2
   

Debunking the Reasons to stay in Iraq.

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 03:56 pm
DrewDad wrote:
And if someone would prefer security above freedom? Lots of those folks in the US.


They are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact there is no security of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless they are secured. And, there is no security if one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not secured.

By the way are you among those folks in the US who prefer security to freedom? If not then who are such folks. Freedom without security or security without freedom are oxymorons.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:02 pm
While we have so far failed to exterminate malignancy (i.e., those who either mass murder civilians or are accomplices to those who mass murder civilians) in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the rest of the world, we must nonetheless persevere until we learn how and do exterminate it. The deadly consequences to us all of failure to do so are too horrible to contemplate much less endure!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:03 pm
ican711nm wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
And if someone would prefer security above freedom? Lots of those folks in the US.


They are not mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact there is no security of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness unless they are secured. And, there is no security if one's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are not secured.

By the way are you among those folks in the US who prefer security to freedom? If not then who are such folks. Freedom without security or security without freedom are oxymorons.

Freedom and security are not mutually exclusive, but they are certainly not always found together.

Ask Martha Stewart if one can have security without freedom. I imagine she would agree.

Ask any celebrity if freedom comes with security.

The more freedom you have, the less security you have. And vice versa. Greater security implies less freedom, not more.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:04 pm
Distributed by American Committees on Foreign Relations, ACFR NewsGroup (description at: www.acfr.org ) No. 604, Monday, September 12, 2005; the author wrote:


Tim Wilcox
International Investigators, Inc.
3216 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, Indiana USA
(317)925-1496
(317)926-1177 FAX
(317)418-3875 CELL
www.internationalinvestigators.com

This from a usually reliable source:

LEADERSHIP: Al Qaeda's Plan for World Conquest

September 1, 2005: Al Qaeda has a plan, and it's been published in a
book (Al-Zarqawi: al Qaeda's Second Generation) by Jordanian journalist,
Fouad Hussein. Several al Qaeda leaders were interviewed for the book,
including al Qaeda's man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The book is
only available in Arabic, but it does lay out a very straightforward
strategy for world conquest. Actually, it sounds a lot like what the nazis
and communists had in mind last century. The only difference is that,
while the nazis killed you for who you were, and the communists killed
you for what you believed, al Qaeda kills you for religious differences.
No matter which zealot gets you, you're still dead.

According to Fouad Hussein, al Qaeda has a seven phase plan for world
conquest. It goes like this.

Phase 1, the "wakeup call." Spectacular terrorist attacks on the West
(like September 11, 2001) get the infidels (non-Moslems) to make war on
Islamic nations. This arouses Moslems, and causes them to flock to al
Qaedas banner. This phase is considered complete.

Phase 2, the "eye opening." This is the phase we are in, where al Qaeda
does battle with the infidels, and shows over a billion Moslems how
it's done. This phase is supposed to be completed by next year.

Phase 3, "the rising." Millions of aroused (in a terrorist sense)
Moslems go to war against Islam's enemies for the rest of the decade.
Especially heavy attacks are made against Israel. It is believed that
major
damage in Israel will force the world to acknowledge al Qaeda as a major
power, and negotiate with it.

Phase 4, "the downfall." By 2013, al Qaeda will control the Persian
Gulf, and all its oil, as well as most of the Middle East. This will
enable al Qaeda to cripple the American economy, and American military
power.

Phase 5, "the Caliphate." By 2016, the Caliphate (one government for
all Moslem nations) will be established. At this point, nearly all
Western cultural influences will be eliminated from Islamic nations. The
Caliphate will organize a mighty army for the next phase.

Phase 6, "world conquest." By 2022, the rest of the world will be
conquered by the righteous and unstoppable armies of Islam. This is the
phase that Osama bin Laden has been talking about for years.

Phase 7, "final victory." All the world's inhabitants will be forced to
either convert to Islam, or submit (as second class citizens) to
Islamic rule. This will be completed by 2025 or thereabouts.

Nothing really new in all this. Al Qaeda has been talking openly about
this (the global Islamic state) for years. These Islamic terrorists are
true believers. God is on their side, and they believe all obstacles
will be swept aside by the power of the Lord. Will al Qaeda's plan work?
Ask the nazis and communists.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:05 pm
ican711nm wrote:
While we have so far failed to exterminate malignancy (i.e., those who either mass murder civilians or are accomplices to those who mass murder civilians) in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the rest of the world, we must nonetheless persevere until we learn how and do exterminate it. The deadly consequences to us all of failure to do so are too horrible to contemplate much less endure!

You've said this endlessly throughout this entire message board. Do you imagine that repeating this statement somehow shores up your argument here?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:07 pm
Ditto about the Al Qaeda plan. You're like a kid shouting "look over there" and then running away.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:11 pm
It's worth repeating in response to the repetition of the very same arguments that others have made here that you have been making here.

No matter how many times I repeat it, it continues to be the truth.

While we have so far failed to exterminate malignancy (i.e., those who either mass murder civilians or are accomplices to those who mass murder civilians) in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the rest of the world, we must nonetheless persevere until we learn how and do exterminate it. The deadly consequences to us all of failure to do so are too horrible to contemplate much less endure!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:14 pm
ican711nm wrote:
No matter how many times I repeat it, it continues to be the truth.

No matter if it is the truth or not, you're just a spammer.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:16 pm
DrewDad wrote:
Ditto about the Al Qaeda plan. You're like a kid shouting "look over there" and then running away.


Truth here is a hard sell. It ought to be repeated until it is finally understood to be truth.

Quote:
Nothing really new in all this. Al Qaeda has been talking openly about this (the global Islamic state) for years. These Islamic terrorists are
true believers. God is on their side, and they believe all obstacles
will be swept aside by the power of the Lord.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:20 pm
DrewDad wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
No matter how many times I repeat it, it continues to be the truth.

No matter if it is the truth or not, you're just a spammer.


DrewDad believes: "No matter if it is the truth or not, you're just a spammer."

Crying or Very sad
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 04:51 pm
ican711nm wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
No matter how many times I repeat it, it continues to be the truth.

No matter if it is the truth or not, you're just a spammer.


DrewDad believes: "No matter if it is the truth or not, you're just a spammer."

Crying or Very sad

That's what I wrote. Your expressed beliefs do not seem to support your contention that we should be in Iraq. Instead of attempting to reconcile these, you resort to reposting items we've seen time and again. You need to spend some time reflecting on your beliefs instead of spamming us.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 06:30 pm
ican711nm wrote:
While we have so far failed to exterminate malignancy (i.e., those who either mass murder civilians or are accomplices to those who mass murder civilians) in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and in the rest of the world, we must nonetheless persevere until we learn how and do exterminate it. The deadly consequences to us all of failure to do so are too horrible to contemplate much less endure!

After pondering this apparent non-sequitur, I think you're trying to say that there are additional reasons for the invasion of Iraq.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 09:09 pm
DrewDad wrote:
... Your expressed beliefs do not seem to support your contention that we should be in Iraq. Instead of attempting to reconcile these, you resort to reposting items we've seen time and again. You need to spend some time reflecting on your beliefs instead of spamming us.


The arguments you have posted are the same arguments repeated in A2K here and in other threads by others who oppose the Iraq war.

My rebuttals to those arguments are naturally the same too.

For example:
.....................................................................
The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.
Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.

These sentences were retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.

These sentences were retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

……………………………………………………………………
05/19/1996: Bin Laden leaves Sudan and returns to Afghanistan.

5 years, 3 months, 23 days later
09/11/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda perpetrates terrorist attack on USA.
The night of 9/11, the President broadcasts to the nation that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them.

1 month, 9 days later.
10/20/2001: USA invades Afghanistan.
Did the USA wait to long?

2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

1 year, 3 months later.
03/20/2003: USA invades Iraq including al Qaeda’s expanded training bases in northern Iraq.
Should the USA have waited longer?

...............................................................................

Those of us who understand that it is necessary to secure the freedom of others in order to secure our own freedom readily understand the implications of the above. I seek to get you to understand those implications as well. Failure for at least someone to get most of you opposed to the Iraq war to readily understand the implications of the above, will doom all of us.

Some of you think it's all about Bush and oil. It's not. It's all about the future freedom of our grandchildren.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Sep, 2005 10:23 pm
Sadly, it's not about original thought or expressing oneself, apparently.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 09:39 am
It is spam, Ican. You have been warned repeatedly not to repost the same things over and over again.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 02:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
It is spam, Ican. You have been warned repeatedly not to repost the same things over and over again.
Cycloptichorn
Shocked

As long as you, Cyclo, continue to make the same arguments, I shall continue to make the same rebuttals, regardless of whatever fatuous label you may choose to assign to my rebuttals.

You have repeatedly been warned. Smile

I shall repeatedly post the following in response to your repeated hypotheses built on hypotheses ... built on hypotheses; you now have a chance to make your case with evidence instead of hypotheses; go ahead, show that you can edit Wikipedia articles like you hypothesized so that my excerpts are no longer accurate:
====================================
The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.
Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.
Retrieved from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

……………………………………………………………………
05/19/1996: Bin Laden leaves Sudan and returns to Afghanistan.

5 years, 3 months, 23 days later
09/11/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda perpetrates terrorist attack on USA. The night of 9/11, the President broadcast to the nation that we will not distinguish between terrorists and those who harbor them.[/color]

1 month, 9 days later.
10/20/2001: USA invades Afghanistan.
Did the USA wait to long?

2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

1 year, 3 months later.
03/20/2003: USA invades Iraq including al Qaeda’s expanded training bases in northern Iraq.
Should the USA have waited longer?

……………………………………………………………………
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 03:24 pm
ican711nm wrote:
2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama's al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

What training base are you talking about? I can find no reference to al Qaeda setting up a training base in Iraq prior to the invasion. Surely you're not attempting to revive the discredited claim that Colin Powell brought up during his UN speech, are you?

ican711nm wrote:
Some of you think it's all about Bush and oil. It's not. It's all about the future freedom of our grandchildren.

Well, Bush thinks it is at least partly about the oil.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 03:45 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
2 months later.
12/20/2001: Osama’s al Qaeda establishes training base in Iraq.

What training base are you talking about? I can find no reference to al Qaeda setting up a training base in Iraq prior to the invasion. ...


The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.
Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.

These two sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.

These three sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam


[quote="American Soldier in Chapter 12 A CAMPAIGN UNLIKE ANY OTHER, CENTCOM FORWARD HEADQUARTERS 21 MARCH 2003, A-DAY, page 483, General Tommy Franks"]The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.

Should you want more I have more!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 05:58 pm
ican711nm wrote:
The Islamic Movement in Kurdistan is an Iraqi political party.
Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam.

These two sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Movement_in_Kurdistan

Ansar al-Islam is an Islamist group, promoting a radical interpretation of Islam and holy war.
At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border.
It was formed in December 2001 as a merger of Jund al-Islam (Soldiers of Islam), led by Abu Abdallah al-Shafi'i, and a splinter group from the Islamic Movement in Kurdistan led by Mullah Krekar.

These three sentences were excerpted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_al-Islam

Are you suggesting that Ansar al-Islam was affiliated with al Qaeda? That's certainly not supported by your own source, which states: "The US has also claimed that Ansar al-Islam has links with Saddam Hussein, thus claiming a link between Hussein and al-Qaeda. The claims were rejected by Krekar, and a presentation by Colin Powell to the UN on February 5, 2003 was met with widespread scepticism (see United Nations actions regarding Iraq)" (emphasis added). Even if it were true that Ansar al-Islam was affiliated with al Qaeda, its training bases were in Kurdistan, which, at the time of the invasion, was not under Saddam's control. Indeed, the US was regularly patrolling the skies over the area in which the base was located, and could have easily bombed the area without resorting to an invasion. Invading Iraq because there were terrorists in Kurdistan, therefore, would have been a bit like invading Mexico because there are terrorists in New Mexico.

ican711nm wrote:
The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.

It is open to question whether Zarqawi was an "al Qaeda leader" at the time of the invasion. It's not even clear that Zarqawi was a leader of Ansar al-Islam at the time. And even if Zarqawi was a leader in al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, it is far from proven that there was any connection between those organizations and Saddam's regime.

ican711nm wrote:
Should you want more I have more!

More of the same? I'll pass.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Sep, 2005 07:06 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
...
"Some more radical members joined the al-Queda aligned Ansar al-Islam."

Are you suggesting that Ansar al-Islam was affiliated with al Qaeda?

Yes! But, I am not merely suggesting it; I am asserting it!

[quote="In Chapter 2.4 BUILDING AN ORGANIZATION, DECLARING WAR ON THE UNITED STATES (1992-1996),page 61, note 54 , The Non-partisan, 9/11 Commission"]In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
[/size]

Even if it were true that Ansar al-Islam was affiliated with al Qaeda, its training bases were in Kurdistan, which, at the time of the invasion, was not under Saddam's control.

We disagree! A no-fly zone is not a no-sail, no-drive, no-ride, no-run, no-walk, or no-crawl zone; and most importantly, it is not a no-control zone.

For example, here's reference to Iraq on the ground undeterred by the no-fly zone
; from Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq (boldface emphasis added):
Quote:
In April 1991 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France established a “safe haven” in Iraqi Kurdistan, in which Iraqi forces were barred from operating. Within a short time the Kurds had established autonomous rule, and two main Kurdish factions—the KDP in the north and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) in the south—contended with one another for control. This competition encouraged the Ba'thist regime to attempt to direct affairs in the Kurdish Autonomous Region by various means, including military force. The Iraqi military launched a successful attack against the Kurdish city of Arbil in 1996 and engaged in a consistent policy of ethnic cleansing in areas directly under its control—particularly in and around the oil-rich city of Karkuk—that were inhabited predominantly by Kurds and other minorities.



Indeed, the US was regularly patrolling the skies over the area in which the base was located, and could have easily bombed the area without resorting to an invasion. Invading Iraq because there were terrorists in Kurdistan, therefore, would have been a bit like invading Mexico because there are terrorists in New Mexico.

President Clinton tried the airstrike approach against al Qaeda in Afghanistan on August 20, 1998. It obviously did not work to prevent future terrorist attacks:

2000
October 12: USS Cole bombing kills 17 US sailors.

2001
September 11: "9/11" The attacks on September 11 kill almost 3,000 in a series of hijacked airliner crashes into two U.S. landmarks: the World Trade Center in New York City, New York, and The Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia. A fourth plane crashes in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.


General Tomy Franks wrote:
The Air Picture changed once more. Now the icons were streaming toward two ridges and a steep valley in far northeastern Iraq, right on the border with Iran. These were the camps of the Ansar al-Islam terrorists, where al Qaeda leader Abu Musab Zarqawi had trained disciples in the use of chemical and biological weapons. But this strike was more than just another TLAM [Tomahawk Land Attack Missle] bashing. Soon Special Forces and SMU [Special Mission Unit] operators leading Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, would be storming the camps, collecting evidence, taking prisoners, and killing all those who resisted.


It is open to question whether Zarqawi was an "al Qaeda leader" at the time of the invasion. It's not even clear that Zarqawi was a leader of Ansar al-Islam at the time. And even if Zarqawi was a leader in al Qaeda and Ansar al-Islam, it is far from proven that there was any connection between those organizations and Saddam's regime.

That's not the point! Whether Zarqawi or some other murderer was the leader of Ansar al-Islam at the time has no bearing on the question whether Ansar al-Islam was affiliated with al Qaeda at the time.[/quote]

Do you have anymore hypotheses you would like to discuss?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/22/2022 at 08:02:16