John Kerry's response to Iraq Elections

[No Limit]

Sadam supported, trained and funded terrorists. The terrorists we are fighting over there today are part of the apparatus sadam had in place.

Really? I wasn't aware of any evidance of this. If I remember correctly he would shoot terrorists on site. Do you have any evidance of this or are you just believing Bush? (I think we both know that would be a mistake)

Sadam funded trained and supported terrorists. The terrorists we're fighting over there today, the ones that are being funded, trained and supported by the remnants of the Iraqi baathist regime currently being harbored by Syria are part of the terrorist apparatus created by Sadam.

As the CIA has said, most terrorists came from outside the border after the US opened them up in March 2003.

 

[Pericolos0]

i thought alot of the terrorists today in iraq, are thesame ones that used to be against sadam too.

 

[Bodacious]

Saddam Pays Hamas: Support and Funding of Terrorism .

Salman Pak: Training terrorists

Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassination

If you want different sources for each just ask, I can produce them.

 

[CptStern]

Saddam Pays Hamas: Support and Funding of Terrorism .

Salman Pak: Training terrorists

.

while nowhere near as in your face as saddam's support of palestinian terrorists (propaganda opportunity, much like Mussolini Saddam loved attention good or bad), The US has done it's fair share of supporting terrorists and terrorism: The School of the Americans, Contras, Orlando Bosch, SAVAK of iran, the Tonton Macoutes of Haiti etc etc etc ...they just keep quiet about it, or at least attempt to

 

[Bodacious]

while nowhere near as in your face as saddam's support of palestinian terrorists (propaganda opportunity, much like Mussolini Saddam loved attention good or bad), The US has done it's fair share of supporting terrorists and terrorism: The School of the Americans, Contras, Orlando Bosch, SAVAK of iran, the Tonton Macoutes of Haiti etc etc etc ...they just keep quiet about it, or at least attempt to

I answer No Limit's simple question of, "Really? I wasn't aware of any evidance of this. " and you turn it into a bash on the US. Hey, good attude, way to sidestep.


:thumbs:

 

[CptStern]

I'm not bashing the US, I just think it's ironic that you talk about the transgressions of others yet ignore your own

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"


btw saddam was a looney and a tyrant ..at least he has an excuse

 

[Bodacious]

I'm not bashing the US, I just think it's ironic that you talk about the transgressions of others yet ignore your own

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"


btw saddam was a looney and a tyrant ..at least he has an excuse

I just answered a question that was specific to Iraq and terrorism, not the rest of the world and terrorism.

 

[burner69]

Cpt Stern has a point. If you're gonna invade a country based on a premise that they train terrorists and have WMDs it seems a bit hypocritical that you do too. And then in the end it transpires that they don't even have WMD.

Also, it mentions in your second link that it was used to train Islamic terrorists - now, not all the terrorists over in Iraq right now are Islamic. And it is doubtful that any reasonable fraction of them were infact trained by Saddam - they will have been trained in countries that have a far wider network of terror activities going on. I ask again - why invade Iraq?

Of course it's hard to be unbias about this; I mean, sure we train people dodgy tactics that can easily be defined as terrorism, sure we've got WMDs, nukes, chemical weapons, but that dosen't matter cuz they're there to protect us, just as Saddams fictional stash of WMDs would have been for his own ends.

We use powerful weapons on countries who are a threat to us (note: I'm not implying that Iraq was ever a threat here), and we stay safe. If we let them have the same capabilities as us we're at risk.

As long as we're safe; who cares? Right?

 

[CptStern]

I agree :E

it was one of the justifications behind the war

"America has a message for the nations of the world. If you harbour terrorists, you are terrorists. If you train or arm, feed or fund a terrorist, you're a terrorist. And you will be held accountable" - George Bush


who will hold the US accountable?

 

[Tr0n]

I'm not bashing the US, I just think it's ironic that you talk about the transgressions of others yet ignore your own

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone"


btw saddam was a looney and a tyrant ..at least he has an excuse

Heh....I said that same line before in one of the threads below this one.

 

[CptStern]

heheh one of the locked ones? I can see how it got overlooked

 

[Tr0n]

Well I can't seem to find it...so it must have been a locked/deleted thread.

I said that to the same thing ya'll are debating about....hypocrisy of what our country has become.

Also I think it got overlooked because like always....I'm right.

So no one listens to me.

 

[No Limit]

Saddam Pays Hamas: Support and Funding of Terrorism .

Salman Pak: Training terrorists



If you want different sources for each just ask, I can produce them.

So let me ask you, is that enough to invade Iraq on?

 

[PvtRyan]

So let me ask you, is that enough to invade Iraq on?

Yes, because after all, Iraq attacked the US on 9/11. Oh no, wait, none of the hijackers were Iraqi. And besides, attacking an entire country to stop people with bad ideas is retarded. You can't stop terrorism with armed wars, if anything, this war only inspired more people to terrorist acts. So 'war on terror' is the worst excuse ever to start a war on a country.

 

[Bodacious]

So let me ask you, is that enough to invade Iraq on?

Of course not. But it answered your question did it not? That is all I provided. You didn't ask for justification for the war based on Iraq's support of terrorism, you questioned if Iraq was responsible for those things at all. There is proof, now you don't have to say Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

 

[Bodacious]

if anything, this war only inspired more people to terrorist acts.

This is a load of crap, especially in light of the recent election.

How many people died Jan 30 in Iraq? 44. And this is the terrorist acts that the US being there has caused? They had months to plan attacks, months. If these people are as angry as you say they are, then why is it, on Iraq's most historuc day in modern history, can these terrorists only kill 44 people?

 

[CptStern]

Well I can't seem to find it...so it must have been a locked/deleted thread.

I said that to the same thing ya'll are debating about....hypocrisy of what our country has become.

I think many of us have repeated this till our faces are blue

Also I think it got overlooked because like always....I'm right.

I agree.....except the "always" part

So no one listens to me.

they listen ..well, they hear you ...well, they pay attention ...they look in your general direction ...ya you're right

 

[CptStern]

This is a load of crap, especially in light of the recent election.

How many people died Jan 30 in Iraq? 44. And this is the terrorist acts that the US being there has caused? They had months to plan attacks, months. If these people are as angry as you say they are, then why is it, on Iraq's most historuc day in modern history, can these terrorists only kill 44 people?

probably because the entire country was shut down, no running water, no electricity ..and soldiers everywhere. Oh and the violence is escalating not subsiding

http://smh.com.au/news/World/Violen...l/2005/01/22/1106334252176.html?oneclick=true

http://kyw.com/iraq/iraq_story_027213904.html

 

[PvtRyan]

This is a load of crap, especially in light of the recent election.

How many people died Jan 30 in Iraq? 44. And this is the terrorist acts that the US being there has caused? They had months to plan attacks, months. If these people are as angry as you say they are, then why is it, on Iraq's most historuc day in modern history, can these terrorists only kill 44 people?

Forgot Madrid?

If you actually think that an armed conflict will stop people hating you (terrorism), then I feel sorry for you. Terrorism is an act committed out of an ideal, you can't fight that with guns. The "war on terror" is moronic.

 

[Bodacious]

probably because the entire country was shut down, no running water, no electricity ..and soldiers everywhere. Oh and the violence is escalating not subsiding

http://smh.com.au/news/World/Violen...l/2005/01/22/1106334252176.html?oneclick=true

http://kyw.com/iraq/iraq_story_027213904.html

But this is the allmighty insurgency you are talking about, stern, the freedom fighters, come one now!

These are the people that we have rallied by invading their homeland, who we have tortured and caused the death of their children for over a decade, who don't have running, clean water or medical supplies, or food, who we use napalm and chemicals on intentionally.

Of all of that that the media would have us believe, that we are in a "quagmire" and the troops are making the problems worse, and all the "insurgents" can kill on the most historic day for Iraq in modern history is 44 people?

Your first article is a subscription one and the second doesn't really add or detract from the argument with the exception of the headline, which is misleading, I think. And if you think because it says, "After the deadliest day since the war's start" that isn't because of the insurgnts. Even then there were attacks that killed 80+ civillians since the war's start.

 

[CptStern]

*perks up ears when Madrid is mentioned* ..war supporters like to try to use Madrid bombing to support their case ...which doesnt hold any merit whatsoever

 

[CptStern]

But this is the allmighty insurgency you are talking about, stern, the freedom fighters, come one now!

These are the people that we have rallied by invading their homeland, who we have tortured and caused the death of their children for over a decade, who don't have running, clean water or medical supplies, or food, who we use napalm and chemicals on intentionally.

Of all of that that the media would have us believe, that we are in a "quagmire" and the troops are making the problems worse, and all the "insurgents" can kill on the most historic day for Iraq in modern history is 44 people?

Your first article is a subscription one and the second doesn't really add or detract from the argument with the exception of the headline, which is misleading, I think. And if you think because it says, "After the deadliest day since the war's start" that isn't because of the insurgnts. Even then there were attacks that killed 80+ civillians since the war's start.

insurgents target military targets, terrorists target everybody ...terrorists killed 44 people that day

 

[Bodacious]

Forgot Madrid?

How many people died in Madrid on Iraq's election day? Can you name another attack besides that one? I can name at least two in America that have been thwarted because of the war on terror. Besides, I am talking about the insurgency, not international terror.


If you actually think that an armed conflict will stop people hating you (terrorism), then I feel sorry for you. Terrorism is an act committed out of an ideal, you can't fight that with guns. The "war on terror" is moronic.

Where did I say that an armed conflict will stop people hating us?

123456

 

[Bodacious]

insurgents target military targets, terrorists target everybody ...terrorists killed 44 people that day

Like I have siad, insurgents when you want to undermine the US's efforts and terrorists when you can't disagree. Whatever you call them when it suits you, it is still spinning the facts to fit your agenda.

 

[CptStern]

Like I have siad, insurgents when you want to undermine the US's efforts and terrorists when you can't disagree. Whatever you call them when it suits you, it is still spinning the facts to fit your agenda.

blame Webster's or dictionary.com, not me


in·sur·gent
1 : a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent


ter·ror·ist
1: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

 

[burner69]

War on terrorism beating terrorists?
Google = 2004 terrorist figures

I totally agree with the ideal of fighting an ideal, such as terrorism, with armed conflict. It's counter productive; which may not sound like much, but basically it means more people die, which is bad.. mmkay?

And you say that your linkage is not cause enough to go to war on... so... why did we go to war? No WMDs, not many terrorists (I think your second article stated groups of 50-60 at a time).

Oh, and 44 people is quite a lot of people. Count it out, and imagine each number is a persons life. Haunting.

 

[Tr0n]

blame Webster's or dictionary.com, not me


in·sur·gent
1 : a person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; especially : one not recognized as a belligerent


ter·ror·ist
1: characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); "terrorist activity"; "terrorist state" n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

They should also add the term "Evil-doers".

 

[Bodacious]

War on terrorism beating terrorists?
Google = 2004 terrorist figures

I totally agree with the ideal of fighting an ideal, such as terrorism, with armed conflict. It's counter productive; which may not sound like much, but basically it means more people die, which is bad.. mmkay?

And you say that your linkage is not cause enough to go to war on... so... why did we go to war? No WMDs, not many terrorists (I think your second article stated groups of 50-60 at a time).

What is the point of asking why did we go to war? What is that going to accomplish? The troops aren't coming home even if you get every war supporter to admit the war wasn't justified.


Oh, and 44 people is quite a lot of people. Count it out, and imagine each number is a persons life. Haunting.

Like I said, this is the insurgency, terrorists, whatever you want to call them, who has been goven months to plan attacks, who said there was going to be massive bloodshed, who the media and some members of congress think are going to defeat the troops, and all they can kill is 44 people? There are people on this forum who thought there was going to be a huge disaster that day, and it never came.

123456

 

[CptStern]

What is the point of asking why did we go to war? What is that going to accomplish? The troops aren't coming home even if you get every war supporter to admit the war wasn't justified.

if they're not held accountable they'll do it again and again

 

[Bodacious]

if they're not held accountable they'll do it again and again

And who is going to hold them accountable? All the naysayers can do is protest, moan, and complain and so far it hasn't done anything.

 

[CptStern]

And who is going to hold them accountable?

the guys who slam planes into buildings, that's who


you're right, we cant do anything about it as individuals but our voices are getting louder ..before the invasion there was a single day demonstration that had over 30 million participants ..it was history's biggest protest

 

[burner69]

And who is going to hold them accountable? All the naysayers can do is protest, moan, and complain and so far it hasn't done anything.

The people you're fighting. Those terrorists. You've just given them another motive to attack you - good luck :thumbs:

Incidently, if I walked into your house, shot your dog, and walked out again, would you just let it pass - saying it's past history, the dog's dead, dosen't matter?

 

[Tr0n]

the guys who slam planes into buildings, that's who


you're right, we cant do anything about it as individuals but our vioces are getting louder ..before the invasion there was a single day demonstration that had over 30 million participants ..it was history's biggest protest

Not taking sides here or anything...I'll play devils advocate for a quick sec.

What did the protest accomplish?Voices were heard but yet the war still went on and still goes on.

Only way to stop something is it to get more people to do more actions.30 million ain't enough...

 

[No Limit]

Of course not. But it answered your question did it not? That is all I provided. You didn't ask for justification for the war based on Iraq's support of terrorism, you questioned if Iraq was responsible for those things at all. There is proof, now you don't have to say Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism.

Of course not, there ya go. I won't go in to how insignificant those 2 examples are and the fact they were no danger to the US (as Bush suggested) as that will get way off topic; at least you were able to find some connection, most of your friends can't which is why I always ask the question. Usually there is no response proving all these people do is listen to Bush and don't actually look anything up for themselves.

Now, you just admitted that Saddam's 2 examples of 'terrorists support' isn't reason enough to invade Iraq. So since we can't use that and there clearly are no WMDs what is the remaining justification for the war; human rights?

 

[CptStern]

Not taking sides here or anything...I'll play devils advocate for a quick sec.

What did the protest accomplish?Voices were heard but yet the war still went on and still goes on.

Only way to stop something is it to get more people to do more actions.30 million ain't enough...

sadly not enough of those were americans ..if 30 million americans protested the war, I'm sure they'd have no choice but to listen


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


worked like a charm

 

[No Limit]

And who is going to hold them accountable? All the naysayers can do is protest, moan, and complain and so far it hasn't done anything.

In a democracy the people are supposed to hold the president and his cabinet accountable. Sadly 51% of Americans are blinded by religion and the way Republicans abuse it to make a right choice.

 

[KoreBolteR]

insurgents target military targets, terrorists target everybody ...terrorists killed 44 people that day

i suppose most of the "insurgents" in iraq have killed civilians and innocent people.
especially 1 of thier leaders.. al zarqawi.
i cant really think of any insurgents atm.

madrid train bombings were to get spanish troops out of iraq and it worked, i was sickened when 3/11 happened , how can the terrorists be so hearltess. plus its werid because ive been to spain a few times, and travelled on a madrid train.

In a democracy the people are supposed to hold the president and his cabinet accountable. Sadly 51% of Americans are blinded by religion and the way Republicans abuse it to make a right choice.

I wanted Kerry to win the election, but i wouldnt go as far as saying 51% are blinded by religion..
even tho i think religion should be scrapped.

 

[Tr0n]

sadly not enough of those were americans ..if 30 million americans protested the war, I'm sure they'd have no choice but to listen


"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


worked like a charm

That is true....protesting did work during the Vietnam War, but it took so long to have any affect lots of troops were already killed.Hell...they shoulda have just let the war go on because the US and south viet military was actually slowly starting to gain control and win.

But back to the point...only way things are gonna get done now is to do somethin more...how should I say this...dramatic?

If you have a devious mind like I do...you know where I'm comin from.

 

[Tr0n]

In a democracy the people are supposed to hold the president and his cabinet accountable. Sadly 51% of Americans are blinded by religion and the way Republicans abuse it to make a right choice.

Well not to start a flame war...

Just cause 51% voted for bush doesn't make them "blinded" by religion.MY grandma is one of the truest christians out there...but she voted for Kerry.

If you study and practice it right it can free your mind and body.

 

[CptStern]

madrid train bombings were to get spanish troops out of iraq and it worked, i was sickened when 3/11 happened , how can the terrorists be so hearltess. plus its werid because ive been to spain a few times, and travelled on a madrid train.

you know, yesterday you complained about people quoting you and hacking up your arguments, you only have yourself to blame because you often post "facts" that arent facts


Incorrect KoreBoltr, I voted in that election (dual citizenship), Aznar was on his way out ..the winning party (the opposition, Zapatero) ran on a platform of bringing the troops home from the very day the elections were called ..it was going to be a landslide even without the terrorist attack on madrid. Spaniards were overwhelmingly against the war, at 80%