UPDATE/README: I see that others are complaining that we have veered off topic, and I would agree with them. If you want to continue this, reply with the thread you want to move it to and we can pick it up there.
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
No the 9-11 Commission stated very clearly that there was a connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq just not between Iraq and 9-11 two different things A and B skippy. I can tell that by posting articles instead of passages from the actual 9-11 Commisssion report that you have not read the report have you? I've got my own copy and I found a searchable one on the net so bring it skippy. I also no about Salmon Pak, do you know what that is? No you don't because you get your news and information from Al-Franken and Michael Moore.
I skipped through the report. To me it was a shame anyways. If you got the cites to prove mine wrong, then do send them along. I am not closed to new information. The ones I posted for you said were from the 911 commis talking about Al-qaeda, not just 911. If you are so proud of owning your own copy of something that was free on the Internet, use it and give me a reference.
LMFAO what do you think Al-Qaeda wants to create? They want an even more radical Islamic dictatorship if you think they want freedom then you're nuts. They want a pan-Islamic empire based on the tennants of Sayyid Qutb, the Islamic Brotherhood, and Jahiliyya. Do you know who that is? No I didn't think that you did.
They want Islamic societies - I never said they wanted freedom. What I did say that part of their problem with the US is US support of Saud. They want societies like the US ally Saudi Arabia, but without the US ally part.
Don't try to get fancy with your Islamic words, quoting specific sects doesn't change the fact that less involvement in the ME would lead to less strength in Al-Qaeda. And it doesn't change the fact that energy demands in the US feed money to the enemy in this war on terror. And to connect it back to the subject at hand, if the US would reduce its energy consumption, then they wouldn't have to fund both sides of the war with no end.
No because he fermented an alliance with Al-Qaeda which is well documented.
Yes, please provide any information that says that Saddam aided the base in anyway more relevent than the deal between the royals and mullahs in Arabia that kept the crown in power and the anti-west hatred in the school. The Saddam / Al-Qaeda link is nothing compared to the connections in SA.
No the difference is that Saddam is an ally of Al-Qaeda while Saudi Arabia is Al-Qaeda's sworn enemy, does the line: "if you're not with us you're against us," not get through to you? How about: "if you harbor terrorists you will be considered a terrorist." Saddam Hussein was actively training thousands of Islamic Radicals at Salmon-Pak.
Declaration of "if you not with us ... blah blah blah" didn't seem to make a difference for the tribal regions in Pakistan which are way more relevent to the base than Iraq. To bad there was no oil there.
Yes I suggest you start by studying Islam and the region it would save us all alot of time. I suggest the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict for starters, also, the history of modern Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, and work your way into the House of Saud and Wahhabism and then you will just begin to have an inkling of what I know about the region.
You seem very proud of yourself, but you don't impress me at all with your knowledge. You may think that it is because I am a lefty tree hugging commie (which I am not in anyway), but it is because you don't make compelling arguments or show any kind of backup to your claims; therefore don't have much crediability from my point of view. There are those on your side I would take direction on where to research from, but you are not one of them. Thanks anyway.
PS) for example suggesting that I get all my info from Mike Moore and Al Franken, shows (as I said in direct reply to that statement) you say things that you have no way of knowing or backup (cause they are not true), and you assert them as if they are fact.
