# Debate



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I didnt know the was a forum on this web site for politics. I am sure there are other debate threads on here but I figured it couldnt hurt to start a new one.

I want to debate any Democrat on this site I am so sick of listening to the liberal media run thier mouths with out someone there to shut them up. I get crazy mad watching TV. So if there is any liberal out there that would like to take a shot please bring it.

I have a sick feeling in my stomach about the future of this country. If the democrats win the next election this country is going to fall apart.

I come from a long line of politions and nothing would please me more than to have a civil debate with a liberal. On any topic it doesnt matter you choose.


----------



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

You have to start out saying something positive like: it's a nice sunny day out today. Theirs your bait; then they'll come running out of the woodwork telling you it's about to rain and the sky is falling ........... I think you get the picture. 8) Just trying to help a hunter hunt!


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

your right a probably came out to aggressive. If there are any liberals out there I am just as weak as you please come debate me.


----------



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

:rollin: That should do it


----------



## boondocks (Jan 27, 2006)

MT, where are yooou?-let um have it FlashBoomSplash!!!


----------



## buckseye (Dec 8, 2003)

> I come from a long line of politions


Ever thought of breaking that chain, it could be beneficial to your kids. :lol:


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Lets debate MTs favorite spin line "There were no WMDs found in Iraq, therefore Bush lied and started an unnecessary war."
I for one think the UN side stepped the Iraq terrorist empire for so long that Saddam was able to move his WMDs to Syria or most likely Iran when he knew we were coming. We announced we were coming and he had plenty of time to clean house. How much time did Saddam have to move the WMDs? One year, two years, how long does it take to move your WMDs to Iran? 
The liberal spin of "NO WMDs found in Iraq" makes me mad every time I hear that line of bull****.
On another note, isn't it convenient that Iran lies right between Iraq and Afghanistan? We can start straightening out that mess by invading from both sides of the country.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I have a sick feeling in my stomach about the future of this country. If the democrats win the next election this country is going to fall apart.


It already is, with a majority Republican Congress and White House.



> We announced we were coming and he had plenty of time to clean house. How much time did Saddam have to move the WMDs? One year, two years, how long does it take to move your WMDs to Iran?


Here is my problem with your scenario, you have no proof. How would you feel if I claimed that you had a meth lab in your house, and then upon checking your house, found no signs of such a thing, but stated that you simply moved it, and arrested you anyway? That is not justice by any stretch of the imagination.



> The liberal spin of "NO WMDs found in Iraq" makes me mad every time I hear that line of b#llsh*t.


It is stunning how experiments or issues turn out when you have a preconcieved notion of the outcome in your mind.

FlashBoomSplash, I will gladly debate you on any topic, assuming that I can make out what you are trying to convey. Pick the topic, but try for something that hasn't already been beaten to death.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

I cannot believe tha all you young posters are trying to start a arguement on St Patricks Day. Settle down and have a cold one. :beer: A O'Dokken


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

MT Glad to see you took the bait. I hear your the only liberal on this site. I will have a good time debating with you.

Well lets get started.

First you compared wmds to a meth lab ok. Well if the police raid your house and find signs of such things you will be arrested its called paraphernalia. And if you gave a drug dealer a warning that the police were coming they are going to get rid of the drugs. Just like saddam got rid of the wmds. If the liberals would let us do our job without giving away confidential information maybe we could catch people in the act. But no they always need to stick there nose were it doesnt belong. :eyeroll:

Second a terrorist is a form of a wmd look at 911. They didnt use a "WMD" but they still caused mass destruction. If you get right down to it a terrorist is a form of a WMD.

Third the country is great right now the only thing that is wrong with it are the liberals running there mouths on subjects that are not even remotely relative to what is important in this country today.

I started this thread for all liberals to have the opportunity to pick a topic that they think they can win. Then I will prove that you cant. So you pick a topic.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> First you compared wmds to a meth lab ok. Well if the police raid your house and find signs of such things you will be arrested its called paraphernalia.


Hence why in my situation nothing was found.



> And if you gave a drug dealer a warning that the police were coming they are going to get rid of the drugs. Just like saddam got rid of the wmds.


So you would have preferred covert military action? That is called a coup d'etat in my book.

Again the issue is that no evidence was found. Say that the drug maker was warned of the raid and was able to "bury" his supply and utensils. You cannot arrest someone on that suspicion. There must be proof, there was none.

A better example would be if I called you out as a murderer on the news, and claimed that the mangled body parts of your victims were in a washtub in your basement. You suggest that even if the police found no such evidence that you should be arrested because you had the time to get rid of said evicence, though there is no proof that the evidence existed. Your justice system sounds like the Salem Witch Trials.



> If the liberals would let us do our job without giving away confidential information maybe we could catch people in the act. But no they always need to stick there nose were it doesnt belong.


What confidential information did they give away exactly, and where does your nose belong?



> Second a terrorist is a form of a wmd look at 911. They didnt use a "WMD" but they still caused mass destruction. If you get right down to it a terrorist is a form of a WMD.


Under that suspicion I suppose everyone on this planet who is physically capable is a "deadly weapon". I can't believe they allow us on planes.



> Third the country is great right now the only thing that is wrong with it are the liberals running there mouths on subjects that are not even remotely relative to what is important in this country today.


The country is doing poorly. Jobs are being lost in manufacturing and made up for in jobs as McDonnalds fry makers and hotel maids. If you doubt me check the difference between the average wage of a US citizen a few years ago as compared to the average wage of a US citizen now.

As to running their mouths on topics that are not relevant, I find personal liberties to be quite relevant to any topic, as that is what our country is based on.



> I started this thread for all liberals to have the opportunity to pick a topic that they think they can win. Then I will prove that you cant. So you pick a topic.


With all due respect, based on your previous posts, you should pick the topic.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

This shouldnt even be an issue.

Demecrats and Republicans both voted for the war. And its just like a liberal to blame it on somebody else. Just because Bush stands by what he started and the liberals leave him standing alone doesnt give anybody the right to blame him or the republican party.

And by the way we found all kinds of things used to build wmds. 
No your facts before you post.

And as far as the classified information wire tapping. What about that. 
Dont tell me its illeagal and it should of been exposed. 
Clinton did it Carter did it and they are both democrats. Why didnt we hear about when they did it because the republicans know how important it is to national security. But when a republican does it a liberal rat tells the media.

Start a topic with some meaning behind it.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

> Demecrats


What is that?!?! Is that a new party????


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Demecrats and Republicans both voted for the war. And its just like a liberal to blame it on somebody else. Just because Bush stands by what he started and the liberals leave him standing alone doesnt give anybody the right to blame him or the republican party.


So if you started beating a man because you believed that he mugged you, and you found that he did not in fact mug you, you would keep beating him just to prove a point?



> And by the way we found all kinds of things used to build wmds.
> No your facts before you post.


No, in fact we did not. You create your own facts to suppliment your argument.



> And as far as the classified information wire tapping. What about that.
> Dont tell me its illeagal and it should of been exposed.
> Clinton did it Carter did it and they are both democrats. Why didnt we hear about when they did it because the republicans know how important it is to national security. But when a republican does it a liberal rat tells the media.


Because as far as we know they did it within the law. There is already a law set that gives the president all the power he needs on such matters. If Bush felt that he needed more, he should have asked for more. He did not, instead he chose to break the law.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I have family over there fighting in the war right now. I talk to them every day I have seen pics and heard first hand from them of missle casings gas mask and paper work a mile long explaning how to build the bombs. THATS A FACT.

I will be the first to say we didnt find a completed wmd. But we found things to get started building. So what were we supposed to do wait to they were complete and they used them on us. Not to mention we found empty weapon plants. Why were they empty because he emptied them before we could check. Saddam isnt dumb he wont just give us what we want.

Now we are fighting a new war over there against terrorist. And yes we knew there were terrorist over there. Saddam was a terrorist. He killed and raped many poeple. Saddam has been mugging the world for years so no I would not stop beating him. Saddam tried to kill Bush SR that is enouph reason to take him out alone.

Clinton had plenty of opportunities to take saddam out but instead he decided to hide and not finish the job.

And Clinton and Carter did the same exact thing Bush did but Republicans dont cry like the liberals do we stand strong and run this country the same way.

We have the greatist country in the world and there will always be people out there that will hate us for it. If we show any kind of weakness at all there are people out there that will take advantage of it. The only weakness in this country is the liberal party.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I have family over there fighting in the war right now. I talk to them every day I have seen pics and heard first hand from them of missle casings gas mask and paper work a mile long explaning how to build the bombs. THATS A FACT.


There has been no evidence of WMDs in Iraq. That is a fact.



> I will be the first to say we didnt find a completed wmd. But we found things to get started building. So what were we supposed to do wait to they were complete and they used them on us. Not to mention we found empty weapon plants. Why were they empty because he emptied them before we could check. Saddam isnt dumb he wont just give us what we want.


This brings to mind the aluminium tubes that were suitable for "nothing other than a WMD", that turned out to be harmless piping that was not intended for WMDs.

What exactly does an empty weapons factory prove? That he had weapons? It was a sovereign nation, I certainly hope they had weapons.



> Now we are fighting a new war over there against terrorist. And yes we knew there were terrorist over there.


Actually, there were few if any before the war. It was our presence that brought with it the attentions of the terrorists.



> Saddam was a terrorist. He killed and raped many poeple.


By that definition, many leaders in this world are terrorists, what makes Saddam different? What makes him the one worth going after?



> Saddam has been mugging the world for years so no I would not stop beating him. Saddam tried to kill Bush SR that is enouph reason to take him out alone.


So you would continue beating a man even if you found him innocent. Astonishing.



> Clinton had plenty of opportunities to take saddam out but instead he decided to hide and not finish the job.


Cetainly Clinton could have killed Saddam. Bush also had plenty of opportunities to prevent 9/11, but that didn't happen either. There were far graver consequences for the latter. Doting on the "what ifs" doesn't get us very far.



> And Clinton and Carter did the same exact thing Bush did but Republicans dont cry like the liberals do we stand strong and run this country the same way.


Your claim implies that Democrats run the country well and stand strong as well, but I shall ignore that. I do not believe that you fully understand how the FISA system works, and I implore you to research it before commenting further. To our knowledge, Clinton and Carter used the system properly under the law. Bush has avoided it purposely and knowingly, and as such has broken the law.



> We have the greatist country in the world and there will always be people out there that will hate us for it. If we show any kind of weakness at all there are people out there that will take advantage of it. The only weakness in this country is the liberal party.


That is a terribly simplistic way to look at the world.

You claim that the only weakness is the liberal party, but if that is so, why have the conservatives not accomplished more in these six years? They have had all the power anyone could possibly ask for, and yet Osama roams free and Iraq is in turmoil far greater than when we entered.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Since you seem to like to analagies. I will give you one. If someone tried to kill your father you wouldnt want to stop him.

Yes saddam did have WMDs the mass graves our military found mass graves wich were left over from him testing these weopons and he used them in the war with Iran and the kurds.

So tell me what was the reason for the first Iraq war. The first Iraq war was never finished because a democrat came into office.

You would believe everything you see on TV about the tubes being simple piping. Talk to someone who was actually over there the liberals will tell you anything to turn you against this country and its goverment.

Ok and if there were only a few terrorist in Iraq and our presence brought them there what happend in afganistan. Our presence didnt bring them there. We basically wiped them out of afganistan. Just like we will wipe them out of Iraq.

Democrats are only worried about there image and what is best for them. There not worried about this country's long term well being.



> That is a terribly simplistic way to look at the world.
> 
> You claim that the only weakness is the liberal party, but if that is so, why have the conservatives not accomplished more in these six years? They have had all the power anyone could possibly ask for, and yet Osama roams free and Iraq is in turmoil far greater than when we entered.


So you dont think we live in the greatist country in the world. Maybe you would be better off living in france. The conservets Have done the best they can considering all the problems Clinton left for them to fix. And Osama still roams because we are not allowed to interigate detanies. Because the liberals seem to think we will get more information from them by giving them warm beds hot meals and some Tea to sip on.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If someone tried to kill your father you wouldnt want to stop him.


Considering Bush senior was no longer in danger, this is a ridiculous notion.



> Yes saddam did have WMDs the mass graves our military found mass graves wich were left over from him testing these weopons and he used them in the war with Iran and the kurds.


He may have had them in the past, the question is did he have them after we invaded in Desert Storm. All signs point to no.



> So tell me what was the reason for the first Iraq war. The first Iraq war was never finished because a democrat came into office.


Evidently the country wasn't happy with the way a Republican was carrying himself. What exactly needed to be "finished" in the war?



> You would believe everything you see on TV about the tubes being simple piping. Talk to someone who was actually over there the liberals will tell you anything to turn you against this country and its goverment.


Do you honestly believe that a grunt knows more about the piping and their possible uses than our security agencies? You do realized that the liberals ARE this country and the government IS this country, right?



> Ok and if there were only a few terrorist in Iraq and our presence brought them there what happend in afganistan. Our presence didnt bring them there. We basically wiped them out of afganistan. Just like we will wipe them out of Iraq.


They were already in Afghanistan, hence why we went there and hence why nearly everyone supported our attack on said country. That war went rather well. The momentum from the attack on Afghanistan was used to bring us into Iraq. It seem to me that you fabricate much of the missing portions of your knowledge on these conflicts. That is a nasty habit. I believe that you are one of those people who at some point believed that Saddam had a hand in 9/11.



> Democrats are only worried about there image and what is best for them. There not worried about this country's long term well being.


Who are you to judge their intent?



> The conservets Have done the best they can considering all the problems Clinton left for them to fix


Like a national surplus as opposed to a debt? Yes what awful problems he left behind.



> And Osama still roams because we are not allowed to interigate detanies. Because the liberals seem to think we will get more information from them by giving them warm beds hot meals and some Tea to sip on.


To begin with..... Jesus... Secondly, we ARE interrogating detainees, as we have seen at Abu Ghraib sometimes violating human rights. The idea that "liberals" (IE those who wish to treat humans in a humane way) do not wish for terrorists to be interrogated is just ignorant. Everyone wishes for information to be extracted from terrorists, but it has been shown time and time again that you get more and better evidence if you use nonviolent techniques as opposed to torture methods like waterboarding (or as I like to call it, drowning). Ask John McCain. What if those people were innocent? How could you justify torturing an innocent man to yourself, or to God?


----------



## Sparky477 (May 4, 2004)

> Clinton had plenty of opportunities to take saddam out but instead he decided to hide and not finish the job.


If Bush Sr would have finished it the first time maybe we wouldn't have had to go back.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Quote: 
Saddam has been mugging the world for years so no I would not stop beating him. Saddam tried to kill Bush SR that is enouph reason to take him out alone.

MTs answer
So you would continue beating a man even if you found him innocent. Astonishing.

Quote: 
Clinton had plenty of opportunities to take saddam out but instead he decided to hide and not finish the job.

MTs answer
Cetainly Clinton could have killed Saddam. Bush also had plenty of opportunities to prevent 9/11, but that didn't happen either. There were far graver consequences for the latter. Doting on the "what ifs" doesn't get us very far.

So what you're saying here is that Saddam is innocent and 9/11 is Bushs fault?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> So what you're saying here is that Saddam is innocent and 9/11 is Bushs fault?


Mob... who without looking this up, who caused 9/11?


----------



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

Militant_Tiger said:


> > So what you're saying here is that Saddam is innocent and 9/11 is Bushs fault?
> 
> 
> Mob... who without looking this up, who caused 9/11?


That like asking what would have prevented 9/11.
HATE caused the attack! 
So what prevents HATE?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I was asking which individuals caused it, not what ideals caused it.


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

Osama and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists. Bush is not part of this network, are you? You seem to support them.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Osama and his al-Qaeda network of terrorists. Bush is not part of this network, are you? You seem to support them.


We were speaking of Saddam, and you brought up Osama and 9/11. I was worried that you thought Saddam had a hand in 9/11.

No one implied that Bush had anything to do with 9/11, I'm really not certain where that came from.

Your question as to whether I am part of the terrorist network is rather bothersome. Your belief that someone with an opposing view is a terrorist simply based on the fact that they do not agree with you is scary. If you wish to discuss these matters you should curtail such claims.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I am not surprised you didn't like the question MT, but it was no more radical than you making the statement that it was a claim. I see this as purposeful misleading, and not admirable.

I don't blame you for being bothered by the question MT. I think you unintentionally triggered the question. Not approving of the war is your prerogative. Not thinking all Muslims are bad is admirable. The combination of berating the war, defending Muslims combined with often saying Christians are also bad may give appearances to others that you will not like. There are many ways to solve this problem, but the choices are yours.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I am not surprised you didn't like the question MT, but it was no more radical than you making the statement that it was a claim. I see this as purposeful misleading, and not admirable.


So if you ask a question with inflection, you can avoid all responsibility for the content of said question? I think not.



> There are many ways to solve this problem, but the choices are yours.


If the problem is my beliefs, I do not plan on making any changes.


----------



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

> If the problem is my beliefs, I do not plan on making any changes.


That's most of your problem, you expect others to be open to your ideas but you:
quote]If the problem is my beliefs, I do not plan on making any changes. [/quote]
:eyeroll:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You are right, I should rephrase that. I will not change my views simply to cause less antimosity on these boards nor in my personal life.


----------



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

We all knew what you ment. :lol:


----------



## MOB (Mar 10, 2005)

I was referring to your previous quotes where you made it sound like Saddam is innocent. That's like saying the devil himself is innocent because we can't prove without a doubt that he had anything to do with 9/11. I'm sure Saddam was heartbroken by 9/11. 
You also stated that Bush had plenty of opportunities to prevent 9/11, implying his guilt of some sort. Now that's some liberal spin hogwash!!


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

MOB said:


> I was referring to your previous quotes where you made it sound like Saddam is innocent. That's like saying the devil himself is innocent because we can't prove without a doubt that he had anything to do with 9/11. I'm sure Saddam was heartbroken by 9/11.
> You also stated that Bush had plenty of opportunities to prevent 9/11, implying his guilt of some sort. Now that's some liberal spin hogwash!!


There has been no evidence of a link between Saddam and Osama in reference to 9/11. What scares me the most is that when you don't get the answer you want, you simply claim that it could be, or disagree with reality.

Bush indeed did have many opportunities to prevent 9/11, such as the memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States". My point was the he is no less guilty of letting it occur than Clinton was, as Flash claimed that he was.


----------



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

Militant_Tiger said:


> What scares me the most is that when you don't get the answer you want, you simply claim that it could be, or disagree with reality.


As have you at times making your arguments....

Lest the pot call the kettle black

Ryan


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> As have you at times making your arguments....
> 
> Lest the pot call the kettle black


I will admit that I am wrong when I am overwhelmed by facts to the contrary of a belief. I have before and I have no shame in doing so again.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> There has been no evidence of a link between Saddam and Osama in reference to 9/11. What scares me the most is that when you don't get the answer you want, you simply claim that it could be, or disagree with reality.


Where are you getting your information? I do a simple Google seach and get many articles attesting to ties between Saddam and Osama.



> OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD.





> According to the memo--which lays out the intelligence in 50 numbered points--Iraq-al Qaeda contacts began in 1990 and continued through mid-March 2003, days before the Iraq War began. Most of the numbered passages contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which some cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source. This reporting is often followed by commentary and analysis.
> 
> The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. According to reporting in the memo, bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." At some unspecified point in 1991, according to a CIA analysis, "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish links to al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions. According to 1993 CIA reporting cited in the memo, "bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."


Above quotes from this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 8fmxyz.asp

And on this page you will find references to many articles written by such mainstream news agencies as Newsweek, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and many others.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1327993/posts

The evidence is there, you are choosing to ignore it.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Huntin you are citing biased sources.

How about some mainstream evidence?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

I challenge you to find information from any of the major news agencies (IE Ruyters, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc) that shows such a link.


----------



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

Militant_Tiger wrote: 
Of course you don't. If facts don't match your preconcieved notion, you toss them out. 
:bop:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I challenge you to find information from any of the major news agencies (IE Ruyters, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc) that shows such a link.


OK,

"Sheila MacVicar, ABC News, January 14, 1999"



> Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Three weeks after the bombing, on August 31st, bin Laden reaches out to his friends in Iraq and Sudan. Iraq's vice president arrives in Khartoon to show his support for the Sudanese after the US attack. ABC News has learned that during these meetings, senior Sudanese officials, acting on behalf of bin Laden, asked if Saddam Hussein would grant him asylum.


CNN.com February 13, 1999



> Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to bin Laden, who openly supports Iraq against the Western powers.


Read the whole article here: http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902 ... .binladen/

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

article: http://www.washingtontimes.com/national ... -3401r.htm



> The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.


and,


> In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.


But then all this is a waste of time because you have already made up your mind.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

No, you have indeed changed my mind. There was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda in 1999. I however will continue to believe that Saddam had no hand in 9/11, as the 9/11 comission found none, and I have seen no evidence of that.


----------



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

Militant_Tiger wrote: 


> If facts don't match your preconcieved notion, you toss them out.


ANOTHER MATCH :beer:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Something more recent perhaps,

Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror
by Deroy Murdock
Media Fellow
Hoover Institution at Stanford University

Adapted from a September 22, 2004 presentation at the Hoover Institution



> Abu Musab al Zarqawi. After running an al-Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, he found his way to Baathist Baghdad, where he reportedly checked into Olympic Hospital, an elite facility run by the late Uday Hussein, son of the captured tyrant. Zarqawi is believed to have received medical treatment for a leg injury sustained while dodging American GIs who toppled the Taliban. He convalesced in Baghdad for some two months. Once he was back on his foot, Zarqawi then opened an Ansar al-Islam terrorist training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi is thought to be behind the October 28, 2002 assassination of this man, Lawrence Foley:
> 
> Then there is the interesting case of Ahmad Hikmat Shakir - an Iraqi VIP facilitator who worked at the international airport in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Citing "a foreign government service," page 340 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on pre-Iraq-War intelligence indicates that, "Shakir claimed he got this job through Ra'ad al-Mudaris, an Iraqi Embassy employee" in Malaysia. On January 5, 2000, Shakir greeted Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi at Kuala Lampur's airport. He then escorted them to a local hotel where these September 11 hijackers met with 9/11 conspirators Ramzi bin al Shibh and Tawfiz al Atash. Five days later, according to The Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared.
> 
> ...


I could find more I suppose, but it's getting a bit busy here at work.

huntin1


----------



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

huntin1 said:


> Something more recent perhaps,
> 
> Saddam Hussein's Philanthropy of Terror
> by Deroy Murdock
> ...


Here's your smoking gun MT....

Now what? I suppose this isn't a sealed in blood good enough source for you?


----------



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

Smacked down again; Mt is having a rough day getting torn-up around here today.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I started this thread to listen to the liberal bull. I think it is funny to listen to liberals talk. It is good comedy. But you guys really let him have it. I was dragging it out so now that there is nothing left for the liberals (MT) to say maybe one of them (MT) should start a new topic. :rollin:


----------



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

The topic doesn't matter to him , he'll turn it into a WMD thread and get spanked :bop:


----------



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

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> The topic doesn't matter to him , he'll turn it into a WMD thread and get spanked :bop:


MT has said she's a girl... be nice... we don't have many on this board...they're a dying species...

Ryan

.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Here's your smoking gun MT....
> 
> Now what? I suppose this isn't a sealed in blood good enough source for you?


No, you have proven to me without a doubt that an airport greeter named Al-Ani had connections to the taliban.



> MT has said she's a girl... be nice... we don't have many on this board...they're a dying species...


The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated. - Mark Twain


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> No, you have proven to me without a doubt that an airport greeter named Al-Ani had connections to the taliban.


Actually, Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani was Consul and Second Secretary at Iraq's Czech embassy between March 1999 and April 22, 2001.

Ahmad Hikmat Shakir was an airport greeter who's name appears on three different rosters of the late Uday Hussein's prestigious paramilitary group, the Saddam Fedayeen. And, who was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered documents connecting him to the 1993 WTC bomb plot and "Operation Bojinka," al-Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets simultaneously over the Pacific.

Is this a clear enough connection between al-Qaeda and Iraq or do you need a picture of Shakir and Uday holding hands?

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Again, it shows no proof that they were working together during the time of 9/11.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Lets see, they were working together before 9/11, they were working together after 9/11. It is ridiculous and naive to think that they were not working together during 9/11.

huntin1


----------



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

huntin1 said:


> Lets see, they were working together before 9/11, they were working together after 9/11. It is ridiculous and naive to think that they were not working together during 9/11.
> 
> huntin1


I think there's only one person here that doesn't get it!
Makes perfect sense to me. :beer:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> I think there's only one person here that doesn't get it!


And sadly, most likely never will. :roll: :eyeroll:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Lets see, they were working together before 9/11, they were working together after 9/11. It is ridiculous and naive to think that they were not working together during 9/11.


The pre-9/11 work and the post 9/11 taliban work are due to completely different factors. The 9/11 Comission, and independant comission set up by our government, and probably the most trustworthy source for information on this topic found no work between Saddam and Osama in reference to 9/11.


----------



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

MT,
I just want to thank you for the cheap entertainment this weekend :beer:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I expect nothing less from you MT.

If a government agency comes up with something you do not agree with the information is not to be trusted, however, if they come up with something that you do agree with the information is reliable. :roll:

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> If a government agency comes up with something you do not agree with the information is not to be trusted, however, if they come up with something that you do agree with the information is reliable.


I suppose you skipped the word independent. I expect nothing less from you.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

Wouldn't matter either way.

huntin1


----------



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

cheap entertainment I tell ya :lol:


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Splashboom: You posted you wanted to debate. MT jumped in and personally I thought you were being put to the coals by MT. I may not agree with his thoughts and ideas, but reading through this he put you in a corner and you went off running to let the others on this site fight your fight.

I would like to see everyone back off and see if SplashFlashboom can handle the heat with MT without everyone coming his side.

I think he will run because he "comes from a long line of politicians."


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Sorry live2hunt, I have not seen MT debate anything all it is , is SPIN.......


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I could of just as easly went to a republican site and copy all my information the same as MT. Nothing MT said was true I know the story when it comes to the war from I witnesses. Just because you read something or hear something from someone it doesnt mean its true. I know what is really going on I get daily information from the front line. And from reading most of MT post MT isnt even a liberal. MT belongs in a mental institute. I mean come on if MT isnt a radical muslim I would be very surprised. And the entire debate consisted of analogies. Analogies that compared Gloabal problems to everyday life. But for your amusement.

Doug Hagin
April 27, 2004

For months now America has listened to every Liberal politician and activist blast President George W. Bush for the lack of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq. We have listened as many of those same presidential critics have claimed that President Bush misled the nation about Iraq even having weapons of mass destruction.

Now the entire world knows Iraq did have them at one point because they had used them against Iran and the Kurds. The mass graves unearthed in Iraq certainly are testaments to Iraq's possession of these weapons.

Yet the lack of such weapons found by our military forces have become a sore point for the Bush administration. Serious questions have been raised as to whether or not Saddam Hussein had destroyed his stockpile of weapons or whether he had shipped them away right before we went into Iraq to remove him and the threat President Bush told us he presented.

So where are those famed weapons of mass destruction? Where are the biological and chemical agents which so concerned our intelligence agencies? Did President Bush lie? Was he the victim of faulty intelligence? Could his Liberal critics actually have it right when they accuse him of misleading us?

The facts thus presented by the media do not paint a rosy picture for the president, but are those facts wrong? What if the intelligence describing Saddam's weapons was correct after all?

According to new information coming out of Iraq our military is indeed finding weapons and evidence of weapons programs.

The Iraq Survey Group, or ISG, has found hundreds of activities which were prohibited under United Nations Security Council resolutions. Evidence of chemical, biological and ballistic weapons have indeed all been found yet the mention of these finds seems to fly far under the media's radar.

And Theres more if you need it.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> I could of just as easly went to a republican site and copy all my information the same as MT.


We call this quoting sources, it is how we prove that we aren't full of hot air.



> Nothing MT said was true I know the story when it comes to the war from I witnesses.


You bear witness to this war no more than I do. Simply because you are alive during the war doesn't mean you are any better informed.



> Just because you read something or hear something from someone it doesnt mean its true.


Much like your information from "Doug"



> I know what is really going on I get daily information from the front line.


Care to shed some light on this? What exactly do you mean by "daily reports"? If you have family there I find it hard to believe that you speak to them daily. This is not to mention that one can be certain that a grunt knows no more information than we do.



> And from reading most of MT post MT isnt even a liberal. MT belongs in a mental institute. I mean come on if MT isnt a radical muslim I would be very surprised.


Surprise!


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

All you do is take pieces of an argument and ad a catchy come back you havent proven anything.



> Quote:
> I could of just as easly went to a republican site and copy all my information the same as MT.
> 
> We call this quoting sources, it is how we prove that we aren't full of hot air.
> ...


Tell me something and "Doug" is know less creditable than your sources. And I do hear from my family and friends everyday. its not as bad over there as the liberal media tells you.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> This is not to mention that one can be certain that a grunt knows no more information than we do


I don't believe this. You're going to claim the soldier on the ground fighting in Iraq knows no more about the war than you do?????? This is beyond being ignorant and out of touch. If the world ever needs a enema, I know where they need to stick it.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I have another Fact sheet for you.



> The second highest ranking general in Saddam Hussein's air force says yes, the blood-thirsty dictator did in fact have weapons of mass destruction. He moved them to Syria before the invasion. General Georges Sada tells the whole story in a book titled "Saddam's secrets."
> 
> Appearing on the Sean Hannity radio show, the general said the WMDs "were there, hiding" right "up to the summer of 2002." When Hussein "realized that the Americans were coming, and the inspectors are coming" he converted "Jumbo 747 and 727" aircraft to cargo planes to transport the weapons to Syria.
> 
> ...


----------



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

Gohon said:


> > This is not to mention that one can be certain that a grunt knows no more information than we do
> 
> 
> I don't believe this. You're going to claim the soldier on the ground fighting in Iraq knows no more about the war than you do?????? This is beyond being ignorant and out of touch. If the world ever needs a enema, I know where they need to stick it.


I have to agree with you, he seems like he has a lot of hate for our men and women in uniform: to him their just grunts


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

One more for MTs lover live2hunt.



> 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.


Oh and live2hunt leave the family out of it no need to go there. And my family doesnt run we have never quite. and its ok to call them GRUNTS they like that it will just motivate them to put some more of your muslim radical budies in body bags.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

FlashBoom: Hard to argue with me. I lean pretty conservative on most topics and don't agree with MT on many of his/her issues.

I just thought it was funny you calling out all the liberals and then when someone does debate, you went MIA letting plainsmen, gohon, ABBK, and a few others do your debating for you.

Good to see you came back.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> And I do hear from my family and friends everyday. its not as bad over there as the liberal media tells you.


Care to explain how? I find it funny that the military would let a soldier call home daily.



> I don't believe this. You're going to claim the soldier on the ground fighting in Iraq knows no more about the war than you do?????? This is beyond being ignorant and out of touch. If the world ever needs a enema, I know where they need to stick it.


Since when does the military keep the foot troops better informed about the daily events than the media keeps the public informed? Certainly they know what they see, but being on the ground means they aren't getting a full perspective.

Gohon your hatred for those with opposing views clouds your view.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

> I find it funny that the military would let a soldier call home daily.


They do. It is called a satellite phone. My buddy calls just about everynight to say "hi" to his wife and kids.

In fact many soldiers over in Iraq are taking online college courses while fighting over there and they are logging into their online classes and completing their classes successfully.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I'm aware that it is possible by satalite phone, but very expensive. The idea that his relatives call and give a detailed report of the day's events seems unusual.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Care to explain how? I find it funny that the military would let a soldier call home daily.


Um, your as dense as pound cake. One of the more frequent posters on my Bronco forum is an airman in Iraq. He has a computer, a link to the internet, and plenty of free time to sit in his hangar and talk BS about Broncos and related BS.

A dear friend of mine spent some time as a field grunt in the USMC over in Iraq. He still managed to email us every couple of days to tell us how things were going.

Just because you arent smart enough to figure out how to communicate with loved ones overseas doesnt mean our fine soldiers aren't.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I don't suppose that airman who sat in the base the whole time knew what was going on in Iraq any more than I do.

On the other side, the grunt who did see what was going on only had time to email once in a while, thus not matching up to the "every day" story.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Gohon your hatred for those with opposing views clouds your view


Not at all little boy. I actually enjoy civil debates with people who have opposing views. However I have a distaste for lying little fake cowards that throw out stupid statements for the mere purpose of disruption. Phony little wanna-be somebody's that are afraid and wee wee their pants every time they have to think about getting out in the real world and making their own living or contributing to that society which they love to shoot down, but at the same time demand that it protect them, feed them, and bee at their service are pretty low on my list as human beings. Now before you get you shorts in a knot kid and want to say I'm talking about you, this covers a lot of today's younger generation.....not the majority but a lot. So do I put you in that category..... :lol: ...... you'll have to decide that for yourself kid.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Gohon, if you insist on acting like a nitwit, I will simply disregard your posts.


----------



## Gun Owner (Sep 9, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I don't suppose that airman who sat in the base the whole time knew what was going on in Iraq any more than I do.
> 
> On the other side, the grunt who did see what was going on only had time to email once in a while, thus not matching up to the "every day" story.


That is the most ignorant and arrogant thing I've ever heard you say. How can you possibly believe you know as much about Iraq as anybody, especially someone thats there? Yet again one more belittling remark by MT towards our men and women in uniform.

FYI, the guy cleaning the mess tent knows more about whats going on in Iraq than you. Deal with it.


----------



## hill billy (Jan 10, 2006)

I was over there and there is nothing he can tell me about it. He just watches alot of CNN.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

ALCON,

Read my post in the other thread. MT is a closet bully. He has no one else to debate with so the kid that gets picked on and bullyed comes on the inter-net to start stuff. You all feed him just like I used to. Now I do to him like I do to a few other trouble starters, ignore him. Stop replying to his posts and he'll go away...again.

it is called controll and he has found a place to be in controll, even you Mr. Gohon and hill billy. Plainsman, Gun Owner, ABBK, etc....he makes and idiotic reply and it makes all of you fire at him and it is like poking a puppy. keep poking and stepping back to watch it snap. He is laughing at you as he reads your reply's.

Ever see a counter demonstartion? Ever see the K.K.K. demonstrate and what happens across the street? The anit-KKK folks come on over and get in such a huff that they wind-up starting stupid stuff.

Let the kid post but ignore it and all will go away....again....


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> Ever see a counter demonstartion? Ever see the K.K.K. demonstrate and what happens across the street? The anit-KKK folks come on over and get in such a huff that they wind-up starting stupid stuff.


So you correlate yourself and those on this forum to members of the KKK, interesting.


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> > Ever see a counter demonstartion? Ever see the K.K.K. demonstrate and what happens across the street? The anit-KKK folks come on over and get in such a huff that they wind-up starting stupid stuff.
> 
> 
> So you correlate yourself and those on this forum to members of the KKK, interesting.


GOOD TRY KID, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT. Try someone else.

See class? This is prime Mt here. Takes some thing you say, twists it, and tries to get you to reply and keep the bantering going.

Class is over, ignore the kid and it will go play somewhere else. You all can keep going with it...I am done.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

It is sad to see what a violent reaction you boys have to someone with a differing opinion. You are willing to starve off your own forum and end all productive discussion just to spite me. I assure you that I will keep posting on these forums to express and defend my opinions.

Have a nice day, Tiger


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Let the kid post but ignore it and all will go away....again....


You keep repeating that yet you also keep replying to him. Make up your mind. Oh, I caught the little off the wall remark about nam experience in the other post but considering it is probable just the after effects of drinking anti-freeze engine coolant I'll just consider the source. :eyeroll:


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

It's not the differing opinion MT, it's the caustic way in which you present it.

That and your refusal to admit that you may be wrong even when presented with facts that clearly indicate that you are.

huntin1


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> It's not the differing opinion MT, it's the caustic way in which you present it.


How exactly do you expect me to act when I am spoken to in a caustic fashion by those on this forum?



> That and your refusal to admit that you may be wrong even when presented with facts that clearly indicate that you are.


That is absolutely untrue. I can recall three times in the past few weeks in which I have admitted that a previous position was wrong once presented with facts to the contrary. If you don't believe me, check the thread with the "buried aircraft" in it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

This thread was doomed from the beginning, and like many it has turned from debate to Militant Tiger. Enough said, it's done.


----------

