1
   

If you cannot find Osama, bomb Tehran......

 
 
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 09:38 pm
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Tehran
If you say you're fighting terror
Then you can't be blamed for error
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Tehran
.


So, terror attacks in Saudi Arabia. Considering that:

-some elements of Saudi Arabia are know to support Bin Laden and Al Queda
-they've been known to give them money and material
-9/11 hijackers mostly Saudis
-Saudi military forces known to be supplying terrorists with weapons
-Saudi government knows about individuals connected with AQ that are openly operating in the country
-Saudi government knew of imminent attack

one could be forgiven for thinking that some highly connected Saudis were involved in these attacks.


White House: 'We are sure it was Iran'.

Sound familiar?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,879 • Replies: 42
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 09:48 pm
Oh no! Not another war!

I thought it was going to be Syria first - but it seems Bush just cannot resist that letter "I".

Is Ireland next?
0 Replies
 
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Mon 19 May, 2003 10:17 pm
No oil in Ireland, dlowan. Or other strategic assets, that I know of.

Let's see...

Israel - already in our camp
Iceland - too cold
Ivory Coast - too hot
Italy - too unpredictable
India - a distant possibility, they do have nukes...
Indonesia - hmmm...small, politically unstable, relatively defenseless, lots of US imports made there...I'd be very nervous if I were them.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2003 07:22 am
Re: If you cannot find Osama, bomb Tehran......
Mr Stillwater wrote:

White House: 'We are sure it was Iran'.

Sound familiar?


What is the source for this quote??? It doesn't appear in any of the White House press briefings and it doesn't come up on Google....
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2003 09:01 am
I would also ask was that statement made or just a figment of someones imagination.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Tue 20 May, 2003 11:23 pm
The quotes came from this mob

http://www.defenselink.mil/graphics/pentagon100b.gif

Some joker called Rumsfeld, ring any bells?


Specifically, he's being asked who organised the attacks:

Quote:
Q: Mr. Secretary, going back to Riyadh for just a moment, as you have stressed when you are there, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia continue to have close military ties. But I'm wondering, is there any concern about Saudi Arabia's military failing to protect the compound? And also, since most of the terrorists are known to have come from Saudi Arabia, any concerns about Saudi Arabia cracking down on terrorists?

Rumsfeld: The -- I'm not intimately knowledgeable about who protected what or whatever. I'm aware of the general intelligence that led to the visit. I'm aware of what was communicated. But what took place on the ground, I think we'll let the embassy discuss and describe, not me.

There -- we're finding terrorists from all over the world, from almost every country you can name. And there's no question but that the Saudi government can play an important role in working with the United States and with other countries in attempting to bring all elements of national power to bear to reduce the threats of terrorism


So it's not Saudis as such....

Quote:
Q: But, Mr. Secretary, given the attacks in Riyadh this week, how would you assess the U.S. efforts to find the terrorists and stop them?

Rumsfeld: I would say that if you go back to September 11th and think of what's taken place in the intervening period, there have been notable, significant accomplishments. There have been the denial of Afghanistan as a haven for the al Qaeda and training camps for terrorists that were then spread around the world.


So it's still AQ and Bin Laden, but from where???

Quote:
Third, there are still countries that are harboring terrorists. I mean, we know there are senior al Qaeda in Iran, for example, presumably not an ungoverned area.


So let's recap : Bombers = Al Qaeda ; Al Qaeda organisation NOT located in Saudi Arabia ; Not Saudi = Somewhere else with senior AQ ; Can't be Iraq, can't be Afghanistan, can't be New Zealand, wish it was France, so it's GOTTA be Iran.

The source for this is
DOD Briefing 15 May 2003
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 01:01 am
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.......
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 06:46 am
So you took 3 different statements and used them to fabricate your own quote and then attribute the quote to the White House even though Rumsfled at the Pentagon is the person whose statements you relied on... I see...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 06:51 am
I ain't got a dog in this fight, but i would like to note that Rumsfeld is the most irritable gasbag who ever put both his feet in his mouth while making unsupervised statements (alleged to be fact) on topics which frequently aren't, or oughtn't to be, his province . . . the guy cracks me up . . . of course, the ludicrous nature of the man is much mitigated for the worse by the consideration of how many people he can kill when he's in a bad mood . . .
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 07:02 am
Rumsfeld is a little man who would have us fight the entire world. Someone should have put a muzzle on him as they would any other wild dog.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 07:13 am
Listen, kiddos -- Rumsfeld's feet wouldn't be in his mouth -- or perhaps more accurately, the well-disciplined admin wouldn't allow the continuation of toe-nail chewing on the part of Rumsfeld -- if it didn't serve their purpose. You know that. I know that. Fishin' knows that, I believe...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 09:53 am
Tartarin, i just wanted to interject a question . . . how DO you stay so young an' fresh lookin' . . . what's yer secret ?
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 10:32 am
I just stand out there, next to the mast, and let those Atlantic winds blow the crud away, Setanta. Healthy (if boring and occasionally chilly) lifestyle.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 07:23 pm
I did not 'take them out of context', they followed the same order in the press-conference.

1. 'Do you think that Saudis are somehow responsible?' No.
2. 'Who do you think the perps are?' Al Q
3. 'If they're not in S.Arabia, where are they then?' Not Afghanistan, but Iran has lots of AQ

If you read the actual transcript there is plenty of waffle and the SOD cracking jokes about Bin Laden and the French. And Rumsfeld IS the White House as far as these matters are concerned.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 07:32 pm
One my favorite ad-libs from Mork and Mindy:

"Shah, Shah
Shah, Shah
Ayatollah you so
Ayatollah you so . . . "


OK, everybody back on topic . . .
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 May, 2003 11:06 pm
I might also point you over to some even more recent articles.

Quote:
In their public remarks today, Mr. Boucher and other administration officials declined to say whether a clear connection had been established between the Qaeda leaders they say are in Iran and last week's bombing attacks in Saudi Arabia. But the tenor of their comments echoed what other administration officials, speaking privately, have described as deep concern about intercepted communications strongly suggesting that the Qaeda leaders said to be in Iran played a role in directing the bombings in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, that killed 34 people, including 8 Americans.

In a separate appearance, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said: "There's no question but that there have been and are today senior Al Qaeda leaders in Iran. And they're busy."

Since the war in Afghanistan, American officials have expressed concern over what they say is the presence of Qaeda operatives in Iran, and they have complained periodically about Iranian inaction on the issue.

But the level of American anger has risen sharply in recent days because of what administration officials have described as clear evidence of communications between Qaeda officials in Iran and others outside the country about terrorist operations, including the Saudi attacks.


From todays NYT. There is also another article:
HAVENS, but I'd have to go and register with them and that's too damn much effort right now.

Let me know what you think guys!
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 May, 2003 06:56 am
So far all of it's talk and bluster. No one ever seems to come forward with hard evidence. Unfortunately, most people don't even notice this -- they're used to words being substituted for proof.
0 Replies
 
Mr Stillwater
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2003 08:58 pm
Quote:
The Pentagon has proposed a policy of regime change in Iran, after reports that al-Qaida leaders are coordinating terrorist attacks from Iran.


Pentagon: Let's bomb us some more towel-heads

Fishin' - any thoughts?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 May, 2003 10:17 pm
Stop putting crazy ideas into GWBush's head. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Sofia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 23 Jul, 2003 03:09 pm
http://famulus.msnbc.com/famulusintl/ap07-23-063537.asp?reg=mideast&vts=72320031336

Iran admits to having some big and smaller al-Quaida fish.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » If you cannot find Osama, bomb Tehran......
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/04/2023 at 02:23:20