# Why I don't trust Bush



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

In a speech on June 18, 2004, Bush said



> The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... Jun17.html

In a speech on March 20, 2006, president Bush stated



> First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein.


http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060320/dcm067.html?.v=22

President Bush has intentionally mislead the American people.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

:lame: :soapbox: :bs:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Have you nothing more to say than smiles? I think that if this president was a Democrat he would have been crucified by now for having done the same things that Bush has done.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)




----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... Isn't that goofy Logic you have going on there?

You seem to "detach" meaning when it suits your argument and then "attach" meaning when it suits your argument.

In this case you seem to think if GWB says Iraq had contacts and some degree of "workings" with Al Qaeda ... that it's the same as saying Saddam had a roll in the 911 attacks ... and if he doesn't connect the three he is lying.

But then you are also willing to say Iraq is disconnected from the War on Terror, even though Iraq is the very heart of the Middle East.

Can't you see that it's very possible for Al Qaeda to plan attacks and carry them out without their buddy Saddam being part and parcel of that particular attack. There is zero doubt Saddam had some degree of an operational relationship with Al Qaeda and a much more intense relationship with other Terrorist organizations.

And can't you see that Military Strategy is an extremely "All Encompassing" thing.

And do you realize we live in a "Representative Republic" ... GWB was elected by the people and then re-elected (I believe by the largest vote margin ever) to a second term ... he was elected to represent us ... and so he is.

2008 is the next crack at it


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

If you go by that logic, then you support the initial Bush statement. Yet, he contradicts himself by stating that he never said that there was a direct link between the two.

This president has consistently misled the American people to achieve his goals. This is simply one more nail in his coffin as the American people finally start to wake up.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... count better ... you are talking about THREE "things" there ... not two

Saddam

AlQaida

911 attacks

It's not mis-leading ... you are sticking some goofy logic in that defies common sense


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

MT, even you should have the intelligence to comprehend that a connection between Iraq an al-Qaeda is not the same as a direct link between Saddam and the WTC attack on 11, Sept.

Two different things.

But then seperating the two would not coincide with your mantra, would it?

:roll: :roll:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Considering we are speaking of the will of the people being executed, does anyone find it odd that at one point 80% of the people in this nation thought that Saddam had a hand in 9/11? Certainly this was not due to the liberal media, but rather due to Bush and his colleagues making certain on every occasion possible that he put Saddam or Iraq in the same sentence as Osama and Al qaeda.

Considering that Al Qaeda only became a household word in America after 9/11, it can be assumed that the mention of their group would bring to mind said incident. When the president claimed that there was a relationship between the two he made it rather clear to 80% of this nation that Saddam was just as much to fault for our dead as Osama was.

We have been purposely misled.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Considering we are speaking of the will of the people being executed, does anyone find it odd that at one point 80% of the people in this nation thought that Saddam had a hand in 9/11? Certainly this was not due to the liberal media, but rather due to Bush and his colleagues making certain on every occasion possible that he put Saddam or Iraq in the same sentence as Osama and Al qaeda.
> 
> Considering that Al Qaeda only became a household word in America after 9/11, it can be assumed that the mention of their group would bring to mind said incident. When the president claimed that there was a relationship between the two he made it rather clear to 80% of this nation that Saddam was just as much to fault for our dead as Osama was.
> 
> We have been purposely misled.





> Saddam was just as much to fault for our dead as Osama was.


 That's correct! When you train,harbor contribute to their cause you help their actions to become successful! :eyeroll:

If you drive the get away car in a bank robbery you are just as gillty as the guy who went in the Bank to ROB.


----------



## greenheadfallon (Oct 19, 2005)

MT :lame: :lame: :lame: :lame: :lame: :lame:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> That's correct! When you train,harbor contribute to their cause you help their actions to become successful!


What terrorists did Saddam train exactly? Where do you get this information from? How did Saddam contribute to 9/11?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > That's correct! When you train,harbor contribute to their cause you help their actions to become successful!
> 
> 
> What terrorists did Saddam train exactly? Where do you get this information from? How did Saddam contribute to 9/11?


Keep up, your answer has allready been posted!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

He trained no terrorists. He had no hand in 9/11. The president purposely misled the country to lead us into Iraq.

Before anyone gets any wise ideas about Atta, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3741646/


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

MT ... that is plain old Intellectually Dishonest statements by you.

You float a numbr of 80% ... well keep in mind about 66% of Americans don't vote and don't give a lick about what's going on outside their sphere when to comes to the President, National Policy or World Events ...


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> You float a numbr of 80% ... well keep in mind about 66% of Americans don't vote and don't give a lick about what's going on outside their sphere when to comes to the President, National Policy or World Events ...


Those people still participate in polls and still count as American citizens.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

I am with      Anyone please wake me and ABBK when we leave never never land.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Here we go again, MT is on his soapbox proclaiming Saddams innocence. WTF, in MT's eyes Saddam is a real stand up guy, he's never done anything to harm anybody.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

MOB said:


> Here we go again, MT is on his soapbox proclaiming Saddams innocence. WTF, in MT's eyes Saddam is a real stand up guy, he's never done anything to harm anybody.


And the Iraqis were better off with him in power than under a Democracy! :eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Thought a few more of his attempts to mislead the country would wake you up.

*Strike one*
April 2004 


> Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires-a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 420-2.html

December 2005


> Bush added: "Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk."
> 
> He acknowledged during the address that he allowed the NSA "to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations."


http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/17/bush.nsa/

*Strike two*
November, 2005


> more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senate -- who had access to the same intelligence -- voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 111-1.html

December, 2005


> "President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) - in contrast to Members of Congress (4) - have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods"


Congressional Research Service

*Strike three*
September, 2005


> I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 00915.html



> The White House situation room received a report at 1:47 a.m. the day Katrina hit, predicting that Katrina would likely lead to severe flooding and/or levee breaching. Two days before Katrina hit FEMA predicted that Hurricane Katrina could be worse than Hurricane Pam.


http://dailynightly.msnbc.com/2006/01/katrina_who_kne.html

*You're out*
November, 2004
And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 628-7.html



> We never had enough troops on the ground -Paul Bremer


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Oct4.html

WAKE UP AMERICA. Two thirds of you already have.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Saddam was awful, but he provided stability. Saddam was a bad person, but it is neither our place nor our choice to go around the world removing bad guys.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Saddam was awful, but he provided stability. Saddam was a bad person, but it is neither our place nor our choice to go around the world removing bad guys.


Until we get attacked, right?

So is Iraq better off with or without Saddam? MT, I'd like to see your answer.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Until we get attacked, right?


By who?



> So is Iraq better off with or without Saddam? MT, I'd like to see your answer.


The long term effects remain to be seen, but as it stands today, I would have to say that Iraq was better off with Saddam in power.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

I am new here, but I feel I have to comment on this. I'll have to side with MT here that the quotes of GWB are certaintly contradictory. Anyone who denies this is pretty one-dimensional. I guess if you don't draw your own conclusions from the media, you become ingrained with their opinions. Just because a man is the president doesn't mean he cannot be wrong. He is a human being, a citizen of the United States of America just like the rest of us, and is entitiled to his rights, as well as being subject to the law. He is the president, not god. I am done ranting.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

> I would have to say that Iraq was better off with Saddam in power.


  :drunk: :lost:


----------



## rock7178 (Jan 18, 2005)

MT...totally agree with you!!


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

rock7178 said:


> MT...totally agree with you!!


Do you both really believe that? I won't get caught dead saying that anywhere in the world!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

That is because you don't consider the question, you take it at the knee jerk level. Consider why I give that answer, instead of simply responding with smiles.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> That is because you don't consider the question, you take it at the knee jerk level. Consider why I give that answer, instead of simply responding with smiles.


Ok, I considered it, but your not going to like my conclusions: You perfer Dictators over Democracy! It's a more stable government! WOW!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You have rather obviously not considered much at all. Understand my intentions before you seek to judge me.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Brown Bear, you use hardly any logic or reasoning, yet come to the same blunt assumptions and conclusions. If there was any way to make yourself look anymore foolish, I think I'd have to go wash my shoes.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> Brown Bear, you use hardly any logic or reasoning, yet come to the same blunt assumptions and conclusions. If there was any way to make yourself look anymore foolish, I think I'd have to go wash my shoes.


Faulty logic! :lol:

MT's special friend?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

They are both in Michigan.....


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Yes, I must be in cahutz with him since we are both from Michigan. It's the conspiracy theory, haven't you heard?


----------



## wyogoose (Feb 11, 2006)

The way I see it, on 9/10 Osama was just another "bad guy" who hadn't done anything bad to us, but on 9/11 American people were murdered and he suddenly was an enemy. It was only a matter of time before and Sadam and other Iraq terrorists attaked the U.S. Im glad he got in there when we did. Keep up the good work A. Bear Killer!!! :beer:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

wyogoose said:


> The way I see it, on 9/10 Osama was just another "bad guy" who hadn't done anything bad to us, but on 9/11 American people were murdered and he suddenly was an enemy. It was only a matter of time before and Sadam and other Iraq terrorists attaked the U.S. Im glad he got in there when we did. Keep up the good work A. Bear Killer!!! :beer:


Yea,
I think class is over for today for MT and his Friends, I'm gona go watch the NEWS, He got spanked good again today :beer: .


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

wyogoose said:


> The way I see it, on 9/10 Osama was just another "bad guy" who hadn't done anything bad to us, but on 9/11 American people were murdered and he suddenly was an enemy. It was only a matter of time before and Sadam and other Iraq terrorists attaked the U.S. Im glad he got in there when we did. Keep up the good work A. Bear Killer!!! :beer:


Osama was not an Iraqi terrorist. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Osama had been the enemy since he turned on us after we helped to push him towards fighting off the Russians in Afghanistan. Saddam had been docile for years, and the sanctions were working. We do not have the manpower, nor the funds, nor the need to go after all middle eastern radicals. It is not our job to police the world.

_nipped in the bud by Langager_

But


> He got spanked good again today


 can stay?


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Ok, so be it. I will not answer or comment on any of your posts. You can make as much of a fool of yourself as you want, I just thought I might try to see if there was some sense in you before I jumped to conclusions.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I will try this with you again MT gald to see you have some liberals to spin with.



> Documents from Saddam's regime - now in the hands of the U.S. government - show that he trained thousands of Islamic terrorists at camps inside Iraq before the war.
> 
> The Weekly Standard broke the story a couple of weeks ago. That magazine's Stephen F. Hayes cites no fewer than 11 sources for his information. He says that from 1999 to 2002, "elite military units" trained some 8,000 terrorists at three different camps.


now lets hear you say Saddam had no terrorist link.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> wyogoose said:
> 
> 
> > The way I see it, on 9/10 Osama was just another "bad guy" who hadn't done anything bad to us, but on 9/11 American people were murdered and he suddenly was an enemy. It was only a matter of time before and Sadam and other Iraq terrorists attaked the U.S. Im glad he got in there when we did. Keep up the good work A. Bear Killer!!! :beer:
> ...


MT's quote: 


> When there is insufficient evidence to prove your point, you fabricate it.


Looks like MT's mastered that one!:beer:


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject:

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



> Considering we are speaking of the will of the people being executed, does anyone find it odd that at one point 80% of the people in this nation thought that Saddam had a hand in 9/11? Certainly this was not due to the liberal media, but rather due to Bush and his colleagues making certain on every occasion possible that he put Saddam or Iraq in the same sentence as Osama and Al qaeda.
> 
> Considering that Al Qaeda only became a household word in America after 9/11, it can be assumed that the mention of their group would bring to mind said incident. When the president claimed that there was a relationship between the two he made it rather clear to 80% of this nation that Saddam was just as much to fault for our dead as Osama was.
> 
> We have been purposely misled.


MT, FYI, YOUR WRONG!

Here are a few highlights gathered by FrontPage from the press' Saddam-bin Laden file - stories that have since conveniently disappeared down the media's memory hole:

Associated Press Worldstream

Feb. 14, 1999 Taliban leader says whereabouts of bin Laden unknown

... Analysts say bin Laden's options for asylum are limited.

Iraq was considered a possible destination because bin Laden had received an invitation from Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last month. And Somalia was a third possible destination because of its anarchy and violent anti-U.S. history .... San Jose Mercury News

SUNDAY MORNING FINAL EDITION

Feb. 14, 1999 U.S. WORRIED ABOUT IRAQI, BIN LADEN TIES TERRORIST COULD GAIN EVEN DEADLIER WEAPONS U.S. intelligence officials are worried that a burgeoning alliance between terrorist leader Osama bin Laden and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could make the fugitive Saudi's loose-knit organization much more dangerous ... In addition, the officials said, Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal is now in Iraq, as is a renowned Palestinian bomb designer, and both could make their expertise available to bin Laden. "It's clear the Iraqis would like to have bin Laden in Iraq," said Vincent Cannistraro, a former head of counterterrorism operations at the Central Intelligence Agency ... Saddam has even offered asylum to bin Laden, who has expressed support for Iraq.

... [in] late December, when bin Laden met a senior Iraqi intelligence official near Qandahar, Afghanistan, there has been increasing evidence that bin Laden and Iraq may have begun cooperating in planning attacks against American and British targets around the world. Bin Laden, who strikes in the name of Islam, and Saddam, one of the most secular rulers in the Arab world, have little in common except their hatred of the United States ...

More worrisome, the American officials said, are indications that there may be contacts between bin Laden's organization and Iraq's Special Security Organization (SSO), run by Saddam's son Qusay. Both the SSO and the Mukhabarat were involved in a failed 1993 plot to assassinate former President George Bush ...

"The idea that the same people who are hiding Saddam's biological weapons may be meeting with Osama bin Laden is not a happy one," said one American official.... Beacon Journal wire services

Oct. 31, 1999 BIN LADEN SPOTTED AFTER OFFER TO LEAVE DATELINE: JALALABAD, AFGHANISTAN: ... The Taliban has since made it known through official channels that the likely destination is Iraq. A Clinton administration official said bin Laden's request "falls far short" of the UN resolution that the Taliban deliver him for trial. ...

The Kansas City Star March 2, 1999 International terrorism, a conflict without boundaries By Rich Hood ... He [bin Laden] has a private fortune ranging from $250 million to $500 million and is said to be cultivating a new alliance with Iraq's Saddam Hussein, who has biological and chemical weapons bin Laden would not hesitate to use. An alliance between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein could be deadly. Both men are united in their hatred for the United States and any country friendly to the United States. ...

United Press International Nov. 3, 1999, Wednesday, BC cycle. WASHINGTON - The U.S. government has tried to prevent accused terror suspect Osama bin Laden from fleeing Afghanistan to either Iraq or Chechnya, Michael Sheehan, head of counter-terrorism at the State Department, told a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee. ...

U.S. Newswire Dec. 23, 1999 Terrorism Expert Reveals Why Osama bin Laden has Declared War On America; Available for Comment in Light of Predicted Attacks. ... Aauthor Yossef] Bodansky also reveals the relationship between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and how the U.S. bombing of Iraq is "strengthening the hands of militant Islamists eager to translate their rage into violence and terrorism."

National Public Radio MORNING EDITION (10:00 a.m.ET) Feb. 18, 1999 THOUGH AFGHANISTAN HAS PROVIDED OSAMA BIN LADEN WITH SANCTUARY, IT IS UNCLEAR WHERE HE IS NOW. ANCHORS: BOB EDWARDS REPORTERS: MIKE SHUSTER ... There have also been reports in recent months that bin Laden might have been considering moving his operations to Iraq. Intelligence agencies in several nations are looking into that. According to Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of CIA counterterrorism operations, a senior Iraqi intelligence official, Farouk Hijazi(ph), sought out bin Laden in December and invited him to come to Iraq.

Mr. VINCENT CANNISTRARO (Former Chief of CIA Counterterrorism Operations): Farouk Hijazi, who was the Iraqi ambassador in Turkey ... known through sources in Afghanistan, members of Osama's entourage let it be known that the meeting had taken place.

SHUSTER: Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. There is a wide gap between bin Laden's fundamentalism and Saddam Hussein's secular dictatorship. But some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony. ... Foreign news services also carried news of the now-supressed Saddam-bin Laden connection:

Agence France-Presse Feb. 17, 1999 Saddam plans to use bin Laden against Kuwait, Saudi: opposition Iraq's President Saddam Hussein plans to use alleged terrorist Osama bin Laden's network to carry out his threats against Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, an Iraqi opposition figure charged on Wednesday. "If the ... Jaber, a member of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said Iraq had "offered to shelter bin Laden under the precondition that he carry out strikes on targets in neighbouring countries."

Deutsche Presse-Agentur Feb. 17, 1999, Wednesday, BC Cycle Opposition group says bin Laden in Iraq

DATELINE: Kuwait City An Iraqi opposition group claimed in a published report Wednesday that Islamic militant Osama bin Laden is in Iraq from where he plans to launch a campaign of terrorism against Baghdad's Gulf neighbours. The claim was made by Bayan Jabor, spokesman for the Teheran-based Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). Bin Laden "recently settled in Iraq at the invitation of Saddam Hussein in exchange for directing strikes against targets in neighbouring countries," Jabor told the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Rai al- Aam ... Taleban leaders in Afghanistan, where he had been living, said they lost track of him. Media reports have speculated he sought refuge in Chechnya, Somalia, Iraq, or with a non-Taliban group in Afghanistan.

Jabor, who was interviewed in Damascus, Syria, said Iraq began extending invitations to bin Laden six months ago, shortly after the United States bombed his suspected terrorist training camps in Afghanistan after linking him with the August 7 bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and in Dar-es-Salam, Tanzania.

The United States indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and has offered a five million dollar reward for information leading to his capture. Bin Laden's disappearance has coincided with stepped up threats by Iraq against neighbours Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey for allowing the United States and Britain to use their air bases to carry out air patrols over two "no-fly" zones over northern and southern Iraq.

Your Wrong MT, :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/
9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/no-saddam-qaeda.html
Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

THE PRIME MINISTER: That answers your question.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/conten ... 135079.htm


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Militant_Tiger said:


> _nipped in the bud by Langager_
> 
> But
> 
> ...


Yes, that can surely stay. It doesn't comprise a personal attack in my book, but rather ABBK stating that he feels that he has bested you in the debate.

If you don't like it you can surely send me a nasty PM about how my moderating is biased as well. But that would simply not hold any water and I am not nearly as patient as Plainsman.

You are given a lot of latitude here but now you want to be seen as a martyr, with everybody out to get you, when in all reality, you made your own bed. Now sleep in it.

End of story.

Robert


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Militant_Tiger Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:38 pm Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...


MT, feel free to bring in as many of your friends as you like to side with you, but a FACT remains a FACT! 
Your Wrong, no matter how many how many supporters you may enlist!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

ABBK your information is dated and wrong. Check my sources and tell me why your information is better. I have provided you with the evidence that is still referenced to this day, and you have provided me with theories and possible connections.



> You are given a lot of latitude here but now you want to be seen as a martyr, with everybody out to get you, when in all reality, you made your own bed. Now sleep in it.


I do not wish to be seen as a martyr because I do not intent to die (nor anything of the sort) in my mission. The members here have provided me with plenty of evidence over the past few days as to who fires the first shot in these waves of personal attacks. I need say nothing more.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> ABBK your information is dated and wrong. Check my sources and tell me why your information is better. I have provided you with the evidence that is still referenced to this day, and you have provided me with theories and possible connections.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your quote:


> We have been purposely misled.


I show you connections before 9/11 and you call it "DATED" info. :eyeroll: 
It's called Pre 9/11 connections! :thumb:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I show you connections before 9/11 and you call it "DATED" info.
> It's called Pre 9/11 connections!


Saddam had no hand in supporting, training people for, nor executing the attacks of September 11. If indeed there was a connection do you not think that Osama would have turned to Saddam for monetary assistance or a safe haven to plan the attack?

Just for the record, Saddam was secular (not tied to religion) and Osama and Al Qaeda are religious.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > I show you connections before 9/11 and you call it "DATED" info.
> > It's called Pre 9/11 connections!
> 
> 
> ...


The FACTS remain FACTS, Your wrong , no matter how you try to SPIN this.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

The problem being that those facts which you posted are no longer facts, simply disproven and irrelevant information.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

You mean ,like the world is flat fact, untill someone proved that wasn't a FACT any more, so in fact it wasn't a FACT?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Well the Newtonian world view was taken as fact for a great many years until folks like Einstein and the Curies came about. So, yes.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Well the Newtonian world view was taken as fact for a great many years until folks like Einstein and the Curies came about. So, yes.


I understand how they feel trying to convince to someone the world is round when some believe it's a fact that it's flat! :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Especially when the person they are debating is so disconnected with reality that it seems like he lives on another world. I know exactly what you mean.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

I have things to do today so I leave you now with the FACTS, you do with them as you wish.

Have a nice day


----------



## startown (Nov 14, 2005)

Have you talked with any military personnel that have come back from Iraq? The ones that I have talked with, say that progress is being made and that you would not believe the atrocities that were committed, people that had tongues cut out, entire families murdered. The biggest mistake was made by Bush Sr., as he should have finished the madman off. Too bad Clinton was too busy in the white house to recognize what was going on in Iraq. It doesn't matter if there was a 9/11 connection, we should always remove a dictator from power, Hitler, Hussein, whoever, especially one that put a bounty on Bush Sr. 's head.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

America does not have the manpower, nor the funds, nor the right to police the globe. In the words of George W. Bush himself, "Yeah, I'm not so sure that the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, "This is the way it's gotta be."


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

MT, You just don't get it, do you?

The President said that he could not make a connection between Saddam and 9/11. This is not disputed, no one has said that Saddam had anything to do with it. No misleading here.

Osama, however was involved.

The President said tha al-Qaeda and Iraq had ties, they did, both before and after 9/11. al-Qaeda both trained and took sanctuary in Iraq, that would be called having ties. Again nothing misleading.

I know the following has been posted before, but I think a reminder is needed.

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

Think about what is going on in our world today, then, ask yourself how anyone can take the position
that all we have to do is bring our troops home from Iraq and no one will ever bother us again. In case
you missed it, World War III began in November 1979...

The alarm has been ringing for years.

U.S. Navy Captain Dan Ouimette is the Executive Officer at Naval Air Station, Pensacola, Florida. 
Here is a copy of the speech he gave Feb 19, 2003. It is an accurate account of why we are in so
much trouble today and why this action is so necessary.

AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!

That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001 (When more than 3,000 Americans
were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the
alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over
for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then.

It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval
when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure
was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most
powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set
the stage for events to follow for the next 23 years.

America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the
Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid
in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal
with terrorism.

America's military had been decimated and downsized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A
poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a
complex mission that was doomed from the start.

Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the
Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks
against US soil continued.

In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy
compound in Beirut. When it explodes, it kills 63 people.

The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more. Then just six short months
later a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate
of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her
dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.

Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US
Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.

The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in
Beirut and America slept.

Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe. In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by
US soldiers in Madrid.

Then in August a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force
Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests
are continually attacked.

Fifty-nine days later a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a
wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.

The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in
April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland
in 1988, killing 259.

Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial.

These are acts of war.

The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.

The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America.In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed
as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with
explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City.
Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured.

Still this is a crime and not an act of war?

The Snooze alarm is depressed again.

Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing
seven service men and women.

A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military
compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing
19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does
not respond decisively.

They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224.

America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.

The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a
small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors.

Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back
to sleep.

And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001. Most Americans think this was the first
attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack
since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep.

In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from every high officials in government over what
they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little
attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the
National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.

The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. I think we have been in a war for the
past 23 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get
out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever. We have to be ready to pay
the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting
the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep.

After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "...it seems all we have done is awakened a
sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world.

This is not a political thing to be hashed over in an election year, this is an AMERICAN thing. This is
about our Freedom and the Freedom of our children in years to come.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> The President said that he could not make a connection between Saddam and 9/11. This is not disputed, no one has said that Saddam had anything to do with it. No misleading here.


Assuming that there was no misleading, why did 80 some percent of the American people believe that Saddam was part of 9/11? Again, certainly it wasn't the "liberal media". Bush and those around him specifically attempted to put Saddam and Osama in the same breath as often as possible. Look at or read some of the speeches right before the war, and even now, and you will see what I mean. Osama became a household name after 9/11, and as such his name brings up and can be used in place of said incident. We were purposely misled.

A little quote from wikipedia 


> Al-Qaeda was strongly opposed to the secular regime of Saddam Hussein and bin Laden had offered use of his fighters' services to the Saudi throne, but the deployment of 'infidel' forces to Islamic sacred territory was seen as an act of treachery by bin Laden.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Qaeda


----------



## startown (Nov 14, 2005)

I am not saying we should police the world, but when extreme cases of dictatorship takes hand, exp. Hitler, Hussein, I think most Americans think we should do something about it. I would hate to see what would have happened if we would have let Hitler continue.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Hitler posed an active and real threat to the United States and the world as a whole. Hussien had been complacent for years. Hitler killed millions of Jews. Hussien killed possibly hundreds of thousands of his own people. A comparison between these two is rather weak.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I'm going to try to conserve bandwidth here, but just ran across this, it looks like another of President Bush's supposed lies has proved to be true and not a lie at all.

Article by: Investors Business Daily Posted 2/24/2006

Link: Saddam Had WMD

huntin1


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

This guy has absolutely no sources for his quotes or information...invalid?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Evidently if it is written online, it is true. Do you not really think that if this was the truth that it would be all over Fox News right now?


----------



## startown (Nov 14, 2005)

Comparing Hitler and Hussein is weak? The comparisons are made all of the time, both gassed their own people, tortured their own people, killed their own people and then covered it up any way they could. They were both insane, mad men, but loved animals. I would say the had many similarities, except Hitler didn't like Doritos and Hussein did.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You know Bush is compared to Hitler quite frequently as well, but that doesn't mean it is reasonable. Simply being violent towards ones people does not make a comparsion to Hitler relevent. You know who was as bad as Hiter? Hitler.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> You know Bush is compared to Hitler quite frequently as well, but that doesn't mean it is reasonable. Simply being violent towards ones people does not make a comparsion to Hitler relevent. You know who was as bad as Hiter? Hitler.


Quite frequently by _WHOM_?

:huh:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Quite frequently by WHOM?


Bleeding heart liberals.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Quite frequently by WHOM?
> 
> 
> Bleeding heart liberals.


YOU said it! And we all know how much respect and credibility they have in America and the rest of the world.....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I didn't say they were credible, I said that Bush is often compared to Hitler. He is, leave it at that.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

T3|-| F7U>< C4P4C41 said:


> This guy has absolutely no sources for his quotes or information...invalid?


So all you need is a source to make a FACT VALID. :rollin:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

FYI!!!!

ABC broke the news on the saddam tapes, and actually aired parts of them on TV. I saw them, then immediately posted the link here.

http://www.nodakoutdoors.com/forums/vie ... dams+mouth

Didn't take long for it to be spun, someone used the tapes to say that Saddam was trying to WARN the US about these attacks, not threaten us. We all know THAT is a steaming pile of digested hay.

Any more doubts?


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

As far as the WMD ...

Seems to me there are plenty of "smoking guns" indicating stuff may very well be in Syria ... if so, we won't know till we get there ...

And I think we will ...

get there


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Saddam was awful, but he provided stability. Saddam was a bad person, but it is neither our place nor our choice to go around the world removing bad guys.


The U.N. charter says different.

O, and you are :lame: :splat: :box: :idiot:


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Well MT?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> This guy has absolutely no sources for his quotes or information...invalid?


Hmmmmm.............. you talking about the tapes that Saddam himself recorded? The tapes that Saddams voice has been authenticated as being his voice? Is that the no source your talking about......?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Gohon said:


> > This guy has absolutely no sources for his quotes or information...invalid?
> 
> 
> Hmmmmm.............. you talking about the tapes that Saddam himself recorded? The tapes that Saddams voice has been authenticated as being his voice? Is that the no source your talking about......?


The TRUTH is whatever MT deems it to be, FACTS have Nothing to do with the TRUTH! :eyeroll:


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

MT

Did you watch your favorite source of news the daily show last night.
I know you watchedI am not even going to say anything I am just going to do this. :jammin: :jammin:

oh and I will play a little for you. :fiddle:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Yes I did, hilarious as usual. I don't particularly trust that Iraqi bloke though. He has plenty of reasons to falsify such information.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Gohon said:
> 
> 
> > > This guy has absolutely no sources for his quotes or information...invalid?
> ...


SEE!


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Evidently if it is written online, it is true. Do you not really think that if this was the truth that it would be all over Fox News right now?


C'mon MT, Im waiting. Lets here it. You were w-w-w-w, w-w-w-w-w, wr-wr-wr-wr, WWWRRROOOOOONNNNGGG.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I guess I can go ahead and claim this as my 3rd "official" trouncing :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Check the other thread on said topic. You might consider reading the entire article before you declare the war justified and liberals trounced.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Im refering to the Saddam tapes, nothing more. In the grand scheme of things, its obviously more evidence that my mindset is correct.

But for you, its enough to prove you were 100% wrong about the Saddam tapes


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Charles Duelfer, who led the official U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War, told ABC News the tapes show extensive deception but don't prove that weapons were still hidden in Iraq at the time of the U.S.-led war in 2003.





> The coming terrorist attack Saddam predicted could involve weapons of mass destruction.
> 
> "Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans," Saddam is heard saying, adding he "told the British as well."
> 
> ...


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

I was waiting for you to bring that up...

At least, by bringing it up, you are admitting that the Saddam tapes are genuine.

Now, in regards to that statement.....

Lets pretend that Im Saddam. You are the United States. I want to hurt you. I dont do this myself, that would be stupid, as it would surely lead to you taking it as an act of war and bombing the **** out of me. But if I find someone that also wants to hurt you, Im in good hands. So for the sake of arguement, lets pretend that ABBK is Al Qeida. I call ABBK, and say "hey, I've got these baseball bats (WMD's) that MT doesnt know about. Can you arrainge for them to come in contact with eachother?"

I've just had you bludgeoned, hopefully to death, and can say with a straight face that I didnt do it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I never asserted that the tapes were genuine, I'm simply bringing quotes out of the article you posted.



> So for the sake of arguement, lets pretend that ABBK is Al Qeida


Ahem...

Your "what if" situation ignores one fact. Al Qaeda doesn't lose much if they get attacked. They are like nomads and can move freely. We went after Osama in full force and he still roams the sands free. Saddam was a despot and a megalomaniac. He would have everything to lose by attacking the United States. I assure you that to Saddam staying in power was more important than "getting" us, especially considering how secular he was.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

That is why he got Osama to do it, he thought we wouldnt figure him out, but we did DUH


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

hill billy said:


> That is why he Osama to do it, he thought we wouldnt figure him out, but we did DUH


Again, why would he work with Osama (who is highly religious) when it could be easily traced back to him and he could lose his reign?


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

Because he THOUGHT it wouldnt be traced back to him.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Ahem...
> 
> Your "what if" situation ignores one fact. Al Qaeda doesn't lose much if they get attacked. They are like nomads and can move freely. We went after Osama in full force and he still roams the sands free. Saddam was a despot and a megalomaniac. He would have everything to lose by attacking the United States. I assure you that to Saddam staying in power was more important than "getting" us, especially considering how secular he was.


EXACTLY MY POINT!! Of Course Saddam made it clear to his advisors and generals that the attack would not come from Iraq. He was scared to death of the US reprisal. So instead he decides that maybe a lil aid tossed towards al qeida will allow him a few jabs without it directly coming back to him. Saddam didnt care about al qeida, he probably thought he could use them the way a mob boss uses a croney.

And I think, if you do even the smallest effort via google, you will have to come back, and admit, that yes, the tapes are indeed genuine. To believe otherwise....Well you know what Im going to say.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

MT always has his back to the wall, but that is a hustling little sucker he stays onhis toes when it comes to a debate. HAHAHA MT you are something else man....


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> hill billy said:
> 
> 
> > That is why he Osama to do it, he thought we wouldnt figure him out, but we did DUH
> ...


WOW!


> Who is highly religious


 that's a joke right?
Now I believe GOD has a place for OSAMA in HELL for all the people he paid to have killed. 
What do you think of those apples? :strapped:


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Again, why would he work with Osama (who is highly religious)


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

Did I read that Correctly ... "Osama, Who is highly Religious" ...

I was begining to believe MT thought all this Radical Islamic Terrorist stuff was comming from Muslims who were detached from the religion ...

what gives here???


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

One can follow a religion strongly without following it properly.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

DecoyDummy said:


> Militant_Tiger said:
> 
> 
> > Again, why would he work with Osama (who is highly religious) when it could be easily traced back to him and he could lose his reign?
> ...


Either one or the other is correct, whitch is it MT?


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> One can follow a religion strongly without following it properly.


Such as your claim to being a christian, when by definition, until you accept that all other religions are wrong, and christianity is the only true religion, you are simply an agnostic?

BTW, being an agnostic is not an insult, it simply means you believe in a god, but are still open to the notion that one or more religions may be right.

To become a Christian, means to accept that Jesus Christ was the son of god and that he died for your sins. You accept that by believing this, you also have to believe that Judeaism and Islam are wrong, because they do not believe Jesus was the Messiah. This does not mean you have to hate or persecute them, but you also cant be open to their ideas if any of them, in any way, disagree with your belief that Jesus Christ was your Messiah.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Actually, an agnostic is one who believes that the existence of a God is unknowable. I believe in a God. I am an open minded Christian.

Evidently you are trying to make a comparison between the terrorists and I. The different being that my beliefs don't hurt anyone, and I follow my religion neither strongly nor properly (according to your beliefs).


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

No, Im not trying to connect you to the terrorists. Was just waiting for the proper context to educate you on your incorrect labeling of yourself as a Christian. Thanks for providing it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

My religion is between God and I. There is no room in between us for you to judge.

Have a nice night.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

SPANKED AGAIN :bop: :jammin: :jammin: :jammin:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> SPANKED AGAIN :bop: :jammin: :jammin: :jammin:


I'll second that... MT you are truly a piece of work... You think you stand toe to toe with many here... but you really don't. Your lack of "worldliness" and perspective really are your achilles heel. The only way you can intellectually compete on this stage without sounding completely foolish is to spin things.

:jammin: :jammin: :jammin:

You are definitely talented at that....


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Let's simplfy this.

There are two guys standing there in really nice suits, same age, looks, etc.........
They both speak to you. They sound so different. Thats all you have to base your trust on.
I'll take the one with the southern drawl or scandanavian brog over the New England twang anyday...............

Oh and Burl I love these little icons
:withstupid: :sniper: :beer: :lol: 
A picture is worth a thousand words :toofunny: 
And MT I am still waiting oke: :bop: :jammin: :bartime:


----------

