Al-Qaida Leader Captured

[quote]JeffRo wrote:

Oh, no WMD?

JeffRo
[/quote]

Keep beating that horsie, Jeffro.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
doogie wrote:

These dipshits hated us and hated Israel long before we went into Iraq.

Agreed, and how many recruits went unfazed by the invasion into Afghanistan but decided to join up after the invasion of Iraq?

I seriously doubt any Muslims sitting on the terrorist fence shrugged his shoulders because of Afghanistan but was outraged by Iraq enough to strap a bomb-vest on.[/quote]

And your evidence? Israel was hated yes for their anti-humanitarian actions against Palestinians. The US was hated at that point for supporting them. Since it was only muslim countries that were complaining about this, most muslims saw the US actions as a war on Islam.

So why would they not be angry when the US struck Afghanistan and Iraq? I’m not saying the muslims are completley free of fault. But it seems to me that you guys all like to see one side of the story, instead of both, as if you prefer to leave your views on that one side and not prefer to even approach the other arguments.

As for coming up with left-wing theories. Where are the proofs for right wing theories. Why are so many people here just speculating on both sides. All I can see are a few users ranting about conspiracy theories, while they get their information from videos hashed together using pizza money, and then we have people who think muslims are the most evil people alive, without even studying the religion.

Its good they got that terrorist leader. But its too late for it to allow the war to get better. Both sides have already gotten themselves into a spiral that they can’t get out of. Unless both choose to stop fighting, embrace peace, and at least talk about how they can reach a mutual agreement. Which as we know, will never happen.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
100meters wrote:

Fighting a war on terror would ideally create less terror/ists.

I think you have to look at this from an historical perspective.

I’m sure that “we created more Nazis” by fighting with Germany early on in the war. And I think we created just as many kamikazes by striking back at the Japanese as well.

But…

In the end there were less of them.

Also, you are looking at this all wrong. Instead of counting up how many more terrorists that there may be in the short term you need to look at how many terrorist attacks that there have been in the USA since 9-11.

I think taking the war (over there) to the terrorists has kept our country safe. Better to fight it in Iraq and Afghanistan than over here. Or, would you simply chalk it up to “luck?” No…no that would be foolish huh?

And, I think President Bush deserves some credit for this.

[/quote]

ZEB, you’re so full of shit. I swear some people just don’t remember their history. Remember the millions of Japanese recruited to fight following Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Man, us pathetic Americans were fortunate that the Japanese wanted peace so badly or else we would have been in a lot trouble.

Mike

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
ZEB wrote:
100meters wrote:

Fighting a war on terror would ideally create less terror/ists.

I think you have to look at this from an historical perspective.

I’m sure that “we created more Nazis” by fighting with Germany early on in the war. And I think we created just as many kamikazes by striking back at the Japanese as well.

But…

In the end there were less of them.

Also, you are looking at this all wrong. Instead of counting up how many more terrorists that there may be in the short term you need to look at how many terrorist attacks that there have been in the USA since 9-11.

I think taking the war (over there) to the terrorists has kept our country safe. Better to fight it in Iraq and Afghanistan than over here. Or, would you simply chalk it up to “luck?” No…no that would be foolish huh?

And, I think President Bush deserves some credit for this.

ZEB, you’re so full of shit. [/quote]

Yes…but my wife still loves me. :slight_smile:

[quote]I swear some people just don’t remember their history. Remember the millions of Japanese recruited to fight following Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Man, us pathetic Americans were fortunate that the Japanese wanted peace so badly or else we would have been in a lot trouble.

Mike
[/quote]

LOL…Are you suggesting…oh never mind…

[quote]tme wrote:
JeffRo wrote:

Oh, no WMD?

JeffRo

Keep beating that horsie, Jeffro.

[/quote]

Hey tme!!!

Glad you chimed in. You’ll have to help me with this. I’m not a bobblehead ABBer. Therefore, I’m not an authority in your little talking points.

However, it seems to me that saying “no wmd in Iraq” is a patent falsehood. It is intellectually dishonest. Now, I suspect that that doesn’t bother you abbers much. However, it irritates me.

I realize that “no wmd in Iraq” is far sexier as a talking point than:

We’ve found chemical warheads dispersed throught Iraq. These were mixed in with conventional weapons in an obvious attempt to elude detection. Further, there was a burgeoning wmd program that was receiving large boosts of money.

In your defense, I can see how the latter would be harder to mass produce before the mid-terms.

JeffR

How many number 2s have we caught or killed to date…I lost track.

I would prefer to turn the whole middle east into a big glass plate.

[quote]JeffR wrote:
We’ve found chemical warheads dispersed throught Iraq. These were mixed in with conventional weapons in an obvious attempt to elude detection. Further, there was a burgeoning wmd program that was receiving large boosts of money.[/quote]

Yay! JeffRo the Clown is here again with his wonderful tales of WMDs!!

Dance, JeffRo, dance with those large yellow shoes of yours!

And that big red nose! Is that how you “nose” so much about WMDs that no one else has ever seen?

But what a lovely story you tell. Chemical warheads playing hide and seek with other munition… and, what’s that you say? A burgeoning WMD program? Burgeoning? Uncle Saddam would’ve really liked to have some WMDs? Wow! That’s some real and present danger for ya!

Ah, JeffRo, a day without you is like a saturday morning without cartoons. Really, who wants boring reality when it’s so much more amusing to make stuff up?! Why bother with dry, boring, snooze-inducing stuff like the Duelfer report when JeffRo can delight us with his tales from JeffRoLand.

Please tell us more stories, JeffRo! Dance and sing and makes us laugh some more.

Hey pookie,

You do realize that your response makes you look very silly.

Which part are you arguing about?

Before you answer: You can either search my responses. They are full of links.

Or you could google these keywords: Hoekstra + WMD, Duefler+restarting WMD, 500 WMD found in Iraq, “There’s much we don’t know about Iraq.”

If you can’t manage to do any research, please don’t respond.

Thanks!!!

JeffR

[quote]pookie wrote:
How many times now has Al-Qaeda’s number two been caught or killed now?

What’s so tough about getting number 1?

I swear, being Al-Qaeda’s number 2 has to be the worst job in the world. Talk about a promotion you don’t wanna get: “Hey, Mahmoud, great news! You’re our new number 2! Hey! Where are you going?! Come back here!”
[/quote]

Totally. I couldn’t be happier about nabbing this guy, but it does seem like every terrorist we kill or capture who isn’t one of the guys we already know (Osama, al-Zawahiri, Zarqawi, etc.) is “the number-2 man.” This may make sense, considering al-Qaeda is an organization without a rigid hierarchy, but that very explanation makes the elimination of any given “number 2” much less of a big deal.

[quote]JeffRo wrote:

Or you could google these keywords: Hoekstra + WMD, Duefler+restarting WMD, 500 WMD found in Iraq, “There’s much we don’t know about Iraq.”
JeffR[/quote]

Typical JeffRo douchebaggery at its finest. That whole Hoekstra/Santorum bullshit was pretty well discredited months ago. Even Faux News shut up about it once it became obvious that it was all just another fairy tale.

Why don’t you go ahead and reference Hannity as proof that Hoekstra and Santorum were right? Hell, that’s proof enough for you!

Keep dancing and spinning, JeffRo. You look nice in the clown shoes and pom-poms.

Good news, indeed.

I wanted to point something out. I appreciate irish’s post. There wasn’t the usual “Bush is the devil” drivel often spouted by the far left.

I think the rhetoric gets so hot and the partisan divide is so deep that some forget that we are on the same side.

I also meant to tell irish that I appreciate your post of a couple of weeks ago. In it, you gave credit to Bush for some things he did.

It surprised me and I appreciate your response.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
You do realize that your response makes you look very silly.[/quote]

…says JeffRo the Clown while honking his nose! Bweep! Bweep!

Ah, JeffRo, you know we don’t like the sad clown act; please sing and dance some more!

The UN, the CIA and the ISG (Iraq Survey Group) concluded:

[i]In his final word, the CIA’s top weapons inspector in Iraq said Monday that the hunt for weapons of mass destruction has “gone as far as feasible” and has found nothing, closing an investigation into the purported programs of Saddam Hussein that were used to justify the 2003 invasion.

“After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted,” wrote Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, in an addendum to the final report he issued last fall.

“As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as feasible.”[/i]

Those 500 WMDs from that amusing tale of yours are old leftovers that where known since the 1st Gulf War:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.

Even Papa Clown, ol’GWB himself has said:

The chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, has now issued a comprehensive report that confirms the earlier conclusion of David Kay that Iraq did not have the weapons that our intelligence believed were there.

Are you doubting Papa Clown’s words JeffRo? Bad clown! A pie in the face for you! SPLAT

So JeffRo, by all means keep amusing us with your funny stories; but don’t be the kind of clown who takes himself seriously and expects others to do so to.

More dancing and singing, JeffRo, that’s what we like to see you do! Make us laugh some more with your crazy antics!!

Bweep bweep!!

[quote]tme wrote:
JeffRo wrote:

Or you could google these keywords: Hoekstra + WMD, Duefler+restarting WMD, 500 WMD found in Iraq, “There’s much we don’t know about Iraq.”
JeffR

Typical JeffRo douchebaggery at its finest. That whole Hoekstra/Santorum bullshit was pretty well discredited months ago. Even Faux News shut up about it once it became obvious that it was all just another fairy tale.

Why don’t you go ahead and reference Hannity as proof that Hoekstra and Santorum were right? Hell, that’s proof enough for you!

Keep dancing and spinning, JeffRo. You look nice in the clown shoes and pom-poms.

[/quote]

tme,

Hey pal. You got most of your little keywords in there.

Anyway, feel free to link where the WMD finds have been discredited.

Good luck.

JeffR

pookie:

I wanted to tell you just how clever and witty your clown comments are.

Thanks!!!

I appreciate you managing to look up some quotes for yourself.

That they don’t tell the whole story and do not take into account that THE WMD ISSUE IS NOT STATIC doesn’t change my appreciation for your efforts.

Seriously, I’m bored with having to spoon feed you. I did find something that I haven’t posted before.

Here is Representative Hoekstra:

"Saddam’s WMD
Why is our intelligence community holding back?

BY PETER HOEKSTRA AND RICK SANTORUM
Monday, June 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT

On Wednesday, at our request, the director of national intelligence declassified six “key points” from a National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) report on the recovery of chemical munitions in Iraq. The summary was only a small snapshot of the entire report, but even so, it brings new information to the American people.

“Since 2003,” the summary states, “Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,” which remains “hazardous and potentially lethal.” So there are WMDs in Iraq, and they could kill Americans there or all over the world.

This latest information should not be new. It should have been brought to public attention by officials in the intelligence community. Instead, it had to be pried out of them. Mr. Santorum wrote to John DeFreitas, commanding general, U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, on April 12, asking to see the report.

He wrote, “I am informed that there may well be many more stores of WMDs throughout Iraq,” and added, “the people of Pennsylvania and Members of Congress would benefit from reviewing this report.” He asked that the “NGIC work with the appropriate entities” to declassify as much of the information as possible.

The senator received no response. On June 5, he wrote again, this time to John Negroponte, director of national intelligence, “concerning captured Iraqi documents, data, media and maps from the regime of Saddam Hussein.” He mentioned his disappointment that many captured Iraqi documents had been classified, and that he still had received no response from Gen. DeFreitas.

Some 10 days later, still with no response, he shared his dismay with one of us, Pete Hoekstra, chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence, who on June 15 wrote to Mr. Negroponte, urging him to declassify the NGIC analytic piece. Mr. Hoekstra was also dismayed because he had not been informed through normal intelligence channels of the existence of this report.

To compound matters, during a call-in briefing with journalists held at noon on June 21, intelligence officials misleadingly said that “on June 19, we received a second request; this time asking that we, in short order–48 hours–declassify the key points, which are sort of the equivalent to key judgments from something like a National Intelligence Estimate, from the assessment.” The fault was their own; we had been requesting this information for nine weeks and they had not acted.

On Thursday, Mr. Negroponte’s office arranged a press briefing by unnamed intelligence officials to downplay the significance of the report, calling it “not new news” even as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was reiterating the obvious importance of the information: “What has been announced is accurate, that there have been hundreds of canisters or weapons of various types found that either currently have sarin in them or had sarin in them, and sarin is dangerous. And it’s dangerous to our forces. . . . They are weapons of mass destruction. They are harmful to human beings. And they have been found. . . . And they are still being found and discovered.”

In fact, the public knows relatively little about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Indeed, we do not even know what is known or unknown. Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the ISG had fully evaluated less than 0.25% of the more than 10,000 weapons caches known to exist throughout Iraq.

It follows that the American people should be brought up to date frequently on our state of knowledge of this important matter. That is why we asked that the entire document be declassified, minus the exact sources, methods and locations. It is also, in part, why we have fought for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of Saddam-era documents.

The president is the ultimate classifier and declassifier of information, but the entire matter has now been so politicized that, in practice, he is often paralyzed. If he were to order the declassification of a document pointing to the existence of WMDs in Iraq, he would be instantly accused of “cherry picking” and “politicizing intelligence.” He may therefore not be inclined to act.

In practice, then, the intelligence community decides what the American public and its elected officials can know and when they will learn it. Sometimes those decisions are made by top officials, while on other occasions they are made by unnamed bureaucrats with friends in the media.

People who leak the existence of sensitive intelligence programs like the terrorist surveillance program or financial tracking programs to either damage the administration or help al Qaeda, or perhaps both, are using the release or withholding of documents to advance their political desires, even as they accuse others of manipulating intelligence.

We believe that the decisions of when and what Americans can know about issues of national security should not be made by unelected, unnamed and unaccountable people.

Some officials in the intelligence community withheld the document we requested on WMDs, and somebody is resisting our request to declassify the entire document while briefing journalists in a tendentious manner. We will continue to ask for declassification of this document and the hundreds of thousands of other Saddam-produced documents, and we will also insist on periodic updates on discoveries in Iraq.
This is no small matter. It is not–as a few self-proclaimed experts have declared–a spat over ancient history. It involves life and death for American soldiers on the battlefield, and it involves the ability of the American people to evaluate the actions of their government, and thus to render an objective judgment. The people must have the whole picture, not just a shard of reality dished up by politicized intelligence officers.

Information is a potent weapon in the current war. Al Qaeda uses the Internet very effectively and uses the media as a terrorist tool. If the American public can be deceived by people who withhold basic information, we risk losing the war at home, even if we win it on the battlefield. The debate should focus on the basic question–what, exactly, we need to do to succeed both here and in Iraq. We are dismayed to have learned how many people in our own government are trying to distort that debate.

Mr. Hoekstra is the chairman of the House Permanent Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Santorum is the chairman of the Senate Republican Conference Committee"

You may choose to believe that this is a static argument if you wish.

Oh, you would be wrong.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
Good news, indeed.

I wanted to point something out. I appreciate irish’s post. There wasn’t the usual “Bush is the devil” drivel often spouted by the far left.

I think the rhetoric gets so hot and the partisan divide is so deep that some forget that we are on the same side.

I also meant to tell irish that I appreciate your post of a couple of weeks ago. In it, you gave credit to Bush for some things he did.

It surprised me and I appreciate your response.

JeffR
[/quote]

Pathetic.

JeffR Wrote:
“Thanks for saying nice things about the President.”

You act like a 4 year old defending his mom from momma jokes on the play ground.

pookie,

A couple more things.

First (as I have stated multiple times) I have NO WORDLY IDEA why Bush isn’t all over both the WMD finds and the saddam tapes.

It may not be the reason you suspect. You assume he has been silent because there is no substance to either of these stories.

I’m not so sure. There have been rumors that there are potentially embarassing revelations for our allies in both cases. I lean toward W’s inability or unwillingness to utilize the press effectively. It has been a criticism I’ve leveled at his feet for many years.

Would I hesitate? I’m not sure I would.

Second, when you categorically declare the ISG’s report as THE FINAL ANSWER, I want to highlight this:

“Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the ISG had fully evaluated less than 0.25% of the more than 10,000 weapons caches known to exist throughout Iraq.”

That’s like declaring that the dog is flea free after looking at ONE of his whiskers.

You go ahead and swallow your talking points.

I’ll dig deeper.

JeffR

[quote]marmaprick wrote:

Pathetic.

JeffR Wrote:
“Thanks for saying nice things about the President.”

You act like a 4 year old defending his mom from momma jokes on the play ground.

[/quote]

Thanks for chiming in on ANOTHER subject for which you have no understanding.

irish will understand clearly what I was saying.

I couldn’t give two farts and a shit whether he likes Bush. However, we were discussing objectivity and being able to take criticism of the Administration seriously. The boy who cried wolf, and all that.

I was complimenting him on being more objective than I anticipated.

Again, thanks for chiming in. You are unwelcome and unprepared.

JeffR

[quote]JeffR wrote:
I wanted to tell you just how clever and witty your clown comments are.

Thanks!!![/quote]

You’re welcome. Everytime I see your name at the left of a comment, I imagine this big, bright (as in “colorful,” not that other meaning of “bright”) clown saying them and it simply fits so well.

It’s not static in the sense that there’s still some stubborn idiots trying to misrepresent the same old facts in new ways.

I’d better not be about the same 500 shells…

[quote]…

“Since 2003,” the summary states, “Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapons munitions which contain degraded mustard or sarin nerve agent,”[/quote]

Arrrrgh!!! Not those 500 shells again! Filled with “degraded” gas too!

Contrast this with what was said in 2003 (Dan Bartlett):

What we know from UN inspectors over the course of the last decade is that Saddam Hussein possesses thousands of chemical warheads, that he possesses hundreds of liters of very dangerous toxins that can kill millions of people.

…we know that because, well, we sold it to him. We still have the receipts.

Ok, he didn’t really say that last part.

How? Are they going to shoot them using some giant rubber band?

“May well be?” Well, yes, there may well be. There may well be gold buried under your bed too. That’s what you call facts, JeffRo?

Had sarin in them? You count the empties too? I’m sure they could also kill millions, if enough people stand in line to take a lick from the inside of those old shells.

It’s probably easier to get to a nice round number like 500 if you have 20 filled ones and 480 empty ones too.

Of course. Look at all the chemical attacks your forces have been submitted too since 2003. Imagine if they ran out of gas and had to start improvising and use exploding cars or other improvised explosive devices instead…

Oh.

Which makes it sound like the ISG has only checked 25 caches, when actually the “fully evaluated” criteria is used to greatly reduce the actual number of caches that had been inspected (and found empty.)

Hahahahah! Ah, JeffRo, I knew you’d make me laugh again.

Yes, the Bush administration, those paragons of virtue and integrity afraid of being accused of “politicizing intelligence” HAHAHAHA!

Man, this calls for a bweep bweep:

Bweep! Bweep!

Obligatory dig at shadowy figures and the evil media. Nameless of course.

Again, how many casualties from sarin or mustard gas since 2003?

And poor bumbling Uncle Sam has no idea how to play at that new media game.

If only the army, the Pentagon and the administration were able to come up with a little spin themselves…

It’s not looking good for either one…

Yeah, let’s not worry that the war was started against the public’s wishes and under false pretenses. Let bygones be bygones. I mean, a little war never hurt anyone, right?

[quote]You may choose to believe that this is a static argument if you wish.

Oh, you would be wrong.[/quote]

Ah, JeffRo, what can I say?

Bweep! Bweep!

[quote]JeffR wrote:
pookie,

A couple more things.

First (as I have stated multiple times) I have NO WORDLY IDEA why Bush isn’t all over both the WMD finds and the saddam tapes.[/quote]

Yet you still use those two examples time and again as “proof” that Iraq had the massive amounts of WMDs that were invoked as the reason to go in.

So I’m wrong to “assume” because I do so from the currently known facts, while your position is correct because there are “rumors?”

And those “rumors” can’t be confirmed because you don’t want to make your allies look bad. Wouldn’t want to lose the few remaining friends you have…

[quote]Would I hesitate? I’m not sure I would.

Second, when you categorically declare the ISG’s report as THE FINAL ANSWER, I want to highlight this:

“Charles Duelfer, former head of the Iraq Survey Group, stated that the ISG had fully evaluated less than 0.25% of the more than 10,000 weapons caches known to exist throughout Iraq.”[/quote]

“Fully evaluated” makes it sound like the ISG hadn’t even looked at the remaining 9975 sites. Fact is, the “fully evaluated” sites are the ones that appeared the most promising ones. And yet, only 500 old shells that contained, or had contained, gas were found.

Actually, it’s more like you give the dog a quick once over and find no flea. The you notice an area with little red marks. So you “fully evaluate” that area, but still find no flea. You do find the carcass of a flea that’s been dead for a few weeks and then say “See! I told you this dog was a flea-ridden mutt!”

Then someone points out that you’ve got no evidence and you say “but I’ve only fully evaluated 0.25% of that dog.”

I thought swallowing was your thing?

If you look closely, you’ll notice that all you’re shoveling is manure.

pookie,

All I can say is WOW!!!

Nothing that the head of the Intelligence Committee said was relevant to you in the slightest.

There wasn’t a HINT that any of that information made it into your skull.

We are done talking.

On second thought, it might be safer for you to think up new ways to disregard me.

If one new thought/updated information entered your head, I fear that you might have a catastrophic systems failure.

Your pal,

clown, bweep bweep, JeffRo, right wingnut,

JeffR