Interrupted On Air; Man Speaks Truth On Iraq/London attack

[TecK NeeX]

Since you seem intent on ingoring Jokerman's post let's go back to the start.

No, i read Jokermans post and i've heard his points all too many times, they're no different then the bullshit you've been claiming all this time. osama hates porn, osama hates sex, hates movies blah blah blah. Unlike you 2 i look at the facts and whats been said by both sides to differentiate false from truth :thumb:

This all originated in the fact that I claimed that al-Qaeda attacked London in order to intimidate civilians. Based on the statement given by the group, their record of behaviour and the way in which London was attacked, I stand by this claim.

No, it originated with this quote by you

"When Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania or Kenya was there any military occupation to justify it? Or the attack on the USS Cole? Or 9/11? These attacks were designed to scare civilians and attack the western way of life in order to help further Al-Qaeda's set of twisted theocratic goals"

You said that Al-Qaeda attacked them to destroy western way of life as if Tanzania, Kenya and Yemen are Western nations

Western interests in the region are varied from commercial, such as oil and business, to cultural, such as Jerusalem.

Bahaha, I cant believe im reading this nonsense. The Middle East might as well invite Japan, Canada, Russia, China, Mexico, France, Germany, all members of OPEC and the other 50+ countries that have businesses in the M.E and import their oil from that region to build their own military bases and protect their own interests.

He still posed a huge threat whatever his army's peacetime size. And, this all ignores the changed climate after 9/11. Before, Saddam's behaviour could be just about tolerated after this was no longer an option.

Powell himself said that Iraq did not possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago and have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions and yet you a nobody still believe he did? wow clearly you know something Powell didn't

This is what you give me? It in no way, shows that the United States and Britain knowingly falsafied information and went to war on such a basis. You'll have to come with better than that.

U.N : "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said "

U.N: "Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts,"

U.N: ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

U,N: Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

British Intelligence: ''Bush Administration wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD,'' ''But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'

If that isn't evidence then i dont know what is.

 

[KanDeeMan]

I'm with FlipMo ONLY and SOLELY for the fact that I'm glad this hasn't deteriorated into namecalling, yet. I'm not throwing my two cents into the ring, as I'm not as well-versed in this subject as the two main voices in this thread but I just thought I'd speak my appreciation for the adequate "backing up" of the "facts" on both sides, instead of you two just having an online shouting contest (or one side GANGING up on the other), it's mildly refreshing.

 

[The.Menace]

This is what you give me? It in no way, shows that the United States and Britain knowingly falsafied information and went to war on such a basis. You'll have to come with better than that.

Sorry Zero, but that has been said and proven many times - maybe not in the US but outside anyone knows the truth. It was made up and that is a fact. Teh sad thing is, nobody cares about the truth afterwards - they knew that too and jsut str8 up played the people. I hate them for that.

 

[not really ken]

This is what you give me? It in no way, shows that the United States and Britain knowingly falsafied information and went to war on such a basis. You'll have to come with better than that.

Its been proven! That Britain falsified information. Tony Blair is a proven LIAR. And he LIED so he could be a warmonger.

Teck makes a good point, Bin Laden has never said he hates Americas freedoms and way of life. Bush and Blair keep saying that and it seems that people have been brainwashed to believe it. Quite sad!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TecK NeeX again.

 

[Zero Cool]

No, it originated with this quote by you

You said that Al-Qaeda attacked them to destroy western way of life as if Tanzania, Kenya and Yemen are Western nations

That is a misquote of what I posted. The full post stated;

"Terrorists bombed London because the United Kingdom is a close ally of the United States in the fight against terror NOT because they're in Iraq. This is simply used as justification by the people such as yourself when in fact the two are very much seperate. When Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania or Kenya was there any military occupation to justify it? Or the attack on the USS Cole? Or 9/11?

These attacks were designed to scare civilians and attack the western way of life in order to help further Al-Qaeda's set of twisted theocratic goals"

Were the attacks not on SPECIFIC U.S. targets? Unfortunately you keep misinterpreting my last point. It was SOLELY in reference to the London bombings. The first paragraph was in rebuttal to your point about military justification, the last vis-a-vis the attacks that took place in London. Understand?

Powell himself said that Iraq did not possess the capability to attack their neighbors the way they did ten years ago and have succeeded in containing Saddam Hussein and his ambitions and yet you a nobody still believe he did? wow clearly you know something Powell didn't

Having a criminal dictator operating in a highly volatile region is always dangerous, thus steps such as the no-fly zone and the weapons inspections were instituted to check Saddam's agression and monitor his behaviour. After 9/11 the situation became even more heightened. Continuing to allow a dangerous threat operate in a region full of them simply could not be allowed to continue anon.

U.N : "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said "

U.N: "Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts,"

U.N: ElBaradei reported finding no evidence of banned weapons or nuclear material in an extensive sweep of Iraq using advanced radiation detectors.

U,N: Knowledgeable sources familiar with the forgery investigation described the faked evidence as a series of letters between Iraqi agents and officials in the central African nation of Niger. The forgers had made relatively crude errors that eventually gave them away -- including names and titles that did not match up with the individuals who held office at the time the letters were purportedly written, the officials said.

If that isn't evidence then i dont know what is.

That is evidence is relation to the operation of faulty intelligence by the US and the UK, it is certainly NOT evidence of a widespread campaign by both sides to lie and distort facts. Such claims have already been rebutted by both the Butler report and the U.S. senate judicary investigations. There were certainly faults with Iraqi intelligence but it was not a covert cover up operation. If it was, it would certainly have been done in a better manner.

British Intelligence: ''Bush Administration wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD,'' ''But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'

You persist in using this memo when it has little basis in relation to concrete facts. First you claimed it was spoken by Tony Blair to aides; it was not, now you claim it as hard evidence vis-a-vis a cover up. What it really is, is one ranking intelligence officer's OPINION of the situation at hand, not a basis for claiming the intelligence was knowingly fixed.

 

[The.Menace]

That is evidence is relation to the operation of faulty intelligence by the US and the UK, it is certainly NOT evidence of a widespread campaign by both sides to lie and distort facts

Ok Zero. They had false informations - and some at least were clearly wrong and easy to be proven wrong also before the war - and they used those information to justify a war. What would you call it if not a lie?

 

[Zero Cool]

Ok Zero. They had false informations - and some at least were clearly wrong and easy to be proven wrong also before the war - and they used those information to justify a war. What would you call it if not a lie?

I know of no critical information that was proved to be a falsehood before the war was started and was still used by the administration to justify it. Do you have any evidence to back up such an assertion?

 

[The.Menace]

Bush said in a speech that Iraq tried 2 buy Uran in Africa. I don't know if he mentioned the number but the gov documents said he tried 2 buy 500 tons of Iran in Niger I think. This was proven wrong cause 500 tons are insaine alot, alomost what Niger produces in a year - besides that, Uran trades in Africa are in the hands of the French and obvisouly they wouldn't sell to Saddam. This information used by the president were "backed up" by fake documents.
I got those infos from a documentation on TV, therefor I don't have it on the PC to back it up. But it was a nice docu - a lil Team of 3 people went to Africa, talked to people there and proved that this agrument from the president was wrong. If they could find that out - I guess the agencies knew that too (or hey, did they even created that document about Saddam and the african Uran?). Therefor it was a lie used to spread fear so they people support a war - and therefor I'd call it a "campaign to lie and distort facts".

 

[Zero Cool]

Bush said in a speech that Iraq tried 2 buy Uran in Africa. I don't know if he mentioned the number but the gov documents said he tried 2 buy 500 tons of Iran in Niger I think. This was proven wrong cause 500 tons are insaine alot, alomost what Niger produces in a year - besides that, Uran trades in Africa are in the hands of the French and obvisouly they wouldn't sell to Saddam. This information used by the president were "backed up" by fake documents.
I got those infos from a documentation on TV, therefor I don't have it on the PC to back it up. But it was a nice docu - a lil Team of 3 people went to Africa, talked to people there and proved that this agrument from the president was wrong. If they could find that out - I guess the agencies knew that too (or hey, did they even created that document about Saddam and the african Uran?). Therefor it was a lie used to spread fear so they people support a war - and therefor I'd call it a "campaign to lie and distort facts".

The chemical in question is Uranium. The White House acknowledged that the Iraq-Africa story had been based on forged documents but was mistakenly kept in the State of the Union address. CIA Director George Tenet accepted blame for the incident, saying his agency should have excised the passage from Bush's speech and subsequently resigned.

Hardly an attempt by Bush to knowingly distort the facts.

 

[TecK NeeX]

That is a misquote of what I posted. The full post stated;

"Terrorists bombed London because the United Kingdom is a close ally of the United States in the fight against terror NOT because they're in Iraq.

What made the U.S and Britain closer than ever? by being the first 2 countries to justify a war against Iraq on distorted, fixed and faulty intelligence. one can say London was attacked because Britain is a close Ally of the U.S and because they went into Iraq together. The British and U.S Iraqi invasion plays a major role in the relationship between the 2 nations. It made their alliance greater then ever!

When Al-Qaeda bombed US embassies in Tanzania or Kenya was there any military occupation to justify it? Or the attack on the USS Cole? Or 9/11?

Incase you didn't know the attack on the uss cole warship took place in Yemen, the USS cole violated yemeni water, thus making it an accupation of yemeni territory. I hardly call an attack on foreign warships an act of terrorism and the other 2, well i've listed Osama's motive that led to the mentioned attacks.

Were the attacks not on SPECIFIC U.S. targets? Unfortunately you keep misinterpreting my last point. It was SOLELY in reference to the London bombings. The first paragraph was in rebuttal to your point about military justification, the last vis-a-vis the attacks that took place in London. Understand?

You didn't even mention the attack on london in your post. You simply listed 3 attacks on U.S targets followed by "These attacks were designed to scare civilians and attack the western way of life in order to help further Al-Qaeda's set of twisted theocratic goals". One could only come to one conculsion with that. and that is you were reffering to the attacks you mentioned as being an attack on western way of life. Chirst!, you related to john kerry by any chance? your flip flopping is just as laughable as his!

That is evidence is relation to the operation of faulty intelligence by the US and the UK, it is certainly NOT evidence of a widespread campaign by both sides to lie and distort facts.

U.N : "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said "



How is that faulty intelligece when it out right described the evidence as a 'forgery" and "fabricated"? the British intelligence admitted that it had fixed evidence with the bush administration to justify a war against Iraq, The U.N also found many key pieces of their evidence as fabricated and forged..

What the fuck else do you want? a public admission by the U.S to the whole world? Consider the consequeces if such an admission did take place, it would result in a worldwide outrage!. The commision that investigated the intelligence was set up by President George Bush himself!. He set it up and he will kill it when he wants. The outcome of the investigation was irrelevant. Bush would most certainly rid of any evidence convicting him with fabricating and fixing evidence around the policy to invade Iraq. This is the most freakin powerful Administration we're talking about here man. The Bush Administration made it clear, military action against Saddam Hussein was inevitable, faulty or credible evidence it didnt matter. He is a madman, a tyrant, a war criminal and a murderer, worse than Saddam and Osama Bin Laden put together.

You persist in using this memo when it has little basis in relation to concrete facts. First you claimed it was spoken by Tony Blair to aides; it was not,

When did i claim the memo was spoken by Tony Blair? I said Blair confirmed the authenticity of the memo. The Memo also instigated a letter signed by 89 congressmen to the Bush administration to respond to the facts the memos speak off, Bush failed to respond and continues to do so. I wonder why

 

[Zero Cool]

one can say London was attacked because Britain is a close Ally of the U.S and because they went into Iraq together.

One could say that. One could also say that these attacks were insipred by twisted psychopaths in order to scare and harass innocent civilians in the hope their government will cave in to their demands.

The British and U.S Iraqi invasion plays a major role in the relationship between the 2 nations. It made their alliance greater then ever!

The United States and Great Britian have had a "special relationship" dating back to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1903. It has been built up through two world wars and the Cold War, this war has simply heightened that special relationship in the world's eyes.

Incase you didn't know the attack on the uss cole warship took place in Yemen, the USS cole violated yemeni water, thus making it an accupation of yemeni territory. I hardly call an attack on foreign warships an act of terrorism and the other 2, well i've listed Osama's motive that led to the mentioned attacks.

Violated Yemeni waters, attacks on an occupying warship? Where exactly are you pulling this fabricated rubbish out of?

"The USS Cole was in the port of Aden for a routine fuel stop. She completed mooring operations at 09:30. Refueling started at 10:30. At 11:18 local time, a small craft approached the port side of the destroyer, and an explosion occurred causing a 40 by 40 foot (12 m by 12) gash in the port side of the Cole."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

An attack on a foreign vessal with no military justification IS an act of terrorism Teck.

You didn't even mention the attack on london in your post. You simply listed 3 attacks on U.S targets followed by "These attacks were designed to scare civilians and attack the western way of life in order to help further Al-Qaeda's set of twisted theocratic goals". One could only come to one conculsion with that. and that is you were reffering to the attacks you mentioned as being an attack on western way of life. Chirst!, you related to john kerry by any chance? your flip flopping is just as laughable as his!

I can't be held responsible because you are unable to ascertain the implications of my post when it was clear we were debating the facts surrounding the London attacks.

U.N : "A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said "

Source? Time of publication?

How is that faulty intelligece when it out right described the evidence as a 'forgery" and "fabricated"? the British intelligence admitted that it had fixed evidence with the bush administration to justify a war against Iraq, The U.N also found many key pieces of their evidence as fabricated and forged..

UK intelligence has NEVER admitted they fixed intelligence to justify war against Iraq.

Intelligence has been found to be faulty or outdated but very little has been found to be outright forgeries or fabrications.

You make so many ludicrous claims without any evidence whatsoever to back them up.

When did i claim the memo was spoken by Tony Blair? I said Blair confirmed the authenticity of the memo.

You stated;

The admittance that President Bush ''wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD,'' ''But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'' made by Tony Blair the closest known ally to Bush irrefutable evidence that Bush did infact fabricate evidence to invade Iraq

http://www.2pacboard.com/forum/showpost.php?p=269899&postcount=27

 

[Jokerman]

Osama hates cotton candy, Osama hates pizza, Osama hates Buffy.

You keep relying on what Osama says, Teck. What is it automatically true because Osama says it? The most striking thing about Osama's statements is how little he has to say. There's no program for Arab-Muslim development, no talk of progress or tolerance, just venom built on the mantras of "jihad," "infidels," and "Allah." All he is is a messenger of hate. Put young Muslim males suffering from a poverty of dignity together with radical Muslim preachers and you have all the basic ingredients that went into producing al Qaeda.

 

[TecK NeeX]

One could also say that these attacks were insipred by twisted psychopaths in order to scare and harass innocent civilians in the hope their government will cave in to their demands.

Sure, and the motive behind this civilian harrassment was? Britain being an ally of the U.S and for invading Iraq!. Not because they hate the west and their way of life, which is what im trying to get through to you here!. If the website that claimed responsibility turns to be credible then that would support my claim not yours. the website said they attacked london in retaliation for the massacres in Iraq commited by the U.S and Britain

Also, like you said this attack was in hope the British government would cave in to their demands. what are their demands? leave Iraq Right? not "listen up people of Britain, we hate the way you live, unless you change and live your life the way we do, security is not gauranteed

The United States and Great Britian have had a "special relationship" dating back to the Hay-Pauncefote Treaty of 1903. It has been built up through two world wars and the Cold War, this war has simply heightened that special relationship in the world's eyes.

Yes and by going into Iraq while 90% of the worlds nations would condemn any sort of attack on Iraq and will refuse to support such an act of agression made them closer than ever!

Violated Yemeni waters, attacks on an occupying warship? Where exactly are you pulling this fabricated rubbish out of?

"The USS Cole was in the port of Aden for a routine fuel stop

the city of Aden is in Yemen, The planned destination for refueling was port of Bahrain not Yemen. The Yemeni government and its people are very hostile to America,.. period.

According to a London Times report by Ian Brodie (October 23rd, 2000) asked why the cole had to stop for refueling in the dangerous Aden port, when its oil tanks were allegedly still half-full, leaving enough fuel to reach its planned destination, the port of Bahrain?

A U.S warship with a half-full fuel tanks destined for Bahrain entering Yemeni water unexpectedly would most certainly trigger a dangerous reaction by the hostile government and people. that is a violation!

An attack on a foreign vessal with no military justification IS an act of terrorism Teck

Not in this case. I dont call attacks against militray machines and personnel an act of terrorism. this was more of an act of self defense or an act of resistance.

it was clear we were debating the facts surrounding the London attacks.

when debating make sure you include the subject you're trying to debate in your replies

Source? Time of publication?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0308someevid.htm


“A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.”

UK intelligence has NEVER admitted they fixed intelligence to justify war against Iraq.

A British intelligence officer Admitted they did, but he was quickly silenced by the more powerful.

You stated;

Yes, the verification of the Memos athaunticity was made by Tony Blair, thats what i stated

 

[Zero Cool]

Also, like you said this attack was in hope the British government would cave in to their demands.

These "demands" are wide and varied and don't simply concern the Iraq war but a far bigger picture. What you can't seem to accept is every bombing, released videotape or hostage taking perpetrated by his forces is part of a concerted action to expel Western influence from the Middle East and unite the Muslim world under his control. This is Bin Laden's EXPRESSED aim.

Put simply, Bin Laden is a messenger of hate.

the city of Aden is in Yemen, The planned destination for refueling was port of Bahrain not Yemen. The Yemeni government and its people are very hostile to America,.. period.

That is absolute tripe. The refeuling stop was agreed with the Yemeni government and was in no way an "occupation" or breach of territory. The attack was wholly illegal and there was little military justifcation for it. You make it seem as if this was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the U.S. occupying Yemeni waters. Nothing could be further from the truth. The attackers had a concerted objective and had attempted the bombing of USS Sullivan, less than a year before. This failed when the bombers' boat, overloaded with explosives, began to sink. The attack on the Cole was simply a culmination of such efforts.

Again if the bombing was a reaction to the U.S. illegaly occupying Yemeni waters I hardly think Yemen would have sentenced Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Jamal al-Badawi to death for their roles in the attack.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/unmovic/2003/0308someevid.htm


“A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said [March 6] in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions.”

This question has already been addressed. The White House acknowledged that the Iraq-Africa story had been based on forged documents but was mistakenly kept in the State of the Union address. CIA Director George Tenet accepted blame for the incident, saying his agency should have excised the passage from Bush's speech and subsequently resigned.

Yes, the verification of the Memos athaunticity was made by Tony Blair, thats what i stated

No, you specifically stated the claims were made by Blair. This is a falsehood.

The admittance that President Bush ''wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD,'' ''But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.'' made by Tony Blair the closest known ally to Bush irrefutable evidence that Bush did infact fabricate evidence to invade Iraq

 

[Jokerman]

Put simply, Bin Laden is a messenger of hate.

I agree.

 

[XIAN]

These "demands" are wide and varied and don't simply concern the Iraq war but a far bigger picture. What you can't seem to accept is every bombing, released videotape or hostage taking perpetrated by his forces is part of a concerted action to expel Western influence from the Middle East and unite the Muslim world under his control.

Where did he say he wanted control?
Somehow you have this idea that he wants control. Before he was living in a fucking mountain, he had control, and money. Why did he give it up if he wants it?

Peace.

 

[TecK NeeX]

These "demands" are wide and varied and don't simply concern the Iraq war but a far bigger picture.

This is Utter bullshit. their demands are not and never were 'wide' and 'varied'. Osama and his followers have never and i repeat Never asked for anything more then 1. complete withdrawl of all foreign forces based on Islamic soil, 2. Halt to the injustice and inflexibility of the American-Israeli alliance toward the Palestinians and 3. the removal of U.S sanctions on Iraq which left millions of innocent iraqies murdered. Thats all he demanded.. This is bin Laden's own testimony concerning his reasons for attacking America and the rest that partaked in the slaughter of countless muslims..THATS IT!!

Unfortunately you were not among the Billions of people who were shocked by the poor grasp of the situation that Bush laid out for all to see when he proclaimed that the terrorists hated the U.S because of their freedoms. fortunately the majority of the world easily noticed and knew fully well this was just rhetoric designed to rally support for his planned illegal invasion of an imaginary enemy in Iraq. The few weak minded individuals such as yourself had no chance whatsoever of escaping such Lies, deceit and propoganda, and i dont blame you.

Osama: "Your security is in your own hands and each state and nation which does not harm our security will remain SAFE!!."

Thus it is said that one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious, sometimes meet with defeat. One who knows neither the enemy nor himself will invariably be defeated in every engagement.--Sun-Tzu, The Art of War

This ^^ is absolute truth!

What you can't seem to accept is every bombing, released videotape or hostage taking perpetrated by his forces is part of a concerted action to expel Western influence from the Middle East and unite the Muslim world under his control.

this is true if you remove " Western influece" and replace it with 'Western Forces'

Put simply, Bin Laden is is a messenger of hate.

If Bin Laden is a messenger of hate, then Bush is a messenger of destruction hell bent on destroying Islam who also believes (Bush did really say this btw) Jesus chose him to lead a crusade against the islamic world.

That is absolute tripe. The refeuling stop was agreed with the Yemeni government and was in no way an "occupation" or breach of territory. The attack was wholly illegal and there was little military justifcation for it. You make it seem as if this was simply a knee-jerk reaction to the U.S. occupying Yemeni waters. Nothing could be further from the truth. The attackers had a concerted objective and had attempted the bombing of USS Sullivan, less than a year before. This failed when the bombers' boat, overloaded with explosives, began to sink. The attack on the Cole was simply a culmination of such efforts

The USS Cole was in the port of Aden for a routine fuel stop. ]

You dont get it do you? the USS cole was half full when it entered Yemeni water, Its destination was Bahrain. The USS cole's mission was not to as believed by uninfornmed individuals such as yourself to simply 'refuel'

In General Tommy Franks Testimony on USS Cole Attack he said and i quote. The decision to refuel in Yemen, which is designated as a safe haven for terrorists in the State Department's annual report on terrorism, was based on "operational as well as geo-strategic factors and included an assessment of the terrorist and conventional threats in the region.


Franks also went on to say his command's mission is to "deter aggression and standready to respond to attacks on our forces, our allies, our interests...to ensure uninterrupted access to regional resources and markets...(and) to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other transnational threats."

Why do you think the head of U.S. Central Command, was called before an angry committee about the Cole. They wanted to know who negotiated the contract to refuel Navy ships at Aden. This was not planned nor was it a 'routine refueling stop'. It was much more than that!

NONE OF THIS INFORMATION WAS SHARED WITH THE YEMENI GOVERNMENT. This warship was pretty much sent to war against the hostile yemeni extremists who were ingaging in gun fights on a daily bases with American forces. The extremists felt and viewed this warship as a threat which lead to the attack. This is not terrorism, this is a war!

This question has already been addressed. The White House acknowledged that the Iraq-Africa story had been based on forged documents but was mistakenly kept in the State of the Union address.

Somehow I dont believe the word "mistakenly" can be found in the Bush administrations vocabulary

 

[Zero Cool]

You left out the first two words of my sentence but forgot to remove the extra "is," thus making it odd-sounding.

It shall be rectified

 

[Morris]

In the Oct. 7, 2001 tape: Osama stated how Americans could stop terrorism against the United States: "Neither America nor the people who live in it will dream of security before we live it here in Palestine and not before the dozens of American military bases leave the land of Muhammad." These American military bases occupied and continue to occupy more than half of all Arab nations long before any attack on Americans.

And this is why Bin Laden's assertions are such a farce. The American bases in Saudi Arabia were there because the Saudis (who Osama hates as well) wanted them there after the First Gulf War.

If it was about American bases in the Middle East, the attacks would have stopped between 9/11 and Iraq, when the United States' bases in Saudi Arabia were abandoned.

When Bush spoke of Al Qaeda attacking us because they hate our freedoms, he was referring to the fact that Al Qaeda disagrees with Western philosophical ideals, their goals and their foreign policies.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Morris, Donald Rumsfeld announced the decision to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia in April of 2003, thats after 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. They've only just begun the redeployment. The invasion of Iraq brought and additional 25 thousand troops into Saudi Arabia. and obviously the redeployment will start with them. I would imagine The complete withdrawl of U.S forces from Saudi Arabia could last at least 3-5 more years. So that would be a no. The United States' bases in Saudi Arabia are not yet abandoned.

When Bush spoke of Al Qaeda attacking us because they hate our freedoms, he was referring to the fact that Al Qaeda disagrees with Western philosophical ideals, their goals and their foreign policies.

U.S future goals in the Middle East and the broader Islamic World? Yes. U.S foreign polices? Yes. Western Ideals? No, Sure he dislikes or disagrees with some of them, I do as well, however, this is simply not the motive behind his attacks against the West. Infact i gaurantee youd be very surprised to learn how many people from every corner of the world who disagree with some western ideals, from south America, to Africa, to the Middle East to Asia, Hell many western nations have publicly voiced their dislike of Islamic laws/ideals