What al-Quaida really wants

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

BUT: Prez says it's worth it because we:

A.) Stopped 3 terrorist camps (maybe)

B.) Caught 3 terrorists

C.) Captured Saddam

---

Hold, on there, friend. Whether or not it was "worth it" was not the issue. I have you quoting NUMEROUS times that NO ties to terrorism existed pertaining to Iraq. NONE. In this, I feel I have proven you wrong. THAT was what I was arguing.

And in case you missed it, PREZ was not the only one with the opinion it was worth it.

You have the right to opine that Iraq was an unjust war, but do it on truth.

quote:

---

FACT: Iraq had never attacked the United States

FACT: At least 30,000 Iraqis have died in the 2 years since the U.S. invasion

FACT: On average, 50 - 60 deadly attacks are carried out every day on Iraqi civilians

FACT: Women in southern Iraq are forced to wear the hijab or risk being beaten or stoned to death.

FACT: The Kurds in Northern Iraq (our allies) had the poorest women's rights record in Iraq prior to our invasion according to Human Rights Watch.

FACT: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the U.S. government shall make war to enforce our view on others. Several of the founding fathers can be quoted as saying that we shouldn't.

FACT: 50+ U.S. soldiers die each month.

FACT: The War in Iraq is going to cost half a trillion dollars (at least) to conclude.

FACT: There were no WMD's in Iraq on the scale that Bush said.

---

On these facts, I can agree. I say this not because they are of any import to my opinion, but to show that, unlike you, I am capable of conceding a point to someone I disagree with. There is no mandate that you HAVE to oppose EVERY SINGLE THING that someone who disagrees with you says.

They do nothing to prove the injustice of the war, imo. Your continually using the numbers of civilians killed BY TERRORISTS to attack our position that Iraq is at the center of the war on terror is dubious at best, and downright sad at worst. Your implication that Zarqawi had to pass through Iran is just silly - IRAQ is where he decided to roost, 8 months BEFORE THE INVASION. I wonder why?

I am tired of being told of how irreputable and untouchable your sources are. Who made you the final arbiter on what source is valid and what isn't, I wonder? You are sourcing by convenience (something we all admittedly do to some degree).

[Guest $iLk]

quote:

---

Hold, on there, friend. Whether or not it was "worth it" was not the issue. I have you quoting NUMEROUS times that NO ties to terrorism existed pertaining to Iraq. NONE. In this, I feel I have proven you wrong. THAT was what I was arguing.

---

I have said numerous times (prior to this being an argument) of Iraq's (loose) ties to 'terrorism'. You are not being truthful when you act like they are cut & dried fact.

Most of them are conjecture. The only thing proven 'fact' that is 'supporting terrorism' is the $25k payments to Suicide bombers families against Israel. I've been mentioning those since last week.

No newspaper is going to list something that is a FACT that the government does not list also.

And the 'world terrorism' report released in 2002 showed that Iraq had not sponsored any terrorism beyond allowing some terrorist groups into the country.

quote:

---

On these facts, I can agree. I say this not because they are of any import to my opinion, but to show that, unlike you, I am capable of conceding a point to someone I disagree with. There is no mandate that you HAVE to oppose EVERY SINGLE THING that someone who disagrees with you says.

"But Saddam killed his own people", "But Saddam had rape rooms" and the like are arguments which I dismiss.

If you brought to the table direct sources of funding from Iraq to al Qaeda or other groups which attacked the United States I'd probably change my mind.

They do nothing to prove the injustice of the war, imo. Your continually using the numbers of civilians killed BY TERRORISTS to attack our position that Iraq is at the center of the war on terror is dubious at best, and downright sad at worst. Your implication that Zarqawi had to pass through Iran is just silly - IRAQ is where he decided to roost, 8 months BEFORE THE INVASION. I wonder why?

If we had not invaded Iraq, the terrorists would not be carrying out 50 attacks per day against Iraqi civilians. I've outlined this previously.

I'm also beginning to wonder if Zarqawi is really in Iraq considering we have not seen him on video. The only thing we've seen are old pictures and having to take Bush's word that he's in Iraq.

I am tired of being told of how irreputable and untouchable your sources are. Who made you the final arbiter on what source is valid and what isn't, I wonder? You are sourcing by convenience (something we all admittedly do to some degree).

When I have a source on one hand that most of the world agrees with including our government - versus a source that you trumpet that was peddled from Rush Limbaugh's studios (which would admittedly be biased) it is not a hard decision which one to weight more in my opinion.

---

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

The only thing proven 'fact' that is 'supporting terrorism' is the $25k payments to Suicide bombers families against Israel.

---

Zarqawi's presence in Iraq prior to the war is fact, as is the harboring and aiding the other terrorists. The WTC bombing ties to Iraq are not conjecture. The Salman Pak terrorist camp is fact and has been extensively reported on by MANY news sources. 2 Iraqi defectors have detailed exactly what kind of training was performed at this Hijackers Training Camp.

Whether you consider these as enough evidence to support an invasion is what I really believe to be the issue here. I do, you obviously do not.

quote:

---

The only thing proven 'fact' that is 'supporting terrorism' is the $25k payments to Suicide bombers families against Israel. I've been mentioning those since last week.

---

Indeed you have. I hereby amend my previous statement to accurately reflect this.

As it appears that on the afforementioned difference of opinion there will be no change of stance on either side, I will now bow out of this discussion for today.

[Guest $iLk]

Zarqawi's presence in Iraq prior to the war is fact, as is the harboring and aiding the other terrorists. The WTC bombing ties to Iraq are not conjecture. The Salman Pak terrorist camp is fact and has been extensively reported on by MANY news sources. 2 Iraqi defectors have detailed exactly what kind of training was performed at this Hijackers Training Camp.

It is conjecture what it was used for as I stated. Many News sources also incorrectly identified the Russian fusilage at Salman Pak as a Boeing Aircraft... (innocently I'm sure).

And we ought not forget the mother of all Iraqi defectors Chalabi... (you know - the one who made up a lot of stuff to get into power in Iraq and which most of our pre-war justifications were based on). Worthy of study - yes. Tied to 9/11 or any other terrorist attacks - no.

Whether you consider these as enough evidence to support an invasion is what I really believe to be the issue here. I do, you obviously do not.

I'm sorry that you have such a low standard of having decisions made in which thousands of men women and children will die.

And although Iran and Saudi Arabia have extensive terror connections, that Iraq's cannot match up to 1/10 of - you'll defend Bush's decision to kiss and hold hands with the Saudis.

Disgusting.

[John Prezioso]

quote:

---

I'm sorry that you have such a low standard of having decisions made in which thousands of men women and children will die.

And although Iran and Saudi Arabia have extensive terror connections, that Iraq's cannot match up to 1/10 of - you'll defend Bush's decision to kiss and hold hands with the Saudis.

Disgusting.

---

That's me - the ever unscrupulous, disgusting fellow.

[Guest $iLk]

No I'm serious. It's disgusting how pervasive GOP.com has been along with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and other 'commentators' that helped formulate your opinion.

Bush is practically making out with the leader of the country that basically attacked us on 9/11 and you minimize it saying: "Bush is just showing respect for a world leader" but God forbid a terrorist who attacked us 20 years ago, and was pardoned by the United States to boot, step foot in Iraq and you copy/paste it into your justifications for invasion.

The Iraqi people deserve freedom, but they don't deserve to live in the bloody mess they are in now. As much as I oppose the reasons for this war, I still support the swift conclusion of such. And to be frank, I'd have fired Don Rumsfield and replaced him with new blood. And if I were the President, I would be increasing troop levels dramatically to what the military said they'd need initially... (before Bush fired that General).

[John Prezioso]

Silk, I would find it insulting that you think I needed someone else to form my opinions if I didn't find ALL of this somewhat amusing.

It's amazing - if someone doesn't see it your way, then "Oh my, he is Brainwashed! He's a DITTO-HEAD!"

I'm done arguing this point, as you find it a bit too easy to twist my point in an unfortunate effort to prove me irrational. Instead of asking me how I feel about Bush dealing with the Saudis, you twist what I say until there can be no question I am in support of the Saudis. Why not accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer next?

Oh, and I drown puppies and torture small animals, too.

[Guest $iLk]

Everyone forms their opinions based on a variety of things, some of which are what others 'say' or 'write' which is why you formulate your opinion on Iraq based on the "Weekly Standard" which I of course pointed out is a Rush Limbaugh publication.

A hint:

It's not the alternative media. It's the conservative media. And it's every bit as biased.

[John Prezioso]

Assuming that I only formed my opinion from reading the weekly standard is just that; an assumption, and quite a misinfromed on your part, at that.

quote:

---

Everyone forms their opinions based on a variety of things, some of which are what others 'say' or 'write' which is why you formulate your opinion on Iraq based on the "Weekly Standard" which I of course pointed out is a Rush Limbaugh publication.

---

What others say or write is often only ancillary to one's own experiences, which are much more potent catalysts in formulating one's opinion. I agree with Rush, or more to the truth, HE agrees with ME.

[Guest $iLk]

So he says. Rush LImbaugh is indeed an entertaining person, but he professes to be validation to what people already feel, while spoonfeeding some 'extra' things that you - wow, agree with also because you agree with the other 9/10 of what he says.

If you already feel everything that he says, I'm not sure what to tell you. He's swallowing and regurgitating GOP.com (you do know he works for the GOP?) and I doubt even the people on GOP.com really believe half the stuff they write to be 100% true.

[John Prezioso]

Didn't anyone ever tell you the rule about assumptions?

I could care less if he worked for the Soviet Politburo. If he is right, he is right.

I hardly believe everything he says, but when what he tells me is what I already believe, I nod my head.

What I like the most about Rush is that beyond being just a spin doctor, he is an OPTIMIST. There are too many pessimistic, cynical people (like you, no offense) telling me the world has gone to hell in a handbasket and all I can do is accept the fact that everything sucks.

There are so many things you and I agree on, its amazing that you choose ONLY to harp on one of our differences of opinion.

I get the feeling you thrive on conflict.

[Guest $iLk]

With Rush, I can agree with him quite a bit on the points of ideology. Of course - he tries to pretend that the ideology is being followed by Republicans - and it's not.

I'm going to say that whomever the GOP nominates to succeed Herr Bush is going to face a Democrat running on a platform against Republican Fiscal Irresponsibility, and irresponsible Border control.

Mark my words.