would otherwise impose Shari`ah upon them.

If we go around insisting that Iraq and al qaida are in bed together, we lose all credibility with people who know something about Islam. If people think we’re stupid, they will find our military might very scary, and will balk at our use of it.

[Tmy]

Yeah, I think Bushs spin doctors have really f-uped the Saddam thing. His motives for invading seem to change every month.

Isnt the Saddam tape a catch 22. The goverment wants us to believe that BIn Ladin is dead (to save face for not cathing him) but then they want us to believe Bin Ladin and Saddam are in bed together.

[rikzilla]

In the end...linkage will likely be found. The Arabs are notorious for their philosophy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". This alone makes it highly likely that Usama and Saddam have a budding "friendship". I doubt that Saddam would be above dealing with Usama...or anyone else...that he thinks would be useful. In other words....it's not impossible...and not even that improbable.

I remember seeing a show on TLC ages ago that detailed the revelations found in East Germany's Stasi files after the fall of the Berlin wall. There were many things we did not have a clue that the Stasi were up to. Spies were tracked down and arrested...ties to terrorist groups...even several Arab ones,.. were found that we would never have known about.

I imagine one of the first things that will happen upon the invasion will be the capture of the Mukhabarat and Amn al-Amn buildings and the files they contain. We should learn much about any connections to al-Qaida when these files arrive in Langley, and the Iraqi intelligence people are debriefed.

If there's no al-Qaida connection to be found...I believe that a contrite president Bush should dig up Saddam's corpse and say "sorry". :D

-zilla

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by DrBenway .... snip...

If people think we’re stupid, they will find our military might very scary, and will balk at our use of it.



Wouldn't want anyone to think our millitary is ' scary '...:rolleyes:


And I can't think of a better reason to keep our troops at home, than someone else ' balking ' at our use of same...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla
In the end...linkage will likely be found. The Arabs are notorious for their philosophy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". This alone makes it highly likely that Usama and Saddam have a budding "friendship". I doubt that Saddam would be above dealing with Usama...or anyone else...that he thinks would be useful. In other words....it's not impossible...and not even that improbable.

You do realize that you are using a racial stereotype to make your argument that it is "highly likely" that Osama and Saddam have a budding friendship? Because there is nothing else here that remotely makes an argument for the linkage you crave. One of the worst arguments I have seen - they are both arabs.

I remember seeing a show on TLC ages ago that detailed the revelations found in East Germany's Stasi files after the fall of the Berlin wall. There were many things we did not have a clue that the Stasi were up to. Spies were tracked down and arrested...ties to terrorist groups...even several Arab ones,.. were found that we would never have known about.

How is this relevant? The idea that they might be up to something that we don't know about is somehow justification for war?

I imagine one of the first things that will happen upon the invasion will be the capture of the Mukhabarat and Amn al-Amn buildings and the files they contain. We should learn much about any connections to al-Qaida when these files arrive in Langley, and the Iraqi intelligence people are debriefed.

The problem is, you are supposed to have reasons for war PRIOR TO engaging in that war. It doesn't matter what you find out after. You might find out nothing, and saying:

If there's no al-Qaida connection to be found...I believe that a contrite president Bush should dig up Saddam's corpse and say "sorry". :D

doesn't even begin to address the wrong that would have been committed. I know that there is a smiley, and that this is at least partially tongue-in-cheek, but the implication of this kind of comment is disturbing. The USA should not just be killing thousands of people because it feels like it. With great power comes great responsibility.

[Tmy]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/msnbcosama.gif


I dont know if this is real but apparently the MSN story on the Bin Ladin tape had a section that said Bil Ladin wanted muslims to rise up against Saddam because he's secular. That would counter the Saddam-Ben Ladin connection put out by the Whitehouse.

Has there been a full translation of the Bin Ladin tape?

[karl]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont know if this is real but apparently the MSN story on the Bin Ladin tape had a section that said Bil Ladin wanted muslims to rise up against Saddam because he's secular. That would counter the Saddam-Ben Ladin connection put out by the Whitehouse.


I read somewhere about such a section too. Iraq is governed by secular Sunni Muslims and Christians, but about 2/3 of the population are Shi'a Muslims. If the tape is genuine, Bin Ladin hopes he can appeal to the Iraqi masses with Islamic fundamentalism.

Of course, the chance of that tape reaching those masses is pretty slim, given the tight grip the Iraqi regime has on the media.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz


You do realize that you are using a racial stereotype to make your argument that it is "highly likely" that Osama and Saddam have a budding friendship? Because there is nothing else here that remotely makes an argument for the linkage you crave. One of the worst arguments I have seen - they are both arabs.

Is that really a racial stereotype?? I've heard it so many times (mostly from reading Leon Uris novels)...so maybe you're right. It wasn't intentional tho.

How is this relevant? The idea that they might be up to something that we don't know about is somehow justification for war?

There is plenty of justification of war that has nothing at all to do with the al Qaida-Iraq link. Linkage would make a more compelling case, but the case has been made on the basis of Iraq's breeches of UNSC resolutions. UNSC 687 was a ceasefire agreement. Iraq broke it. A concrete link to al Qaida would be nice, but remains a side issue.

The problem is, you are supposed to have reasons for war PRIOR TO engaging in that war. It doesn't matter what you find out after. You might find out nothing, and saying:



doesn't even begin to address the wrong that would have been committed. I know that there is a smiley, and that this is at least partially tongue-in-cheek, but the implication of this kind of comment is disturbing. The USA should not just be killing thousands of people because it feels like it. With great power comes great responsibility.

[I]True...but like I said....there is already justification for this war. It is independent of any linkage to Bin Laden. Personally, I think we will find linkage after the fact, just as we found more evidence against Bin Laden after the fact of the fall of the Taliban. IMO, after reading as much as I could get my hands on about Saddam and Iraq...it has become obvious to me that the world will be a little bit better and safer after Saddam is gone.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz


You do realize that you are using a racial stereotype to make your argument that it is "highly likely" that Osama and Saddam have a budding friendship? Because there is nothing else here that remotely makes an argument for the linkage you crave. One of the worst arguments I have seen - they are both arabs.

'Zilla: Is that really a racial stereotype?? I've heard it so many times (mostly from reading Leon Uris novels)...so maybe you're right. It wasn't intentional tho.

How is this relevant? The idea that they might be up to something that we don't know about is somehow justification for war?

'Zilla: There is plenty of justification of war that has nothing at all to do with the al Qaida-Iraq link. Linkage would make a more compelling case, but the case has been made on the basis of Iraq's breeches of UNSC resolutions. UNSC 687 was a ceasefire agreement. Iraq broke it. A concrete link to al Qaida would be nice, but remains a side issue.

The problem is, you are supposed to have reasons for war PRIOR TO engaging in that war. It doesn't matter what you find out after. You might find out nothing, and saying:



doesn't even begin to address the wrong that would have been committed. I know that there is a smiley, and that this is at least partially tongue-in-cheek, but the implication of this kind of comment is disturbing. The USA should not just be killing thousands of people because it feels like it. With great power comes great responsibility.

'Zilla: True...but like I said....there is already justification for this war. It is independent of any linkage to Bin Laden. Personally, I think we will find linkage after the fact, just as we found more evidence against Bin Laden after the fact of the fall of the Taliban. IMO, after reading as much as I could get my hands on about Saddam and Iraq...it has become obvious to me that the world will be a little bit better and safer after Saddam is gone. Think about it Thanz...if we don't go in the world will at least have to continue a policy of "containment". Containment means the continued deprivation of the Iraqi people through sanctions. The war to remove Saddam will have a quick ending. Containment...and sanctions will be open-ended. That means even after Saddam is dead, there will still be sanctions unless Uday or Qusay adopt different policies from their father. That is doubtful. I've started making flippant posts about this deadly serious issue because it's plain to me that the time for talk has passed. Sorry if that upset you, we've talked before, Thanz, on other issues...I enjoy speaking with you and don't want you to take me the wrong way and be mad. I've posted alot on this issue...and after hearing the same stale arguments have decided to be flip out of exasperation. I'm not so shallow as my latest post may have made me seem. It's just that I feel we've talked the issue to death...I'm ready for Bush et al to $hit or get off the pot. We need to get on with it.

[DrBenway]

My point is this: I don't like to see our government distorting the facts. War may indeed be justified. But let's not throw in some ******** reasons for war with the valid reasons. All that does is cast doubt upon the basis of the valid reasons.


To quote from the recent tape of bin ladin:

"We say to honest Muslims that they must move, incite and mobilise the nation amid these great events to liberate themselves from the enslavement of these oppressive, unjust, apostate ruling governments, which in turn are enslaved by America, and to establish the rule of God on Earth, and the most eligible for liberation are Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

"This crusade war is primarily aimed at the people of Islam regardless of the removal or survival of the socialist Government or Saddam.

"The Muslims as a whole, and in Iraq in particular, should pull up their sleeves and carry Jihad against this oppressive offensive and to make sure to stock up on ammunition and arms.

"This is a duty for them.

"It does not hurt that in the current circumstances, the interests of Muslims coincide with the interests of the socialists in the war against crusaders, taking into account our belief and declaration of the apostasy of the socialists.

"The socialists and these rulers have lost their credibility of their rule a long time ago and the socialists are infidels wherever they are — whether in Baghdad or Aden (Yemen)”. (Reuters)


How can any rational person interpret the words above as proof of a meaningful alliance between bin ladin and Saddam!

[Tmy]

Originally posted by rikzilla


[I]it has become obvious to me that the world will be a little bit better and safer after Saddam is gone.

Same can be said for GW Bush.

23 months to go!

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tmy
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/msnbcosama.gif


I dont know if this is real but apparently the MSN story on the Bin Ladin tape had a section that said Bil Ladin wanted muslims to rise up against Saddam because he's secular. That would counter the Saddam-Ben Ladin connection put out by the Whitehouse.

Has there been a full translation of the Bin Ladin tape?

Here is a translation of the tape:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2751019.stm

And I would not trust whatreallyhappened.com, it is another ridiculous conspiracy website.

[abramis]

well, I bet that Osama is going to say the same thing to North Korea if it comes to some kind of conflict.... but I don´t think there are many muslims in NK, though...

[Wayne Grabert]

Thank you ssibal for posting that link. I had been searching for a full transcript without success.

Fighting in support of the non-Islamic banners is forbidden.

Muslims' doctrine and banner should be clear in fighting for the sake of God. He who fights to raise the word of God will fight for God's sake.

Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.

The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.

Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden.
This exposes the lies of the Bush administration. Bin Laden first says that fighting to defend Hussein's regime (the non-Islamic banners) is forbidden, but later explains that it is not a problem if the goal of the "infidel" socialists converge with those who are fighting for Islam against the "crusaders." (He states earlier that the fight should be on behalf of Muslims and not on behalf of any regime.) He calls Saddam's regime socialist and calls socialists infidels! Oh, yeah, Colon Sucker Powell, that's some proof of collusion between Saddam and Usama--NOT! Yes, asswipe Ari Fleisher, we must be "in denial" if we don't see the collusion--NOT!

How could Usama and Saddam be in collusion when they have opposing goals? Saddam wants to avoid this war because he believes he'll lose. Usama wants this war because he believes he'll win. I know I'll piss you off when I say this, but they're both right. The amateurs in the White House are playing right into bin Laden's hands. You'll see. And it's all so unnecessary.

Here's our common ground: I hope that I'm wrong about the outcome. However, I'm not one to cloud my judgement with wishful thinking. That's why I'm an atheist. Maybe I'm wrong there too.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
Thank you ssibal for posting that link. I had been searching for a full transcript without success.


This exposes the lies of the Bush administration. Bin Laden first says that fighting to defend Hussein's regime (the non-Islamic banners) is forbidden, but later explains that it is not a problem if the goal of the "infidel" socialists converge with those who are fighting for Islam against the "crusaders." (He states earlier that the fight should be on behalf of Muslims and not on behalf of any regime.) He calls Saddam's regime socialist and calls socialists infidels! Oh, yeah, Colon Sucker Powell, that's some proof of collusion between Saddam and Usama--NOT! Yes, asswipe Ari Fleisher, we must be "in denial" if we don't see the collusion--NOT!

How could Usama and Saddam be in collusion when they have opposing goals? Saddam wants to avoid this war because he believes he'll lose. Usama wants this war because he believes he'll win. I know I'll piss you off when I say this, but they're both right. The amateurs in the White House are playing right into bin Laden's hands. You'll see. And it's all so unnecessary.

Here's our common ground: I hope that I'm wrong about the outcome. However, I'm not one to cloud my judgement with wishful thinking. That's why I'm an atheist. Maybe I'm wrong there too.

Well Wayne,

You may be an atheist, but you are no skeptic.

This post of yours is a fine example. You have just demonstrated that you are willing to believe every word out of Usama's mouth. You have uncritically accepted his word as if he were the finest, most upstanding personage on the planet and not the vermin that was directly responsible for the horrible deaths of over 3,000 of your countrymen in a single day.

...and here's the rub.... you bash every word out of Colin Powell's mouth. A man who has every right due to his position and record to expect, if not your agreement, at least your respect.

That's just great man. Think for a minute! Look at what you are saying...does this REALLY make alot of sense to you???

At the very, very least you should look at both these guys critically and make a concious attempt to be un-biased. If you do not, you are not only being dishonest with the denizens of this board....you're being dishonest with yourself.

Don't do that. Logic and critical thought work best when applied equally.

Take care,
-Rick

[Richard G]

Reasons for war.....

http://www.notislam.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc2floorsofpeople.jpg

I count 3,000 of them.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Wayne Grabert
How could Usama and Saddam be in collusion when they have opposing goals?

Are you aware of the pact between Hitler and Stalin? How could they possibly have colluded when they had opposing goals? How could Osama have colluded with the US to kick the Soviets out of Afghanistan?

Oh, yeah... people use each other all the time. Even countries that are not the US are capable of cynically using someone who is willing to join and fight a greater enemy.

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well Wayne,

You may be an atheist, but you are no skeptic.

This post of yours is a fine example. You have just demonstrated that you are willing to believe every word out of Usama's mouth. You have uncritically accepted his word as if he were the finest, most upstanding personage on the planet and not the vermin that was directly responsible for the horrible deaths of over 3,000 of your countrymen in a single day.

...and here's the rub.... you bash every word out of Colin Powell's mouth. A man who has every right due to his position and record to expect, if not your agreement, at least your respect.

That's just great man. Think for a minute! Look at what you are saying...does this REALLY make alot of sense to you???

At the very, very least you should look at both these guys critically and make a concious attempt to be un-biased. If you do not, you are not only being dishonest with the denizens of this board....you're being dishonest with yourself.

Don't do that. Logic and critical thought work best when applied equally.

Take care,
-Rick
bin Laden may very well be lying, but I think it's pretty clear from the transcript that the tape, in and of itself, does not support Powell's claim that it shows an obvious link between Hussein and bin Laden.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Richard G
Reasons for war.....

http://www.notislam.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/wtc2floorsofpeople.jpg

I count 3,000 of them.

Amen, brother.

JK

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Richard G
Reasons for war.....

I count 3,000 of them.

I consider that 3000 reasons to get Osama bin Laden, not Saddam.









http://www.scn.org/ccpi/Iraqi+boys_0810.jpg


I count 20-odd million reasons to liberate Iraq from Saddam, though.

[Brooklyn Dodger]

First of all, we have plenty of reason to invade Iraq, no matter what the connection to Al Qaeda. Second, I considered the Al-Qaeda connection well established prior to the release of the new tapes.

Now we come to these two new tapes. Interesting they are, to say the least. Let's look at them in light of several conditions.

1. They came to light at the perfect time so far as the US is concerned. Just before the war with Iraq is to begin. They lend themselves to the current US line.

2. They do fit fairly well, though not perfectly, with what the US might expect bin Laden to say. The second tape is apparently even clearer, and speaks of his pending martyrdom.

3. The previous tape that was released from bin Laden was analyzed by a laboratory in Switzerland. The lab said that it couldn't be sure, but it apppeared that the tape was probably a fraud.

4. The US has said it will not submit these tapes to the lab and the lab has said it will not analyze these tapes.

5. The US "miraculously" had a copy of the recent tapes, and their tranlations, even before the Al Jazeera News Service was aware it had them. I hope some of you are noticing a pattern here.

6. The new tapes exhort Al Qaeda and all muslims to fight the infidels and kill them, etc., which is about what you would expect. This is accompanied by what we are told is an unusual increase in terrorist communications traffic. We have raised the threat level to RED. We expect to be attacked, just as we expect to attack Iraq.

My conclusion: These two tapes, plus the last bin Laden tape, were produced by US intelligence sources. If these tapes were made by bin Laden himself, then that means he is a prisoner of the US. The purpose is not to provide a reason to go to war with Iraq, but to generate communications among Al Qaeda operatives, leading to their capture or death. I believe it is succeeding.

This may well be the finest operation of its kind in decades. And bin Laden may well be our prisoner.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Well Wayne,

You may be an atheist, but you are no skeptic.

This post of yours is a fine example. You have just demonstrated that you are willing to believe every word out of Usama's mouth. You have uncritically accepted his word as if he were the finest, most upstanding personage on the planet and not the vermin that was directly responsible for the horrible deaths of over 3,000 of your countrymen in a single day.

...and here's the rub.... you bash every word out of Colin Powell's mouth. A man who has every right due to his position and record to expect, if not your agreement, at least your respect.

That's just great man. Think for a minute! Look at what you are saying...does this REALLY make alot of sense to you???

At the very, very least you should look at both these guys critically and make a concious attempt to be un-biased. If you do not, you are not only being dishonest with the denizens of this board....you're being dishonest with yourself.

Don't do that. Logic and critical thought work best when applied equally.

Take care,
-Rick
Quite a straw man you've constructed there, Rik. I in no way have demonstrated that I believe every word out of Usama's mouth. I'm beginning to wonder, though, if you believe every word that comes out of the mouths of the Bush League Administration.

I have demonstrated that Colin Powell is a liar. I also know from statements he made back in December 2000 (before Bush was sworn in) that Powell is not the "dove" that many fantasized him to be. Powell has wanted this war as badly as Bush since before Bush became president.

You are no skeptic. You believe the lie that Usama and Saddam are in cahoots with no evidence to support that belief! You just accept every load of fertilizer that is fed to you by the Bush League Administration (BLA). Usama has a long history of hatred for Saddam. Usama's statements regarding the Iraqi regime and other Arab regimes are consistent with what he has been saying for years! Saddam has a history of purging Islamic fundamentalists like those in al Qaida. He had the most prominent Islamic cleric in Iraq assassinated for making statements sympathetic to the Islamic fundamentalist movement.

If you would have been paying attention, you would have heard expert after expert on the region say over the last year that a partnership between Usama and Saddam is very unlikely. But no, you read some right-wing propaganda book that fantasized a link between Iraqi intelligence agents and al Qaida and you think you know it all. You know, it's possible that there may have been a few loose screws in the Iraqi intelligence apparatus who were sympathetic to al Qaida, and that would still not prove a link between the Iraqi government and al Qaida anymore than Jonathan Pollard's actions prove that the US government favored giving our military secrets to the USSR in exchange for allowing Russian Jews to immigrate to Israel.

My interpretation is this: Usama expects Saddam to lose the war with the United States, but he expects to win the guerilla war that he will lead afterwards. Why do I think Usama might win? Because a Balkanized Iraq in the throes of civil war, plus a well-funded guerilla army consisting of tens of thousands of Muslims being led by al Qaida, plus the takeover (again) of Afghanistan by the Taliban at the same time will be too much for the US to deal with--especially in the face of huge federal deficits and a declining economy. Call it "gloom and doom predictions" all you want. We'll just have to see what happens. It isn't in our hands.

By the way, 3,000 of my countrymen did not die on 9/11. I never got a final breakdown, but I know that several hundred of those 3,000 were foreign nationals. That doesn't make the matter any less tragic or enraging, but let's at least get our facts straight.

Also, bin Laden's description of what happened at Tora Bora is plausible if the news accounts I read at that time were accurate. We dropped hundreds, if not thousands, of bombs to kill dozens of al Qaida.

Edited to add: Remember that some of you disagreed with me when I predicted months ago that al Qaida would lead a guerilla war against the US after Saddam fell. Some of you asked for "evidence" to support this prediction. I explained my reasoning and you still insisted I provide something more substantial, like a scientific theory I suppose. :rolleyes: Well, you will soon be able to judge whether I was correct. If the war happens in March, the guerilla war will start before the end of summer.

Edited further to add: If al Qaida wins the guerilla war, it won't happen quickly. It will take several or more years. Then what a fine mess the world will be in!

[Wayne Grabert]

I have to give you folks just a bit more to chew on before you begin your attacks on me.

Back in the Fall of 2001, before Bush exposed his hard-on to invade and occupy Iraq, I would scoff everytime I heard bin Laden's claims that he defeated one superpower (the USSR) and would defeat the other one (the US). I was certain that bin Laden had bitten off more than he could chew and that the US would prevail. I relished the thought that bin Laden might soon be dead. He was arrogant and ignorant, I thought. However, bin Laden understood the overreaching stupidity of the US government better than I did. We had a great chance to win the "war on terror," but we gave up the fight in order to pursue a war on the Middle East and a quest for global hegemony. Now we are playing right into bin Laden's hands. We (well, the Bush League Administration and all who foolishly support it, so I suppose saying "we" is a bit of a stretch) are putting ourselves right where he wants us and where we will be more vulnerable than before. Go ahead and deny it. Find God while you're at it.

Edited to add: I'll borrow this from someone's signature: The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by rikzilla
True...but like I said....there is already justification for this war. It is independent of any linkage to Bin Laden. Personally, I think we will find linkage after the fact, just as we found more evidence against Bin Laden after the fact of the fall of the Taliban. IMO, after reading as much as I could get my hands on about Saddam and Iraq...it has become obvious to me that the world will be a little bit better and safer after Saddam is gone.

I don't think that anyone is going to disagree with the fact that the world would be a better place without Saddam. It would also be better without Kim Jong Il, and other nasty dictator types. War is a serious step that should not be taken lightly. I'm just not convinced that he is as much of a threat as he is made out to be.



I've started making flippant posts about this deadly serious issue because it's plain to me that the time for talk has passed. Sorry if that upset you, we've talked before, Thanz, on other issues...I enjoy speaking with you and don't want you to take me the wrong way and be mad. I've posted alot on this issue...and after hearing the same stale arguments have decided to be flip out of exasperation. I'm not so shallow as my latest post may have made me seem. It's just that I feel we've talked the issue to death...I'm ready for Bush et al to $hit or get off the pot. We need to get on with it.


I have also enjoyed speaking with you, and reading your opinions on other issues. Which is one of the reasons for my post - I was suprised to see you making these weak arguments. If you believe that the war against Iraq has been a long time coming, stick to that message and support it. It seems to me that trying to get everything to fit into the "Get Saddam" box undermines legitimate arguments in favour of action.

There has been no real linkage of Saddam to 9/11. The tragedy of that day has nothing to do with the war, except that it made everyone a lot more jumpy. 9/11 cannot be used as a blanket excuse for the US to do whatever it wants.

Please, do not jump on me for trying to minimize 9/11. I'm not. I'm just saying that it should not be used as a reason for doing things that are in no way connected to it.

[Wayne Grabert]

Originally posted by Thanz

Please, do not jump on me for trying to minimize 9/11. I'm not. I'm just saying that it should not be used as a reason for doing things that are in no way connected to it.
You are not minimizing 9/11. The Bush League Administration is shamelessly and dishonestly exploiting it.