Hussein's Prewar Ties To Al-Qaeda Discounted

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

link for full article:

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism by Barry Rubin

 

[Billo_Really]

From TOT's link above:
...if the United States tries to prove to the Arab world that its intentions are nonthreatening, it could end up making matters even worse.
- BARRY RUBIN

This is total psychotic garbage!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This is total psychotic garbage!

Followed by this line:

New American attempts at appeasement would only show radicals in the Middle East that their anti-American strategy has succeeded and is the best way to win concessions from the world's sole superpower.

The lesson that, appeasing tyrants and radicals only gives them more incentive to push the line because it shows weakness on the part of the appeaser, which has been taught to us time and time again through the lessons of history, is garbage to you?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by TOT:
The lesson that, appeasing tyrants and radicals only gives them more incentive to push the line because it shows weakness on the part of the appeaser, which has been taught to us time and time again through the lessons of history, is garbage to you?

This whole "appeasing" mantra was made up by psycho's!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

This whole "appeasing" mantra was made up by psycho's!

Ya umm, appeasment was the main reason for WW2, it shows weakness and gives incentives to tyrants to engage in acts of aggression. It is those who after the repeated lessons of history still cling to the pacifist and policy of appeasment who are the psychos. Infact repeating the same destructive behavior while knowing the consequences is the very definition of insanity.

 

[PeteEU]

Ya umm, appeasment was the main reason for WW2, it shows weakness and gives incentives to tyrants to engage in acts of aggression.

Rewriting history again I see. So you claim the main reason Hilter rose to power and did what he did, was that "others" did not stand up to him and attack him or kill him? Guess we have to rewrite all history books then.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Rewriting history again I see. So you claim the main reason Hilter rose to power and did what he did, was that "others" did not stand up to him and attack him or kill him? Guess we have to rewrite all history books then.

I don't know what history books you're reading but the ones that I'm reading all state that the European powers unwillingness to stand up to Hitler was the main reason why Hitler was able to do what he did and the reason why he thought he would be able to get away with invading Poland in that he thought the liberal Democracies had neither the will nor the want to confront him. It's called the lesson of Munich I suggest you look into it.

 

[Stinger]

That was my point. If you're gonna give me crap for using sources from the "fringe," you might wanna hold yourself to the same standard. :2wave: :2razz:

Do you think simple dismissals of one the better news magazines proves your argument?

 

[Iriemon]

Ya umm, appeasment was the main reason for WW2, it shows weakness and gives incentives to tyrants to engage in acts of aggression. It is those who after the repeated lessons of history still cling to the pacifist and policy of appeasment who are the psychos. Infact repeating the same destructive behavior while knowing the consequences is the very definition of insanity.

Yep. We should have started a nuclear war instead of appeasing the SU in Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Cuba and Poland.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Yep. We should have started a nuclear war instead of appeasing the SU in Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Cuba and Poland.

It was not until Reagan stood up to the SU that they were able to be defeated. The policy of appeasing the Soviets ended up leaving Eastern Europe under 50 odd years of Communist oppression.

 

[Napoleon's Nightingale]

Of course, what Mr. Cheney isn't willing to admit is that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was a wanted man in the eyes of Saddam's regime because they believed he was responsible for a hotel bombing in Baghdad. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was indeed operating inside Iraq but what Cheney doesn't tell you is that he went into hiding in the northern Kurdish territories, where Saddam couldn't reach him, after Saddam's regime detained a handfull of his operatives. There was no collaborative relationship between Saddam's regime and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

 

[Iriemon]

Abdul Rahman Yasin was a known member of AQ who built the bomb in the 1993 WTC bombing, he was given asylum and a salary by the Baathist regime, Saddam was harboring terrorists, why is that so hard for YOU to grasp.

According to Wiki, Yasin was released by the US attorney general and then went to Iraq, where he was later imprisoned. Iraq offered to release Yasin to the US, but US officials were unwilling to agree to Iraqi conditions.

Abdul Rahman Yasin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is some "harboring." Kind of like how Hussein "harbored" Abu Nidal by putting a few bullets in his head.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

According to Wiki, Yasin was released by the US attorney general and then went to Iraq,

Because they didn't know Yousef was K.S.M.'s nephew, who K.S.M. was, or, that K.S.M. was connected to O.B.L. at the time, and in reality they didn't even know who O.B.L. was at the time if they had there is no way Yasin would have been released.

where he was later imprisoned.

He was not imprisoned he was given a salary.

Iraq offered to release Yasin to the US, but US officials were unwilling to agree to Iraqi conditions.

According to Iraq but in reality he was given a salary and asylum.

Abdul Rahman Yasin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is some "harboring." Kind of like how Hussein "harbored" Abu Nidal by putting a few bullets in his head.

When we found out who K.S.M. and Ramzi Yousef really were it was to late. You realize that the plot that was hatched by the 1st WTC bombers are connected to the 9-11 attacks right?

 

[Iriemon]

He was not imprisoned he was given a salary.

According to Iraq but in reality he was given a salary and asylum.

He was at first but then he was imprisoned when the US said he was behind the bombing.

When we found out who K.S.M. and Ramzi Yousef really were it was to late. You realize that the plot that was hatched by the 1st WTC bombers are connected to the 9-11 attacks right?

I realize that the sources I read said there was nothing that connected Iraq to 9-11. I know that Mohammed confessed to a lot of stuff after being held in US prisons for 4 years without being charged with anything and allegedly being tortured.

 

[Iriemon]

Originally Posted by Iriemon
Yep. We should have started a nuclear war instead of appeasing the SU in Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Cuba and Poland.

It was not until Reagan stood up to the SU that they were able to be defeated. The policy of appeasing the Soviets ended up leaving Eastern Europe under 50 odd years of Communist oppression.

And no nuclear war. And despite that, we won the Cold war without vaporizing a couple hundred million people. Imagine that. Score one for appeasement.

 

[26 X World Champs]

It was not until Reagan stood up to the SU that they were able to be defeated. The policy of appeasing the Soviets ended up leaving Eastern Europe under 50 odd years of Communist oppression.

Too much damn Kool-Aid! Between you and Stinger the rewriting of the truth to support your inaccurate claims is stunning.

Reagan was one part of the fall of the Soviet Union...no way the main part! YIKES!

The SU went BANKRUPT due to 40 years of US policy...look it up and stop trying to create frickin GOP heroes out of nonsense.

 

[Iriemon]

Too much damn Kool-Aid! Between you and Stinger the rewriting of the truth to support your inaccurate claims is stunning.

Reagan was one part of the fall of the Soviet Union...no way the main part! YIKES!

The SU went BANKRUPT due to 40 years of US policy...look it up and stop trying to create frickin GOP heroes out of nonsense.

IMO, the SU went bankrupt due to the inherent inefficiencies of a command economy versus anything the US did.

 

[oldreliable67]

It was not until Reagan stood up to the SU that they were able to be defeated.

The SU went BANKRUPT due to 40 years of US policy.

IMO, the SU went bankrupt due to the inherent inefficiencies of a command economy versus anything the US did.

You are all correct in the aspect of the demise of the SU on which you have commented, but to be complete, one has to put them all together: Reagan succeeded in putting the nail in the SU coffin by recognizing how close the SU was to the brink (though some historians say that he was himself at first surprised by the realization), but only after many years of Soviet systemic inefficiencies (i.e., their system inhibited, some say prohibited, the necessary efficiencies) hindering responses to the decades-long US policies of containment and generally higher-trending defense spending.

IMO, one gets an accurate picture of the causes of the demise of the SU only by putting all of these factors together.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

He was at first but then he was imprisoned when the US said he was behind the bombing.

Again according to the Iraqi government, but here in realityville documents prove that he was given asylum and a salary.

I realize that the sources I read said there was nothing that connected Iraq to 9-11. I know that Mohammed confessed to a lot of stuff after being held in US prisons for 4 years without being charged with anything and allegedly being tortured.

Wow you're funny, now you're defending K.S.M., who everyone who is not a leftist shill or terrorist sympathizer acknowledges is the mastermind of 9-11.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And no nuclear war. And despite that, we won the Cold war without vaporizing a couple hundred million people. Imagine that. Score one for appeasement.

A) It was not appeasement that won the cold war it was confrontation.

B) Where did I say that anything short of nuclear war was appeasement?

 

[Binary_Digit]

B) Where did I say that anything short of nuclear war was appeasement?

When you respond the way you do about diplomacy with our "enemies", it's not hard to make that conclusion.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When you respond the way you do about diplomacy with our "enemies", it's not hard to make that conclusion.

I suggest you go and find out how this subject got started.

 

[Iriemon]

Again according to the Iraqi government, but here in realityville documents prove that he was given asylum and a salary.

What documents were those? How could Iraq offer him for extradition on at least two occassions if he wasn't under some kind of arrest.

Wow you're funny, now you're defending K.S.M., who everyone who is not a leftist shill or terrorist sympathizer acknowledges is the mastermind of 9-11.

I don't defend him at all. I'm suggesting his testimony may be false, probably due to coersion. You're the one arguing we should believe an alleged terrorist.

 

[Iriemon]

A) It was not appeasement that won the cold war it was confrontation.

How did the US confront the SU in 1956 when it sent tanks into Hungary? Or 1968 into Czechoslovakia? Or 1980 into Poland?

B) Where did I say that anything short of nuclear war was appeasement?

You didn't. That would have been the likely result of the US sending tanks into Hungary in 56, Czechoslovakia in 68, or Poland in 1980, had we not instead followed of policy of measured appeasement.

 

[26 X World Champs]

You are all correct in the aspect of the demise of the SU on which you have commented, but to be complete, one has to put them all together: Reagan succeeded in putting the nail in the SU coffin by recognizing how close the SU was to the brink (though some historians say that he was himself at first surprised by the realization), but only after many years of Soviet systemic inefficiencies (i.e., their system inhibited, some say prohibited, the necessary efficiencies) hindering responses to the decades-long US policies of containment and generally higher-trending defense spending.

IMO, one gets an accurate picture of the causes of the demise of the SU only by putting all of these factors together.

I agree. I am of the opinion that there are partisans in this Forum who give Reagan way too much credit for what happened to the SU. I definitely believe that Reagan's portion was minor, not insignificant but by no means the decisive element.