Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Al Qaeda in Dreamland

Recommended Posts

These guys just don't know when to call it quits and looks like they are still grasping at straws. I dunno watching that video it seems more like someone is behind the camera pointing a gun at Ayman al-Zawahri to read that statement. He doesn't look at all like he wants to be there. But that could be just me.

CAIRO, Egypt ÔÇö Usama bin Laden's (search) chief deputy proclaimed the United States will ultimately be defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan in a videotape broadcast Thursday that appeared to be a rallying call for Al Qaeda ahead of the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

La dee dah, same old same old, they want good news, so they give themselves some!! ROFLMAO!!

It is VERY funny though!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

We've been in Germany and Japan for the last 60, what makes this any different.

That is the mistake of this generation, everything is right now, well, the fact of the matter is, we may be there for the next 100 years, just as we have been in Germany for the last 60.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

We've been in Germany and Japan for the last 60, what makes this any different.

ROFLMAO....

Man, I had to catch my breath, after reading that!!!

The DIFFERENCE, is ENORMOUS!!!

Japan, and Germany SURRENDERED, from ACTUAL war; thus, both submitted to the defeat, and stopped hostilities.

Think, for a moment!!.............how pleasant, it will be, to be in a desert, facing random hit squads throughout your entire tour, as a soldier.

HOSTILE purpose, being actively bred from generation to generation with NO END.

And compare that to the lush comforts, of those stationed within Japan, Germany and even KOREA for that matter.... ANYTIME since those countries surrendered:"AND the hostilities had ENDED.

Reality, can be elusive, for some(I guess), but if one trys hard enough, they CAN see it..... good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I was based in Turkey for 18 months, I also trained in the desert for desert environments, also, Iraq is actually quite a nice place, when it isn't being raped by a crazy dictator.

We will be there fore while, but not 60 years, but at least for the next decade.

Poor Street, logical thought just seems to escape you.

And when we were in Germany the first 6 years, we were having soldiers killed by the thousands by hardcore Nazis.

Do you not know ANY history at all Street, or are you just shooting by the seat of your pants with no facts to back you up as usual?

WEll, gone for the weekend, I will not miss seeing Street malinformed and vitriolic responses AT ALL.

Cya all Sunday night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real laugher in that Fox news report was listening to the idiot commentator.

He was flying by the seat of his pants through the whole report. LOL

Alot of uhs and errs (_8(|) DOH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

The sense of their message is that the can stay remanent for an undefined amount of years until the environment allows them to resurface. Are you prepared to support your troops there, let say, for the next 20 years ? Don't compare the motivation of a GI who's mainly thinking about going home & rejoin his family with conditioned individuals who believe that they will go to paradise if they fight infidels.

Let's see, I signed up for the military, I was assigned for 18 MONTHS in Turkey.

It will be just like that with Iraq, you are going to Iraq for 1 year, then we will assign you within the states.

It is as it has always been.

It's just that citizenship of this country have been woosified.

WWII was NO picinic, but our grandparents and Great Grandparents fought it and won it, it is now up to our generation to fight this fight, but most of you would rather sit in your bedrooms on the computer then even think about putting yourself in danger.

Yes, this country is made up of a bunch of wooses who are too afraid to lose thier little conveniences, or be inconvenienced fighting a war that will destroy this country if it is NOT won.

Those of you who do not wish to fight the war on terror, please move to New York, the rest of us that support the war will stay and do what we can to support our troops, and do our best to make sure that the terrorists hit New York instead of anywhere else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Those of you who do not wish to fight the war on terror, please move to New York, the rest of us that support the war will stay and do what we can to support our troops, and do our best to make sure that the terrorists hit New York instead of anywhere else.

thats just plain sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad

You seem to have forgotten something

The US DID have a UN Mandate for over two years there

What did that accomplish?

NOTHING

That's why Bush went in without there help, ecause he knew that the UN Mandate did nothing but help Saddam get richer

And Nomad, the reason the Europain's are made is because we took out Saddam.. that's why a lot of people opposed us going into Iraq, but even Kerry said that Saddam was a threat (before he flip flopped AFTER we took him out)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad

Did you forget already that the UN was RESPONDSIBLE for Saddam's funding of terror cells?

The oil for food... something you apperently convently forgot

It was good to take Saddam out cause he funded terror cell's in his country, he harbored terrorist's and he also avoided all inspections which in my opinion was a clear sign of suspiusion

Country's like France, Spain, China, Germany, and in some case's a few US districts thought it was a bad idea to take out Saddam... why? Cause they would no longer benefit from the Oil to Food campaign, which was a major FAILOUR cause saddam did not use any of the money to help his citizens, he used it to fund the terror cell's in his country

Nomad, where do you get the BS from about the UN and about how I expect them to serv us? I'm beginning to wonder if you're listening to the liberal media here

No, I expect the UN to follow there own policies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found something interesting in the Congressional Records

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ -- HON. TIM ROEMER (Extensions of Remarks - October 17, 2002

Here's a little insert

quote:

Whether Saddam Hussein represents an imminent threat to the United States is the most important question we have answered. After examining the evidence and meeting with key members of the Pentagon and the intelligence community, I have concluded that there is ample evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein represents a clear, grave, and growing threat to the United States. While I do not agree with Administration statements about Iraqi connections, at this point, on the September 11 terrorist attacks or the accusations of firm and provable al Qaeda links, the lynch pin for me is weapons of mass destruction. He is seeking to build a nuclear device launched by ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles, far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

I think it's best you guy's read this.. cause this'll answer you're question about rather Saddam was a threat or not

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just noticed that to... seem's the website won't authorize the posting link's on a message board other than the offical ink itself

There for here's a way to find that search

In the search box (Word/Phrase), type UN

Then go down to where it says

Date Received or Session:

Type in 10/17/2002 and 10/17/2002, then selecte On or Before

then click enter, you should get some find's.. number 44 should be the number that this is located at

Make sure you're under 107th Congress (2001-2002)

Congresstional Records, 107th Congress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

AUTHORIZING THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ -- HON. TIM ROEMER (Extensions of Remarks - October 17, 2002)

---

HON. TIM ROEMER

OF INDIANA

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Wednesday, October 16, 2002

Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a cosponsor of H.J. Res. 114, authorizing the potential use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq. This will be one of my final votes in Congress, and it is the most solemn duty since I cast one of my first votes in the House on the Gulf War Resolution nearly twelve years ago.

Last month, President Bush described the Iraqi regime as ``a grave and gathering danger'' in his speech before the United Nations General Assembly. I generally agree with this characterization, and therefore support this resolution's objective to provide the President with the authority he needs as Commander-in-Chief to curb the threat of terrorism and defend the United States. However, much more time and emphasis should be centered on multilateral efforts to exhaust our diplomatic means to resolve the situation and build a coalition.

The situation in Iraq reflects our most dire and serious concerns about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their potential use against the United States, neighboring countries, our allies, and U.S. troops in the region. There is no question that Saddam Hussein possesses and has used chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. We know that he has tortured and gassed his own people. His continuing defiance of United Nations disarmament demands including weapons inspections has frustrated the international community for more than a decade.

Whether Saddam Hussein represents an imminent threat to the United States is the most important question we have answered. After examining the evidence and meeting with key members of the Pentagon and the intelligence community, I have concluded that there is ample evidence indicating that Saddam Hussein represents a clear, grave, and growing threat to the United States. While I do not agree with Administration statements about Iraqi connections, at this point, on the September 11 terrorist attacks or the accusations of firm and provable al Qaeda links, the lynch pin for me is weapons of mass destruction. He is seeking to build a nuclear device launched by ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles, far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

Earlier this week, the American public learned from the President that Iraq has a growing number of aircraft that could deliver weapons of mass destruction, including a fleet of unmanned aerial vehicles potentially seeking to deliver biological and chemical weapons to target cities in the United States. While it is nearly impossible to determine the status of Iraq's nuclear weapons development, it is clear that Saddam Hussein is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program and will not allow weapons inspectors in to monitor this situation. In fact, recent satellite photographs unclassified by the Administration indicate how extensively a crucial Iraqi nuclear facility had been rebuilt since the United States bombed it in 1998.

Again, notwithstanding this evidence, the United States must thoroughly exhaust every diplomatic and non-military option before resorting to war. That means working with the United Nations to ensure that we build a strong coalition of international support and pressure on Iraq to adhere to a new UN resolution. Should these efforts fail, however, we must be assured the option to use force. This leverage might indeed be the only tool to force Iraq to open up unconditional inspection. We

must insist that Saddam Hussein provide unconditional access to his weapons of mass destruction. But facing clear evidence or peril, the United States cannot wait for the final proof that Saddam Hussein can unleash terror and destruction. We have a duty now to prevent this from being accomplished.

Importantly, this resolution contains a preamble setting out important milestones in the recent Iraqi defiance of international law and other matters relating to the United States response to it and to the realities of our global war on terrorism. The resolution also affirms the importance of working in concert with other nations, gives preference to diplomacy over a military solution, and focuses attention where it should be on disarming Saddam Hussein. It also signals our Nation's seriousness of purpose and its willingness to use force, which may yet persuade Iraq to meet its international obligations. I firmly believe that this is the best way to persuade members of the UN Security Council and others in the international community to join us in bringing pressure on Iraq or, if required, in using armed force against it to eliminate these biological and chemical weapons.

Moreover, this resolution seeks to assure we will not be diverted from the war on terrorism and provides for the ongoing and constitutional role of Congress to declare war. I agree with the President that confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. However, we must not lose sight that there are many other urgent threats that already represent a ``clear and present danger,'' such as the growing number of al Qaeda terrorist cells in Yemen, the Philippines and Indonesia.

I am pleased that the congressional leadership and the executive branch have been able to work together to negotiate a joint resolution that appears to have strong bipartisan and bicameral support. I would have preferred that the resolution include the Biden-Lugar language that I believe would have further limited the scope to removing weapons of mass destruction and possibly ensuring greater international support for our objectives. That is why I supported an amendment offered by Representatives JIM DAVIS, BOB MENENDEZ and BEN CARDIN to require the President to report back to Congress on the ``grave'' danger posed by Iraq before triggering military force. Unfortunately, however, this amendment was rejected by the Committee on Rules and will not be considered by the full House.

Still, Mr. Speaker, this resolution is a product of good-faith efforts on the part of Congress and the Administration to unite the Nation in response to the Iraqi threat, and I will vote for it. This sends an important signal to the American public and the international community that we support this mission and that our troops will have every resource they require to defend our freedom, diminish the threat of terrorism, and achieve broad worldwide support. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and pray for the rapid return of our brave men and women in uniform, should they be deployed, to their homes and families.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You missed the point of the document nomad

The document has both fact and flawed information

Information there show's that at the time we had the right to go into Iraq, and even though I still think we had our right that's my opinion

In the case where the intellgence was possibly flawed, that's the fault of the intelligence analist's, NOT the Administration

The administration trusted the intell, there for you can't fault them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by street:

soo far above their heads, nomad

No, he's talking the typical intellectual nonsense.

He has talking points that are basically WRONG, and then going from there.

Russia ALSO had the same intelligence about Iraq, Russia also told us that Iraq was going to use terrorists to attack the US mainland.

Saddam has DIRECT links to terrorism, HE had WMD's, which are now in Syria, no matter how much you wish to ignore that, and he financed suicide bombers in Israel.

Saddam was up to his eyebrows with terrorists, and that is ONE of the reasons we took his little butt out.

The intel on the WMD's was NOT flawed, it was OLD, because the WMD's had and were being moved. Along with the scientists, the Guard that was protecting them, and the labs.

All 3 are now sitting in Syria.

We attacked Iraq for 3 reasons.

A: Saddam had WMD's, and was attempting to create more.

B: He had DIRECT links with Terrorists, Al Quaeda, Hammas, etc. He helped finance, train, etc.

C: Iraq needs to be turned into a democracy in the long term, in order to create a stable area to begin the long term solution to the middle east problem.

A is EASILY proven, they gave us their list of WMD's themselves, and NEVER proved that they had destroyed them.

B is again easily proven, considering 10-25K dollars going to the Suicide bombers families were easily routed to their origins, Saddam Housien.

C is happening, short term it looks like a mess to you diehard chicken littles, but then again so did Germany and Japan after WWII. It took almost a decade to kill or capture those that were the hardcore fighters with those regimes, shoot, Russia lost almost 400,000 just trying to pacify thier part of Germany.

I feel really bad for you guys, the world is upside down to you, the facts to back up what you are saying, just isn't there.

History proves that what Bush has done will and can work in the long run. And the fact of the matter is, IT IS WORKING, a MAJORITY of the Iraqi people are behind us, 76% beleive that their lives are better, and will be better a year from now, the rest will follow as we rebuild Iraq and create conditions where the people will control the government and can have a true capitalist society.

History shows that Bush is right, and the future historians will say that Bush was EXACTLY right in doing what he did.

You guys are looking at tomorrow, we are looking 10 years from now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Got no facts to refute me, so give the old roll eyes.

Typical liberal nonsense.

The facts back me up, the facts show you to be WRONG.

Prove to me with FACTS, not rhetoric Street, but you can't do it, because you have NO FACTS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

twisted, interpretation of facts, which are mingled with political biased rhetoric, are nothing but misinformation.

I cease, trying to discuss this with you, but will not cease supporting the discussion presented to you by, any who present the real FACTS, to you!!

thus:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Those are the REAL facts Street, too bad your Hate Bush mentality keeps you from realizing it.

Lead a horse to water....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaq-wired, why dont you argue with the one who has dispensed: common sense and logic, WITH REAL FACTS, and interpretation of such....: "NOMAD"

I merely state, my agreement and reinforcemnt, for NOMAD'S, intelligent understanding, and well rounded information, as to the REALITY of what is!.

Your blinded veiw, of bush propaghanda is appalling, to say the least. and as far as leading a horse to water......

I question your ability to point out water, if you saw it....much less LEAD anyone to it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×