Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 In Talk to Troops in Alaska

[Zyphlin]

Zyph, quit being obtuse and drop the hyperbole.
We're not in Iraq today to fight AQ, that's why we are in Afganistan, both the Taliban and AQ are there.
The sunni awakening became a case where they are kicking out AQ. The surge was not against AQ and nor are we there because of AQ today.
We're in Iraq today to maintain a cap on sectarian violence - spin it anyway you want to but AQ is not why we are there.

There is no hyperbole.

Your dishonest article tries to give the impression, in its title and in its body, that Palin linked the IRAQ WAR to Sept. 11th, which she has not and did not do. I'm sorry you're a bit pissy that your articles attempted smear failed and was poorly done so you're trying to re-invent the argument, but that's not my fault and I'm not buying that bait. Your article tries to imply she claimed Sept. 11th was linked to why we entered the Iraq War and that's not the case, plain and simple. Smear failed

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Her obvious out is that we are now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Easy peasy problem solved. The pre-fooled get theirs and the reality based community gets theirs.

Aren't weasel words the greatest gift ever to politicians there ever was?

So we are not fighting al qaeda, you know the group responsible for 911 in Iraq today?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So we are not fighting al qaeda, you know the group responsible for 911 in Iraq today?

Are you reading the same post I am reading?

afaict I posted:
"...we are now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq"

Which parts are leading you to the conclusion that I meant something like:
"...we are noT fighting al Qaeda in Iraq"

just curious

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Are you reading the same post I am reading?

afaict I posted:
"...we are now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq"

Which parts are leading you to the conclusion that I meant something like:
"...we are noT fighting al Qaeda in Iraq"

just curious

Ok so then you admit what she stated was factually correct.


Thanks! :2wave:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Ok so then you admit what she stated was factually correct.
Thanks!

Here's my post again if it helps.

Her obvious out is that we are now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Easy peasy problem solved. The pre-fooled get theirs and the reality based community gets theirs.

Aren't weasel words the greatest gift ever to politicians there ever was?
​

If there are any more questions I can try to make my English more plainerer.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Here's my post again if it helps.

Her obvious out is that we are now fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. Easy peasy problem solved. The pre-fooled get theirs and the reality based community gets theirs.

Aren't weasel words the greatest gift ever to politicians there ever was?
​

If there are any more questions I can try to make my English more plainerer.

So who is "pre-fooled" and about what? Be specific please.

 

[jfuh]

There is no hyperbole.

Your dishonest article tries to give the impression, in its title and in its body, that Palin linked the IRAQ WAR to Sept. 11th, which she has not and did not do. I'm sorry you're a bit pissy that your articles attempted smear failed and was poorly done so you're trying to re-invent the argument, but that's not my fault and I'm not buying that bait. Your article tries to imply she claimed Sept. 11th was linked to why we entered the Iraq War and that's not the case, plain and simple. Smear failed

You see it as a smear, even though those are her exact words. So if even on that simple basis there is no agreement we'll just have to leave it at that then.
you see it as additional mythical media bias, I see it as her having no clue except for GOP talking points. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I'm hoping this was a planned strike of hers to help re-open the long deserved national debate on what was an under-publicized rationale for the invasion.
By setting the record straight she and McCain will gain in popularity.
<snip>
If that's what she's doing.

If she were doing that she would not have used weasel words.

Politicians use weasel words to have it both ways. Using words with various connotations that in actuality denote something quite limited. With the aim being to lead people to infer something w/o having to accept responsibility for actually having said what was inferred.

 

[Hatuey]

So we are not fighting al qaeda, you know the group responsible for 911 in Iraq today?

AQI =/= AQ.

AQI

Al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The group is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad). Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[5]

AQ

Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name "al-Qaida" could have been introduced to U.S. intelligence by Jamal al-Fadl, who had been providing the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with intelligence about bin Laden since 1996.[citation needed] In the 1998 United States embassy bombings, al-Fadl testified that al-Qaeda was established in either late 1989 or early 1990 to continue the jihad after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In other words, say I'm KFC and you're McDonalds. You and I, decide to merge our companies. Does that mean that it was you, McDonalds, who came up with the 11 secret herbs and spices? No. It was the old white guy with a nice looking beard that KFC uses on it's logo. Since AQI wasn't even around in 1995, when the planning of the attacks started, or 2001, when the attacks were orchestrated, then it's impossible for them to have been the group that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks or took responsability for it. Logic, friend, logic.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

They chose to join the group resposible, makes them, the enemy.


Simple logic friend, logic.

 

[Hatuey]

They chose to join the group resposible, makes them, the enemy.

Simple logic friend, logic.

You :

So we are not fighting al qaeda, you know the group responsible for 911 in Iraq today?

I :

No, in Iraq, we are not fighting 'Al Qaeda' the group responsible for 911. In Iraq, 'we' are fighting 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' who had ZERO to do with 9/11 and has a relation to Al Qaeda in what is basically name only and the terrorist equivalent to ****s and giggles. In Afghanistan however, 'we' are fighting 'Al Qaeda' who was in fact responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Do you get it yet?

---------------

It's really not a hard concept to understand.

 

[Zyphlin]

AQI =/= AQ.

AQI

Al-Qaeda in Iraq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AQ

Al-Qaeda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, say I'm KFC and you're McDonalds. You and I, decide to merge our companies. Does that mean that it was you, McDonalds, who came up with the 11 secret herbs and spices? No. It was the old white guy with a nice looking beard that KFC uses on it's logo. Since AQI wasn't even around in 1995, when the planning of the attacks started, or 2001, when the attacks were orchestrated, then it's impossible for them to have been the group that orchestrated the 9/11 attacks or took responsability for it. Logic, friend, logic.

Actually that'd be closer to me owning some local fast food joints, and then deciding to join up with McDonalds and change my joints from my own name to McDonalds, taking on their policies and keeping in ocasional contact with corporate HQ now.

Was I directly involved with McDonalds when they sold their 1 millionth burger? No. But I am now part of the group that did sell that 1 millionth burger, created the McNugget, and other such things.

Just like Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now a part of the group that did plan and execute 9/11.

By your reasoning, if we engage anyone that wasn't a part of Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 its not really fighting those who designed, executed, and celebrated 9/11 because they came after.

However what you're doing is taking the statement at its most literal sense and trying to destroy it through that, ignoring context and the fact that most people don't speak in the most absolute of strict literal sense.

As for jfuh, refer to my signature. If dishonesty in reporting doesn't count as long as you "use their words" then I can't wait to see how Obama does after calling everyone Whiners and saying he has Muslim faith.

I mean, as long as its technically words that came out of their mouth, the context and meaning behind them doesn't matter. That's what we've learned from Jfuh in two threads. They're not smears, cause its what they said. Go muslim faith Obama.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

You :



I :

No, in Iraq, we are not fighting 'Al Qaeda' the group responsible for 911. In Iraq, 'we' are fighting 'Al Qaeda in Iraq' who had ZERO to do with 9/11 and has a relation to Al Qaeda in what is basically name only. In Afghanistan however, we're fighting 'Al Qaeda' who was in fact responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

---------------

It's really not a hard concept to understand.

So we were not fighting the japanese that bombed pearl harbor either in WWII?



:lol:

The lengths some lefties will go.... :roll:

 

[Hatuey]

Actually that'd be closer to me owning some local fast food joints, and then deciding to join up with McDonalds and change my joints from my own name to McDonalds, taking on their policies and keeping in contacts with corporate HQ now.

Was I directly involved with McDonalds when they sold their 1 millionth burger? No. But I am now part of the group that did sell that 1 millionth burger, created the McNugget, and other such things.

Wrong, it'd be like saying that because two completely different organizations merge then group A) is responsible for the actions that group B might have been responsible for in the past. Saying, implying, infering, suggesting Al Qaeda in Iraq was responsible for 9/11 is like saying you were responsible for the sale of the one millionth burger when you weren't even in the group at A) the time of the sale and had 0 say in matter and your only relation is the fact you share a name and some connections. If that's what you believe then you're highly uninformed and if you think that's what she believes then she's highly uninformed.

Just like Al-Qaeda in Iraq is now a part of the group that did plan and execute 9/11.

By your reasoning, if we engage anyone that wasn't a part of Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11 its not really fighting those who designed, executed, and celebrated[u/] 9/11 because they came after.

However what you're doing is taking the statement at its most literal sense and trying to destroy it through that, ignoring context and the fact that most people don't speak in the most absolute of strict literal sense.

I'm not taking anything 'in it's most literal sense'. If you're claiming we're fighting those who orchestrated and executed 9/11 in Iraq, I think we will both will find you're full of **** or simply don't understand what Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda is Iraq are and what their relation is. The evidence and time have shown that most of the people responsible for 9/11 have in some cases been apprehended(the Sheik), are dead(the 19 dead guys) or are still on the lose(Bin laden). Al Qaeda is an organization that works by cells who's goal is to plan and carry out attacks. As opposed to Al Qaeda in Iraq who is an insurgency and had no part in the 9/11 attacks.

 

[Hatuey]

So we were not fighting the japanese that bombed pearl harbor either in WWII?

:lol:

The lengths some lefties will go.... :roll:

Do you blame the Germans for Pearl Harbor?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Do you blame the Germans for Pearl Harbor?

uhm, how is this even relavant.

 

[Hatuey]

uhm, how is this even relavant.

Obviously since they were both of the Axis powers then you'd blame the Germans and Italians for Pearl Harbor right?

 

[Zyphlin]

Her statement:

"defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans"

Yes, if taken literally...like she's stating you're LITERALLY fighting the SPECIFIC people who planned and executed out 9/11, she would be wrong. So would just about EVERYONE saying we're fighting anyone related to 9/11 in just about anywhere at this moment as the majority of them are dead or gone. The majority of people they're meeting on the battle field in Afghanistan had nothing to do with planning or executing 9/11 but we wouldn't say she's wrong in saying it there. But you're choosing to take this literally. Note the last part, and rejoiced in...it seems pretty clear to me she's painting Al-Qaeda as an organization in the whole as those responsible for planning, executing, and rejoicing in the 9/11 attacks.

Even if you disagree with her, fine. My issue is with this stories dishonest attempt to try and paint her stating that the SADDAM REGIME had anything to do with 9/11, which there is ZERO indication in any way shape or way that she did such.

But even with that said, I don't disagree with her assessment in the context of what she was saying. Yes, if you want to take it at its absolute literal extreme, then I'd have to agree with you...however I don't take much of anything to an absolute literal extreme because the vast majority of people do'nt talk about literal extremes. When giving a pep talk to soldiers you're not generally going to get into a 15 minute diatribe about the intricate history of the past 7 years and how it relates to whats going on.

Its an overblown non-issue attack the likes of which you and other Democrats had a field day insulting, attacking, and condemning republicans for doing that you're now overblowning yourselves, that has been even spun to be further overblown and more smear like by trying to make it seem like she's a crazy woman claiming Saddam's Regime had something to do with 9/11 which she hasn't done at all.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Obviously since they were both members of the Axis then you'd blame the Germans for Pearl Harbor right?

This is just stupid. Nice try though.


AQIZ is not the taliban either. Duh. :doh

 

[Hatuey]

This is just stupid. Nice try though.

Really? How so? You're stating that since group A and group B share a name then group A is obviously responsible for the actions of group B when in reality all they have in common is a name and a few connections but are independent as far as both day to day activities go and history. The Nazis as we know weren't truly responsible as far as planning and execution of Pearl Harbor but according to your logic the fact that they were part of the Axis Powers makes them responsible.

AQIZ is not the taliban either. Duh. :doh

WTH is AQIZ? Al Qaeda in Zimbawe?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

WTH is AQIZ? Al Qaeda in Zimbawe?

Sorry military acronym for Al Qaeda in Iraq.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

Really? How so? You're stating that since group A and group B share a name then group A is obviously responsible for the actions of group B when in reality all they have in common is a name and a few connections but are independent as far as both day to day activities go and history.

Back to the topic.....


What did she say that was untrue? How did she link Iraq to 911?

 

[Zyphlin]

Do you blame the Germans for Pearl Harbor?

No, but I wouldn't condemn, begrudge, or belittle someone giving a short pep talk to some soldiers during WWII for saying that they're going out there to confront those that rejoiced and planned with those that bombed our harbor. Is it techincally true from the most literal interpritation? Hard to say if the German's they'd be fighting rejoiced or not in it, and while Germany did plan with Japan it didn't necessarily plan on Pearl Harbor...but you have a joined enemy that are allies, work together, and are part of the same fight. You're speaking to soldiers and trying to help their fears and rally their hearts.

I swear there's some of you that'd rather a politician go over there just spouting typical extreme left talking points, that'll help the troops! "Now folks, you're going over there to kill innocent women and children. A number of you are likely going to torture or purposefully murder someone because we all know you're poor deadbeats that couldn't do anything else and are psycopathic. But its okay, big mean King George sent you out here on this illegal immoral war that you're going to likely die for needlessly for, so its not really your fault. See, by us saying that, we support you! Now get out there and Fight, or just let them shoot you because you shouldn't be fighting anyways." That'll keep their spirits up!

 

[Gibberish]

Glad you agree with us that the enemy has changed over time. Now tell me, if we're not fighting AQ who are we fighting?

In Iraq we are fighting Iraqi political sects and Al-Qaeda in Iraq (not the same Al-Qaeda that attack us in 9/11). Al-Qaeda it self has attempted to enter Iraq but has been fought off by both the Shia's and Sunni's that are fighting each other.

The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are not in Iraq and have never been in Iraq.

Could it be Hezballah?

No.

So when Obama pulls all our troops out of Iraq, and then sits down with that neighbor (without pre-conditions) to discuss Middle East issues, will he be speaking from a position of strength?

You don't need pre-conditions to have a discussion. You need pre-conditions for the other party to receive something.

The answer is HELL NO. Now he can send that know-it-all Biden if he wants, but it won't make a bit of difference.

I'm sure Palin will make tons of progress with Iran. You know Alaska is so close to Iran she's practically Muslim. McCain on the other hand..well we just need to hope he doesn't go to Iraq by mistake and telling all those Sunni Irani's to stop.

 

[Pitwolfy]

If McCain wins it won't be because of her, it will be because Obama's supporters allowed her to become the focus of the campaign.



...

Uhhh, can we say :spin:

:2wave: