Us choose not to kill terrorist that killed 200+ Iraqi's yesterday

["Sixhits"]

posted without comment:

>>>
With Tuesday?s attacks, Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is now blamed for more than 700 terrorist killings in Iraq.

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself ? but never pulled the trigger.
<<<

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/

[BTs_GhostSniper]

"In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide."

Now let's look at the flip-side of this little article:

So, if this is all true, then it is also true that IRAQ DID INDEED HAVE TIES TO AL-QAIDA.

Also, one milligram of ricin can kill an adult, and we all know what cyanide does....so wouldn't these be classed as Weapons of Mass Destruction?  They are Chemical Weapons in the hands of terrorists.

So, although this little article tried to put a little spin on Bush, it also clearly shows that we were just for waging war against Iraq.

PWNED.

-GhostSniper Out.

[cO.gabe]

So basically the Bush administration let this guy go because killing him would make it harder for them to decieve people about going to war? Wow.  I want to see what develops from this, because this could be big.

[cO.gabe]

"In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide."

Now let's look at the flip-side of this little article:

So, if this is all true, then it is also true that IRAQ DID INDEED HAVE TIES TO AL-QAIDA.

Also, one milligram of ricin can kill an adult, and we all know what cyanide does....so wouldn't these be classed as Weapons of Mass Destruction?  They are Chemical Weapons in the hands of terrorists.

GS.  First of all, just because terrorists are conducting their operations in a particular country doesn't mean that the country (necessarily) supports the terrorists.  If an Al-Qaida operative was making a dirty bomb in the U.S, does it mean that the United States has ties to Al-Qaida?  Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists has nothing to do with Saddam having them.  Maybe you should proof-read your writing before you post it.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

GS.  First of all, just because terrorists are conducting their operations in a particular country doesn't mean that the country (necessarily) supports the terrorists.  If an Al-Qaida operative was making a dirty bomb in the U.S, does it mean that the United States has ties to Al-Qaida?  Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists has nothing to do with Saddam having them.  Maybe you should proof-read your writing before you post it.

Gabe,

PUT DOWN THE CRACK-PIPE AND STEP AWAY FROM THE LITTLE BOY!

This wasn't happening in the United States, where you can get away with murder and not get caught--literally....we are talking about a very tightly-controlled dictatorship with secret police forces all over the place so that the dictator knows exactly what is going on in his country.  If this was happening anywhere in Iraq, Saddam knew about it.

[Mr.Mellow]

GhostSniper, not true. Stuff goes on in the U.S. all of the time, that the U.S. doesn't support. Examples: The K.K.K., organized crime, drug dealing, growing/producing drugs. That's like saying the United States supports your local pothead buddies because they grow weed in their closet. Actually, according to your logic, it's like saying the United States government has plans to smoke that weed, and knows it's there, because a U.S. citizen is growing it. Just because some terrorists are producing chemical/biological weapons in Iraq doesn't mean that the Iraq government has ties to them. The U.S. government didn't have ties to the Unabomber, did they? No. He just built his bombs in a cabin in the U.S.

[BFG]

So, if this is all true, then it is also true that IRAQ DID INDEED HAVE TIES TO AL-QAIDA.

Holy shit GS but open you eyes. That comment is totally unfounded, and in fact if you look at history the relationship between saddam and Al-qaida wern't exactly close.

Its is becoming more and more clear that Al-qaida are taking advantage of the total chaos in Iraq. They are using this opportunity to attack at the US and britain - by trying to stir up unrest and cause problems. By attacking the Shia festivals yesterday Al-quieda is helping to widen the gab between religiouse groups in iraq, and between the the shia and the US occupying force. over 170 Iraqi's were murdered yesterday, and the americans failed to stop this. That dosnt look kindly to those family members who have just had their loved ones blown up.

More an more iraqi's now believe that a) america wants iraq to remain in a state of unrest so it has more power over the country and its assests. im making no comment on that. b) that Americans simply do not care about iraqis... and now they want them out and fast.

The problem now of course that pull out now and you leave a power vacume that Al-qaida would just love.

Had preperations acutally had been prepared for post 'bombing the shit out of the country' we might not be having these problems now. Effectivly the manner in which the invasion of iraq, and the post managment of iraq has been mannered, has opened a door for Al-Qaida.

[BTs_GhostSniper]

GhostSniper, not true. Stuff goes on in the U.S. all of the time, that the U.S. doesn't support. Examples: The K.K.K., organized crime, drug dealing, growing/producing drugs. That's like saying the United States supports your local pothead buddies because they grow weed in their closet. Actually, according to your logic, it's like saying the United States government has plans to smoke that weed, and knows it's there, because a U.S. citizen is growing it. Just because some terrorists are producing chemical/biological weapons in Iraq doesn't mean that the Iraq government has ties to them. The U.S. government didn't have ties to the Unabomber, did they? No. He just built his bombs in a cabin in the U.S.

Excuse me, but you need to go find yourself a better grasp of the English language.  That isn't even what I said.  You are WAY out of context.  Go back and reread what I said.  What are you, in the 2nd Grade or something?

[c| Spetsnaz.]

So, although this little article tried to put a little spin on Bush, it also clearly shows that we were just for waging war against Iraq.

PWNED.

-GhostSniper Out.

Just, in whose opinion? Halliburton? Dick Cheney? George W. Bush? The fact still remains, significant amounts of WMD material have not been recovered, therefore the classification of Iraq being an "imminent" threat to U.S. assets was a  misleading statement.

The billions and billions of dollars wasted daily on the Iraq debacle, would be better served improving intelligence gathering. Not to mention that the U.S. will have to foot the bill alone, whereas in 1990 the cost was differed to a multitude of nations.

No matter how many tanks, airplanes and precision guided munitions we have, terrorist will always have the upper hand of ambiguity. We have the brute force capability, however we lack the hard intelligence needed to infiltrate and destroy such terror organizations.

By assuming a unilateralist, aggressive foreign policy the United States has effectively increased the anger and resolve of the terrorist forces. No matter what country we invade or what regime we decapitate, the terrorist will strike back.

Within our lifetimes we will see a catastrophic terrorist act on U.S. soil, that will belittle the magnitude of 9/11.

["Sixhits"]

"In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide."

Now let's look at the flip-side of this little article:

So, if this is all true, then it is also true that IRAQ DID INDEED HAVE TIES TO AL-QAIDA.

Also, one milligram of ricin can kill an adult, and we all know what cyanide does....so wouldn't these be classed as Weapons of Mass Destruction?  They are Chemical Weapons in the hands of terrorists.

So, although this little article tried to put a little spin on Bush, it also clearly shows that we were just for waging war against Iraq.

PWNED.

-GhostSniper Out.

Just who's pwning who, here?

The point of the article is that the White House refused three times to take out a known terrorist *even after he tried to launch a WMD attack in England*.

Now, if this is true and this dude was in Iraq and did have WMDs then why did the White House not act?

I think it's a greater problem when the White Houses refuses to destroy the very terrorists and WMD labs it proclaimed were the purpose for invading Iraq. And I ask you how a double negative produces a positive. He knew. He failed to act. He let the guy escape. And yesterday near 300 ppl died because of Bush's political bullshit.

How is that a good thing?

Additionaly, I'm hesitant to just leap in an buy this article hook line and sinker (as much as I want to), precisely because if it were true it would be beyond the scope of the "everyday: horrible things the President is willing to do to reap political gain. I'm sure Bush lies for his own benefit, but I find it hard to imagine he'd risk the lives of hundreds of thousands of British citizens all so he can "prove" after he invaded Iraq that their were terrorist with WMDs there.

As for this:
>>>
So, if this is all true, then it is also true that IRAQ DID INDEED HAVE TIES TO AL-QAIDA.
<<<

No, even if every word is true it does not.

It proves that there were terrorists opperating in Iraq.

It does not prove Saddam was butt buddies with them. In fact, the article expressly mentions this dude as hanging out in the north of the country - that is, where Saddam could not control what goes on.

And this?

>>>
So, although this little article tried to put a little spin on Bush, it also clearly shows that we were just for waging war against Iraq.
<<<

It absolutely does the opposite. It proves that Bush was uniterested in dealing with terrorists outside of his larger goals. That they could have killed Zarqawi and disrupted his opperation was unimportant to him. What was important to him was that his prescence lended politcal crediblity to the war in Iraq. But the article makes the point that three times the Pentagon, hardly leftist liberals, had plans to take the fucker out and got dissed. Why?

Because the Bush administration has been a for-the-moment and for-itself operation, burning through the resources of tomorrow and the hard-acquired inheritance of the past to service the political needs -- its political needs -- of the present.

That's the hard truth.

The even harder truth is that Bush is willing to risk our lives, yes our civilian lives, in order to serve his political ends.

And here's an even scarier question to ask: If Bush knew about this and refused to act even after repeated requests ... then how can we trust him when he says there was no warnning 9/11 was coming? How can we ever believe anything he ever says when it comes to terrorism when we know he is willing to use terrorism, terrorists, and terrorist attacks for his personal political gain?

["Sixhits"]

The billions and billions of dollars wasted daily on the Iraq debacle, would be better served improving intelligence gathering.

This article makes it clear that our intellegnce was very good indeed. Good enough to have the warboys comping to go smack down some terrorist ass, even at the cost of soldier's lives!

>>>
?Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn?t do it,? said Michael O?Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
<<<

The house of cards comes tumbling down, one card at a time.

[BTs_Mysterio]

GS, I bet someone with enough time on their hands could link the US to Al-Qaida. Sadam and al-quida don't even share the same objectives or see eye to eye on anything. This is simply people trying to justify what the US has done besides the fact "Sadam is a bad man".

[Cossack]

FYI Kerma was under control of the Kurdish Liberation Front and other Kurdish forces. Before the war Sadaam had no control over the Northern extremities of Iraq. So did the Kurds make WMD?

[Mr.Mellow]

Excuse me, but you need to go find yourself a better grasp of the English language.  That isn't even what I said.  You are WAY out of context.  Go back and reread what I said.  What are you, in the 2nd Grade or something?

No. I guess I wasn't making myself clear enough. I was comparing Iraq to the U.S. Just accidently left out a sentence or two that would have made it much clearer. My mistake. Basically, all I was saying is this: Not everything that goes on in a country is supported by the government(I.E. terrorists developing bio weapons in Iraq). Then just read my other post for examples of this, and voila. Turned your world upside down, didn't it? Well. I wish it had. Never done that before.

[BFG]

IF we were going to take a very 'simplistic view' of this whole deal... US has failed to catch Osma.... And they looked a bit daft for it... So bush, not wanting to look like he had failed on his 'war on terrorism' had to go and find the next best thing to keep the voters back home happy..... hello Iraq

[Brutha]

Politics schmolitics........I know how to solve the problem......Bush and Osama should start their own clans and fight it out on GhR.....or RvS....That way they wouldnt have to include the rest of the world on their little sick crusades for WHATEVER!!!! Come on.....read your history books and learn, plz....before you destroy the world....btw...if bush started a clan...i am sure Tony Blair would be one of the waradmins...right next to Rumsfeldt(who really scares me)

[BTs_GhostSniper]

...right next to Rumsfeldt(who really scares me)

lol....if Donald Rumsfeld scares you then you should be very very afraid of me

["Sixhits"]

Here's a follow up about the tenuios nature of the Zarqawi/al-Qaida connection:

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/8089829.htm

>>>
- The administration tied Saddam to a terrorism network run by Palestinian Abu Musab al Zarqawi. That network may be behind the latest violence in Iraq, which killed at least 143 people Tuesday.

But U.S. officials say the evidence that Zarqawi had close operational ties to al-Qaida appears increasingly doubtful.

Asked for Cheney's views on Iraq and terrorism, vice presidential spokesman Kevin Kellems referred Knight Ridder to the vice president's television interviews Tuesday.

Cheney, in an interview with CNN, said Zarqawi ran an "al-Qaida-affiliated" group. He cited an intercepted letter that Zarqawi is believed to have written to al-Qaida leaders, and a White House official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity said the CIA has described Zarqawi as an al-Qaida "associate."

But U.S. officials say the Zarqawi letter contained a plea for help that al-Qaida rebuffed. Linguistic analysis of the letter indicates it was written from one equal to another, not from a subordinate to a superior, suggesting that Zarqawi considered himself an independent operator and not a part of bin Laden's organization.
<<<

The key concept is that, in rebutal to some presumptions that terrorists in Iraq before the war are indicators that Saddam was haboring terrorists (and to a greater extent, that all terrorists are al-Qaida), um, no, you're wrong.

[Cutter]

while some of this is circumstantial evidence there is clearly a link between saddam and terrorist organizations, al quada or not. here's just a few examples (taken from a very reliable conservative news source =p):

He paid bonuses of up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers. "President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000," Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, declared at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported two days later. Mahmoud Besharat, who the White House says dispensed these funds across the West Bank, gratefully said: "You would have to ask President Saddam why he is being so generous. But he is a revolutionary and he wants this distinguished struggle, the intifada, to continue." Between Aziz's announcement and the March 20 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans.

The Philippine government expelled Hisham al Hussein, the second secretary at Iraq's Manila embassy, on February 13, 2003. Cell-phone records indicate that the diplomat had spoken with Abu Madja and Hamsiraji Sali, leaders of Abu Sayyaf, just before and just after this al Qaeda-allied Islamic militant group conducted an attack in Zamboanga City. Abu Sayyaf's nail-filled bomb exploded on October 2, 2002, injuring 23 individuals and killing two Filipinos and U.S. Special Forces Sergeant First Class Mark Wayne Jackson, age 40.

Along Iraq's border with Syria, U.S. have troops captured Farouk Hijazi, Hussein's former ambassador to Turkey and suspected liaison to al Qaeda. Under interrogation, Hijazi "admitted meeting with senior al Qaeda leaders at Saddam's behest in 1994."

The Czech Republic stands by its claim that 9/11 leader Mohamed Atta met in Prague in April 2001 with Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim an-Ani, an Iraqi diplomat/intelligence agent. He was expelled two weeks after the suspected meeting with Atta for apparently hostile surveillance of Radio Free Europe's Prague headquarters, from which American broadcasts to Iraq emanate.

On January 5, 2000, Ahmad Hikmat Shakir ? an Iraqi airport greeter reportedly dispatched from Baghdad's embassy in Malaysia ? welcomed Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi to Kuala Lampur and 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 Stephen Hayes, Shakir disappeared. He was arrested in Qatar on September 17, 2001, six days after al Midhar and al Hamzi slammed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon, killing 216 people. On his person and in his apartment, authorities discovered papers tying him to the 1993 WTC plot and "Operation Bojinka," al Qaeda's 1995 plan to blow up 12 jets over the Pacific at once.

U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and a monthly salary. Indiana-born, Iraqi-reared al Qaeda member Abdul Rahman Yasin was indicted for mixing the chemicals in the bomb that exploded beneath the World Trade Center, killing six and injuring some 1,000 New Yorkers.

*saddam hussien clearly supported and financed terrorism. directly and indirectly. al quada or not. in iraq or not. he most definitly supported terrorists. i have never believed that he had any connection to 9/11, or usama. reportedly, usama hated saddam even. however...after 9/11, when this guy publicly announced his continued financial support for terrorists....well...he had it comin.

and for those that would criticize the pres/gov/military for not attacking this zarqawi guy before the war.....duh. it was before the war. there were negotiations taking place at the U.N. infact colin powell's claims that zarqawi was in iraq were quickly dismissed by many as bush trying to hype it up. hmm...he turned out to be there didn't he. and what would bush's detractors have said if there were strikes in iraq to get this guy before the war? and what impact would it have had on the logistics and planning of the war everybody knew was coming? that would've been a big risk going after somebody early unless his name was saddam.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The point of the article is that the White House refused three times to take out a known terrorist *even after he tried to launch a WMD attack in England*.

Now, if this is true and this dude was in Iraq and did have WMDs then why did the White House not act?

Key point, IF THIS IS TRUE.  Before everyone jumps on the bandwagon, why not wait and see how this plays out?

US has failed to catch Osma.... And they looked a bit daft for it...

Anyone that thinks the US looks daft for not catching Bin Laden yet, watches too many movies and isn't really in touch with reality.