Pentagon: Taliban regrouped and 'resilient' in Afghanistan »
Posted By ybdogsct 3 months, 2 weeks ago in NewsThe Taliban have regrouped and have formed a "resilient insurgency," according to a new Pentagon report. The report predicted that the Taliban would be back in 2008. Opium production increased "substantially" in 2007. There are about 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, but only 32,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
Read Full Story at cnn.com »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 126
-
-
-
-
0%
mark-stevens3 months, 1 week ago
Pakistan has declared war on the Taliban... http://news.aol.com/?feature=20080628090309990001 The Taliban is now running to Afghanistan a "safe haven" thanks to the "Bush war"
Reply -
0%
mark-stevens3 months, 1 week ago
Forgot to mention, Pakaistan has a new goverment. Amazing what a difference change can make!!!
Remember those secret energy meetings Bush had with the oil companies! I now hear the invasion of Iraq was put on the table then!
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
mivan43 months, 2 weeks ago
If we would have fought the Taliban in Pakistan instead of going after Alquaida in Iraq Pakistan would not be our ally but our enemy and would probably changed sides and we would have had a much bigger problem. But now they are actually going after Taliban and helping us! There was political problems with going into Pakistan and getting Osama it now looks like more than ever that the Right decisions were made! Sometimes history clears up allot of things!
Reply-
-
0%
Natureboy3 months, 1 week ago
Dig a bit deeper and see who created the Islamic fundamentalist madrasas along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border-
http://www.countercurrents.org/ipk-saleem150703...
Foist by our own petard!
Reply
-
-
-
0%
rightfromwrong3 months, 1 week ago
Al Qaeda was never in Iraq as Saddam hated all religious fanatical groups. the war was for oil, greed and logistics in the mid east.....9/11 was an inside job and only the most ignorant Americans believe otherwise. Watch 911 mysteries and loose change. Physics don't lie but the Bush administration did over 1,000 times.
Reply
-
-
0%
agoodlibertian3 months, 2 weeks ago
One problem with your atatement-Al Qaeda was not in Irag when the U.S. Military invaded Irag. Typical republican statement-incorrect keep up the bs work.
Reply -
0%
bigG3 months, 1 week ago
Can I have some of the drugs you have been doing?
You have to be unequivocably one of the dumbest people on this blog - and I have been monitoring it for awhile.
Iraq had almost zero Al Qaeeda until we got there. We created the situation Einstein.
Read, if it doesn't hurt your head too much.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0718/dailyUpdate....
I can find more with the same result if you like, but first I would like to hear you call the CSM a "liberal" publication.
More importantly - why aren't you there?
Reply -
0%
wtagg3 months, 1 week ago
Great theory except for one small detail - al qaeda wasn't in Iraq until after we toppled Saddam.
Reply -
0%
djn3nunez33 months, 1 week ago
"If we would have fought the Taliban in Pakistan instead of going after Alquaida in Iraq....."
First, lets make sure you understand there were no al Queda cells in Iraq before the borders were broken by the Bush led invasion and occupation.
Second, didn't the flip-flopper in chief say something about countries that harbor the terrorist who attacked us.
With friends like Pakistan who needs enemies.....
Reply
-
-
0%
Natureboy3 months, 2 weeks ago
If it wasn't for the last fifty years of our happy-a$$holing around in the affairs of the middle east, they would likely not have the urge to do us in.
Reply -
0%
doppich3 months, 1 week ago
The Afghans just aren't sitting on a big oil pool. Updating Calvin Coolidge for the Bush administration, "The business of America is the oil business."
Reply
-
-
-
baddad59Comment removed: User banned.
-
0%
hdthehn3 months, 2 weeks ago
You will find all the GOPers here having a collective circle jerk over McPander's speach about putting country first:
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2008/06/27/...
Reply-
-
-
0%
cloud153 months, 1 week ago
What does my current location have to do with the fact that on this site the most common circle jerks are held by liberals? In fact my current location couldn't have any less relevance to my current location seeing as how my comment has absolutely nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
0%
raats66623 months, 2 weeks ago
This is what happens when GWB decides that it is MORE important to go to war in Iraq (to make MILLIONS of dollars for his oil buddies) then to TRULY avenge the deaths of September 11, 2001.
Reply-
-
0%
tchef3 months, 2 weeks ago
Sept 11 was pulled off (if we are to believe what we've been told) by a Sunni group of Muslims. Iraq is primarily Shiite and had nothing to do with Al Queada.
Reply-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.59 Replies
-
-
0%
Dionys3 months, 2 weeks ago
Nope. Truth. Even Bush has on several occasions admitted that Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Not to mention the fact that Al-Quaeda didn't exist within Iraq until after the US invasion.
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 2 weeks ago
not true http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/03/... there is a link to the 59 page pentagon report to back up their source. If it wasn't a smoking gun it was still hot
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
MIVAN4:
"not true. there is a link to the 59 page pentagon report to back up their source. If it wasn't a smoking gun it was still hot."
*Sigh*
We've been over this.
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report...
"Saddam viewed international terrorist organizations in terms of what they could do to further his 'historic' mission. During the course of the 1990s, bin Laden came to see Islamic terrorist groups as part of a jihad that would one day topple all apostate governments, unite all Muslims, and finally restore the caliphate. Saddam had his own vision, a Ba'athist pan-Arab socialist superstate with Iraq at its center. Saddam's vision was always about the centrality of Saddam--and never about the glory if Islam or some modern-day caliphate."
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
"During the 1990s, both Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the U.S., out of Muslim lands. Both wanted to create a single powerful state that would take its place as a global superpower. And Saddam and bin laden often found a common enemy in the U.S. These similarities more than created the appearance of cooperation as common interests, even without a common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.
But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted--and still wants--to restore the ISLAMIC caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the SECULAR ruler of a united Arab nation. These competing visions made any significant long-term compromise between them HIGHLY UNLIKEKLY. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the WORST KIND OF 'APOSTATE' REGIME--a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
"The director of IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) cautioned against meeting with Islamic parties as they would 'not serve the current Iraqi situation...and will make us lose our main target.' He went on to note that working with the religious parties was dangerous because they were 'associated with the religious terror, which Hezbollah and Iran are practicing...and it is provoking the West.'"
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
In fact, what you posted, MIVAN4, was not even the original report; it was only a 59-page addendum. The original report can be found here:
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006...
"'Chemical Ali' was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD, but claims many within the ruling circle always believed they did...According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about having WMD during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD, but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary. Saddam went on to explain that if Iraq made such a declaration, it would not only show Israel that Iraq did not have WMD, but might actually encourage the Israelis to attack."
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
"By late 2002, Saddam finally tilted towards pursuing policies designed to persuade the international community that Iraq was cooperating with UNSCOM and that it was free of WMD...As 2002 drew to a close, the regime took active measures to counter the Coalition's assertion that WMD still remained in Iraq. Saddam was insistent that 'in order not to give President Bush any excuses to start a war,' Iraq would give full access to UN Inspectors."
"Saddam became convinced that because there were no WMDs to be found in Iraq, the Americans or Israelis were not beyond planting fake evidence."
"Saddam avoided taking actions in the year after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the U.S. that would appear obstructionist or threatening. In late 2002, he told a group of officers that Iraq would provide UN inspectors with the access they needed, thus denying President George W. Bush and the Americans any excuse for starting a new conflict."
Reply -
0%
mivan43 months, 2 weeks ago
I said it was a addendum when I posted the last time before you pointed it out, since I couldn't find the link I wanted I used that one. The link above is the one I really wanted to use! I see you copy and pasted your full response! the link above includes a link to the full 59 page report and my link has a question too for you to answer - that is copy and pasted in my post below
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
MIVAN:
"The link above is the one I really wanted to use! I see you copy and pasted your full response!"
I had to. I thought I had fully explained why your interpretation of the Pentagon report was faulty last time. But I guess some people need to be told more than once.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
Other declassified governmental, intelligence, and military reports support my interpretation.
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
"Iraq was not reconstituting its nuclear weapons program; Iraq's acquisition of high-strength aluminum tubes was not intended for an Iraq nuclear program, but were likely intended for a conventional rocket program" which Iraq was allowed to possess; "Iraq pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are high dubious"; "Iraq no longer had a large scale biological weapons production capability after 1996" and there was "no direct evidence that Iraq maintained stocks of biological weapons or possessed bulk biological agents after 1996"; "Iraq never possessed, or developed, mobile facilities for producing biological agents"; "Iraq was not expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons production"; and "Iraq did not possess missiles which exceeded UN range limits."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/repor...
"The ISG found that Iraq ended its nuclear program in 1991 and that Iraq's ability to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program progressivel declined after that date. The ISG found no evidence that Saddam Hussein attempted to restart the nuclear program. The intellectual capital (needed to restart a WMD program in the event UN sanctions were lifted) had decayed since the end of the nuclear program in 1991, and there was no evidence that scientists were engaged in renewed weapons work. A CIA nuclear retrospective said that Saddam 'probably harbored some intent to acquire nuclear weapons, but there were credible claims...to suggest he abandoned such pursuits."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/08/...
"Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day," Ritter said...In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction..."Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level," he said...Ritter said that the Bush administration was "using weapons inspections as an excuse" to go to war with Iraq.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
"Saddam viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat, and his regime since its inception has arrested and executed members of both Shia and Sunni groups to disrupt their organizations and limit their influence.
Saddam then specified that Iraq did no cooperate with bin Laden. According to Tariq Aziz, 'Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden. When the Taliban was in power, the Iraq government deliberately avoided opening an embassy in Kabul...The Iraqi regime issued a decree aggressively outlawing Wahabism in Iraq and threatening offenders with execution.'"
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
"Saddam immediately refused bin ladin's requests for the office, mines, and military training...bin Laden sent Abu Hafs al-Mauritani to Baghdad in order to request $10 million to be used to continue al-Qa'ida attacks against the West. Saddam refused to meet with Abu Hafs and explicity rejected the request for assistance. Saddam did not like bin Ladin because he called saddam an 'unbeliever....' Saddam asked why the al-Qa'ida representative ad chosen to come to Iraq. Hussein was worried that al-Qa'ida operative's presence in Baghdad would cause a problem for Iraq."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_rpt/srpt10...
"Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, the source of reports on al-Qa'ida's efforts to obtain CBW training in iraq, recanted the information he provided...The DIA assessed that 'there has been no credible reporting on al-Qa'ida training at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq...No al-Qa'ida associates detained since 11 September have said they trained at Salman Pak...Postwar site exploitation of Salman Pak has yielded no indications that training of al-Qa'ida lined individuals took place there."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
"Both captured former regime documents and former regime officials show that the IIS (Iraq Intelligence Service) did respond to a foreign request for assistance in finding and extraditing al-Zarqawi for his role in the murder of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley. In the spring of 2002, the IIS formed a 'special committee' to track down al-Zarqawi, but was unable to locate and capture him...the IIS did successfully arrest one of the individuals responsible, Abu Yasim Sayyem."
"According to the DIA, detainee information, and captured document, the regime was aware of Ansar al-Islam, but the groups' presence was considered a threat to the regime and the Iraqi government attempted intelligence collection operations against them. Senior Ansar al-Slaim detainees revealed that the group viewed Saddam's regime as apostate, and denied any relationship with it...The government of Iraq considered al-Zarqawi an outlaw and blamed Ansar al-Slam for two bombings in Baghdad."
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 2 weeks ago
This is the link above I couldn't find before explain this
And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?
Just because you interpret it your way doesn't make it so
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
MIVAN:
"This is the link above I couldn't find before explain this"
I've ALREADY explained this. You need to read the ENTIRE Pentagon report, past this sentence, in order to understand it in full.
Yes, the report did claim that Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden WOULD have worked together IF it didn't intervere with Saddam's long term vision. But if you continue to read beyond that paragraph you cited to the paragraphs I cited further down the document, the report clearly states that Al Qaeda's goals for a unified Islamic caliphate DID interfere with Saddam's long term vision of a secular empire, thus making any active cooperation "HIGHLY UNLIKELY."
Saddam distrusted Osama. Al Qaeda wanted to overthrow ALL existing governments (including Saddam) to install an Islamic caliphate. Osama viewed Saddam as apostate.
I don't know why you continue to deny the conclusions made by YOUR OWN article. The text is CLEARLY there written in black-and-white.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
MIVAN:
"Just because you interpret it your way doesn't make it so"
The more you post, the more you reveal how superficial your comprehension of the primary source documentation truly is.
You persist in cherrypicking that single sentence without bothering to understand how it fits in not only with the Pentagon report YOU CITED, but with the other declassified intelligence documents I cited. Why do you continue to ignore the conclusions drawn by YOUR OWN Pentagon article?
Here is a quote from YOUR OWN article:
"any significant long-term compromise between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden was HIGHLY UNLIKEKLY. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the WORST KIND OF 'APOSTATE' REGIME--a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges."
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
bananaflies3 months, 2 weeks ago
You can make facts prove anything you want to, as long as you dont care how much you twist them.
Some of the islamic radicals we worked with in Afghanistan/Pakistan during the Afghan-Soviet war undoubtedly had connections with Hezbollah, al Qaeda, etc. According to your way of assessing connections, this would mean we bombed our own troops and embassy in Lebanon, as well as carrying out any other terrorist acts of Islamic radicals with Afghan connections.
Saddam's secret service kept track of what islamic radicals were up to, since they might try to assassinate Saddam, a secular tyrant. Sometimes Saddam worked with these groups on common projects. We worked with them in Afghanistan. Big deal.
Why do you need so badly to believe that W's invasion of Iraq made sense. He should have put those troops in Afghanistan. If he wanted to do something difficult, he could have tried to clean al Qaeda out of the Pakistani secret polices and built democracy in that country.
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 2 weeks ago
I didn't twist any facts I just posted things that are in the report! none of that is twisted.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
Yes, you did. You misinterpreted this SAME article after I had ALREADY debunked your faulty interpretation.
I don't know why you persist in lying about what your articles says, even after I post excerpts FROM YOUR OWN ARTICLE disputing your interpretation.
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 2 weeks ago
I didn't lie I just posted what was said in the article and didn't take anything out of context either. Th link I posted IS in accord to what I am saying DID you even go to the powerline link?
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 2 weeks ago
MIVAN:
"I didn't lie"
You are lying. You are lying because your cherrypicking argument has already been disproven.
MIVAN:
"DID you even go to the powerline link?"
Did you even bother to read IN FULL the ORIGINAL Pentagon report that your powerline link cited?
LOL. From YOUR OWN LINK:
"any significant long-term compromise between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden was HIGHLY UNLIKEKLY. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the WORST KIND OF 'APOSTATE' REGIME--a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges."
Did you even bother to read the de-classified Senate Intelligence Report I cited?
Did you even bother to read the ORIGINAL Iraq Perspectives report I cited (not merely the 59-page addendum included in your powerlink article)?
Did you even bother to read the Iraq Study Group report I cited?
Something tells me my multiple primary sources TRUMP your secondary source.
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
The only statement I made was if the gun wasn't smoking then it was still hot. You cherry picked articles also does that for your side of the argument does that make you a liar? You are discrediting legit arguments with some opinion Highly unlikely doesn't even = NO LINK and is a opinion. powerline also had some other sources listed that backed the pentagon report. I read your post and don't doubt their authenticity but you must doubt mine either way I did not LIE. I just posted support. I trust what you posted is truly your heart felt feelings on the subject but You didn't answer this before because I didn't post if before yet you said you did continued........
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work? This is out of the report I didn't make it up yet you have not addressed this item If you have please direct me to where you have.
On other items No I didn't read the Senate Report, I did go to your link with the Iraq Report and no I didn't read it although it looks very similar to what I posted without the Graphical intro. I trust what you have posted as reference as true do I get the same courtesy? I understand the valid points you made. I just still don't think it = NO LINK.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
MIVAN4:
"You cherry picked articles also does that for your side of the argument does that make you a liar?"
Cherrypicked? How did I manage to cherrypick 5 different PRIMARY SOURCES from OFFICIAL governmental, military, and intelligence outlets?!
I am citing directly from the reports I READ IN FULL, while you resort to citing a secondary source, which suggests you didn't even bother to read Pentagon source YOU CITED in full. Why must rely on someone else's interpretation of the Pentagon report? Can't you read and think for yourself?
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
MIVAN4:
"Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work?"
How many times do I have to explain this?!
Ok, I'll assume just this last time that you're not playing dumb and that you actually read the entire report in full. Let me explain one last time.
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden both spouted the same anti-Western, anti-American rhetoric and recruited from the same demographic pool of disillusioned, frustrated, Muslim fundamentalists. Because they were drawing from the same pool of potential jihadists, the groups Saddam and Osama supported sometimes overlapped. Your quote on Page 42 was explaining this overlap.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
However, this does NOT mean that Saddam and Osama cooperated with each other. In fact, they had different, competing goals for the MIddle East that made cooperation "HIGHLY UNLIKELY." Your Pentagon article continues by explaining that distrusted each other and were in direct competition for the loyalties of Muslim fundamentalists - Saddam wanted to use them to expand his secular empire, while Osama wanted to overthrow all existing governments (including Saddam's) to install an Islamic caliphate.
Saddam's interest in these terrorist groups, therefore, does NOT suggest a cooperational relationship with al Qaeda. To the contrary, Saddam's interest in these groups were purely pragmatic and utilitarian: Saddam wanted to MANIPULATE AND USE these Muslim fundamentalist groups to help expand his empire by overthrowing adjacent governments, and Saddam wanted to use these groups to counteract Osama bin Laden's growing influence in the MIddle East.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
Thus, Saddam was NOT cooperating with Osama through these overlapping groups of Muslim fundamentalists. Saddam was simply manipulating them and buying them off for his personal gain BOTH to expand Iraq's empire AND as insurance that these Muslim fundamentalist groups wouldn't join Osama bin Laden to overthrow him as part of Osama's plan to install an Islamic caliphate.
From YOUR OWN Article:
"Saddam viewed international terrorist organizations in terms of what they could do to further his 'historic' mission."
"Saddam was a pragmatist when it came to personal and state relationships. He understood that whatever the benefits of a relationship, there was always a potential for internal and external costs for associating too closely with some of these groups. Saddam's reaction to this concern often swung like a pendulum, from arresting members of Wahabi sects to extendling lines of relations to a new radical Kurdish Islamic group."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
These Muslim fundamentalist groups, meanwhile, became increasingly mercenary in nature. They had few ideological loyalties. They became merely guns-for-hire willing to work for the highest bidder. In fact, several groups executed operations for BOTH Iraq and its Middle Eastern rival Iran.
These mercenary jihadists worked along side the U.S. when we were fighting the Russians. They were hired and worked for Palestinian liberation movements along side Hamas. They were hired and worked for Iran, then for Iraq, and then for Osama bin Laden. The fact that these Muslim mercenaries at some point happened to work for Saddam Hussein and then for Osama bin Laden and then for Iran and then for Hamas is NOT conclusive evidence that Iraq, Iran, al Qaeda, and Hamas all cooperational relationships with each other. It only means that at different points in time, each group took turns becoming the highest bidder to pay these jihadist guns-for-hire to execute jobs for them.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
From YOUR OWN Article:
"For Saddam, Palestinian terrorist organizations were a tool to manipulate an ally. Another document provides some insight into the changing regional loyalties: it states that Hamas terror groups, so freely offered by Palestinian representatives to support Saddam, were also financed by Iraq's main political rival, the Iranians. Terrorism in the 1990s was become an increasingly competitive seller's market."
"Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were recruiting within the same demographic. But that these movements had many similarities and strategic parallels does NOT mean they saw themselves in that light. Saddam viewed these groups through the eyes of a pan-Arab revolutionary, while the leaders of the growing Islamist movements (like Osama bin Laden) viewed them as potential affiliates for their Jihad. In other words, two movements, one pan-Arab and the other pan-Islamic, were seeking and developing supporters from the same demographic pool."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
Some mercenary jihadists are even being paid by the U.S. RIGHT NOW to help keep the tenuous peace in Iraq. By an extension of your own torturous logic, does this mean that the U.S. is cooperating with Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda just because we are now drawing from the same pool of mercenary jihadists that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden recruited from? RIDICULOUS!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_...
"American forces are paying Sunni insurgents hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash to switch sides and help them to defeat Al-Qaeda in Iraq."
I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. READ your article before commenting! And if you don't understand something, ASK instead of spewing your misconstrued interpretations.
MIVAN:
"I will try and find time to read your sources more closely, but I doubt they will change my mind on this"
Why am I not surprised?
Sigh...
Reply
-
-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work? This is out of the report I didn't make it up yet you have not addressed this item If you have please direct me to where you have.
On other items No I didn't read the Senate Report, I did go to your link with the Iraq Report and no I didn't read it although it looks very similar to what I posted without the Graphical intro. I trust what you have posted as reference as true do I get the same courtesy? I understand the valid points you made. I just still don't think it = NO LINK.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
It's not just the New York Times. According to YOUR OWN report, even the Pentagon doesn't view this as conclusive evidence that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had cooperational ties.
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were drawing from the same pool of fundamentalist Muslim mercenaries. These mercenaries were nothing more than guns-for-hire. Just because these mercenaries happened to execute different jobs for Saddam, for Osama bin Laden, for Iran, and for Hamas at different points in time does NOT mean that Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, Iran, and Hamas were cooperating with each other.
Even the U.S. is currently bribing the same Muslim mercenaries to help keep the tenuous peace in Iraq! That's why Democrats are skeptical that this peace will last - because these mercenaries have no loyalty. They will fight for whoever is the highest bidder.
Get it?
Reply
-
-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
And there is this line from page 42: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.
Really? Saddam Hussein "supported" a group that merged with al Qaeda in the late 1990s, run by al Qaeda's #2, and the New York Times thinks this is not a link between Iraq and al Qaeda? How does that work? This is out of the report I didn't make it up yet you have not addressed this item If you have please direct me to where you have.
On other items No I didn't read the Senate Report, I did go to your link with the Iraq Report and no I didn't read it although it looks very similar to what I posted without the Graphical intro. I trust what you have posted as reference as true do I get the same courtesy? I understand the valid points you made. I just still don't think it = NO LINK.
Reply -
0%
wtagg3 months, 1 week ago
So, would you commit to almost 3/4s of a trillion dollars, 4100 lives, tens of thousands of casualties, over-extending our military, burdening our VA system for decades, crippling our economy on the odds represented by the term high-unlikely?
Should a president ever go to war, while risking all of the above, on an opinion? Do you think that is in any possible way, conservative?
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
The term Highly unlikely occurred after military commitment the die had already been cast and then that is only the authors of that statements OPINION! which shows that even he had some level of doubt. Other statements clearly show there was SOME sort of relationship the only real question is how strong it was. I am accused of cherry picking statements But those statements weren't taken out of context and they were relevant. No I didn't present counter evidence I think Ybdgost covered that. Regardless that was only a small part of the reason for invasion. Look at the WHOLE picture and the comments of members of congress on the other side of the Aisle that also were for this and they had the same information. Yes WMDS were sold as the strongest reason, but there were plenty others. The cat and mouse game Saddam PLAYED for years with inspectors = He must be hiding something! BOTTOM LINE HE HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES to comply!
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
Furthermore the documentation I provided was from CAPTURED DOCUMENTS from between the 2 parties involved and not Someones opinion! THERE was a link the documentation supports it and would support it in a court of LAW. to say NO LINK is more of a LIE than anything I said, to say No smoking gun well that maybe closer to the truth - but still comes close to a lie. To say inconclusive would still be short of the truth. The BOTTOM line the truth is THERE was a link, but the strength of that link is not totally understood !
Reply-
0%
mivan43 months, 1 week ago
Ybdgost spent allot of time trying to explain away a LINK, but showed no evidence that there was NO LINK! Allot of marriages have problems, but to say they aren't a marriage because they have some disagreements is simply not true! If he could have discredited the captured docs and relevant testimony from the relevant witnesses THEN he would have made his CASE!
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
MIVAN:
"The term Highly unlikely occurred after military commitment"
There was NO military cooperation from Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. They competed with each in recruiting from the same demographic pool of disenchanged, Islamist fundamentalist mercenaries who were no more than guns-for-higher willing to work for the highest bidder. PERIOD.
MIVAN:
"that is only the authors of that statements OPINION! which shows that even he had some level of doubt."
1) It can't simply be dismissed as an "opinion." The Pentagon's conclusions are based on their available data. They found NO EVIDENCE of cooperational ties between Saddam and Osama bin Laden.
2) It's laughable you would attempt to discredit the Pentagon report as merely an "opinion," when it is the ONE AND ONLY source you've cited. If you don't believe the credibility of its conclusions, then you have no argument. LOL.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
MIVAN:
"Other statements clearly show there was SOME sort of relationship the only real question is how strong it was."
WRONG.
There was NO cooperational relationship. Saddam and Osama simply happened to be recruiting from the same pool of mercenaries. That was the extent of the overlap of their competing operations, which made any cooperation between them "highly unlikely." Likewise, the U.S. is bribing Sunni fundamentalists to help keep the peace in Iraq. Does that mean that Bush and Cheney are complicit with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein because they happen to be recruiting from the same pool of mercenaries?
Your torturous logic easily breaks down when exposed.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
MIVAN:
"Regardless that was only a small part of the reason for invasion. Yes WMDS were sold as the strongest reason, but there were plenty others."
A "small" reason? Are you joking? WMDs and the alleged link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were the PRIMARY reasons.
You can try to spin and obfuscate all you want, but the fact remains that the PRIMARY justification for the Iraq War was to prevent Al Qaeda from using Iraq's allegedly active WMDs from launching strikes against the U.S. In fact, of the 23 bulleted reasons for war with Iraq, 14 of them addressed the allegedly active WMD issue or the alleged Al Qaeda link DIRECTLY.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10...
And yet, as you can read from the official government reports I've posted above, it has been demonstrated that Iraq did NOT have an active WMD program and Saddam did NOT have operational ties to Al Qaeda.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct3 months, 1 week ago
MIVAN:
"The cat and mouse game Saddam PLAYED = He must be hiding something! HE HAD PLENTY OF CHANCES to comply!"
A) Saddam lied about possessing WMDs because he did not want to appear weak. He feared being overthrown either by external forces, like Iran or Israel, or by internal threats, like the Shiite and Kurds. However, after 9/11, Saddam WAS COMPLYING!
http://www.jfcom.mil/newslink/storyarchive/2006...
"'Chemical Ali' was convinced Iraq no longer possessed WMD, but claims many within the ruling circle always believed they did...According to Chemical Ali, Saddam was asked about having WMD during a meeting with members of the Revolutionary Command Council. He replied that Iraq did not have WMD, but flatly rejected a suggestion that the regime remove all doubts to the contrary. Saddam went on to explain that if Iraq made such a declaration, it would not only show Israel that Iraq did not have WMD, but might actually encourage the Israelis to attack."
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
