Debunking the Liberals from WMD to Terrorism

F

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
11,763
Reaction score
7
Location
Louisville
1) PRE-EXISTING WMD
a) S. Hussein used Chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-Iran_War
b) S. Hussein used Chemical weapons against the Kurds in Northern Iraq post Dessert Storm
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemical_weapons/chemiraqgas2.html
c) S. Hussein used Chemical weapons against the Sunnis in Southern Iraq post Dessert Storm
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/marsharabs1.htm
d) Statements to the effect that Iraq had or was seeking WMD made by:
President Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Rep. Nancy Pelosi,
Sen. Carl Levin, V.P. Al Gore.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
See also http://www.acsa.net/demsay.htm for many of the same or similar remarks
e) Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle,
John Kerry, & others 10-09-1998.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
f) Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham & others, Dec, 5, 2001.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

2) WMD, Delivery Systems, Banned Convential Weapons
a) WEAPONS
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213
b) URANIUM
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml
c) Uranium Enrichment Program
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2006/2/16/90042.shtml?s=lh
d) JORDAN - FOILED WMD ATTACK
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4771882/
e) SARIN & MUSTARD GAS
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
f) WMD hidden in Syria (and ended up with Al Quaida)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/133526.shtml?s=ic
g) Iraqi commander confirms WMD
http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4465
h) MiGs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3116259.stm
i) Missiles
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,179316,00.html
j) Still More Weapons
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49221
k) Still More Weapons (part 2)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827

3) HISTORY OF AGRESSION
a) Attacked Iran [Iran-Iraq War]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-iraq_war
b) Attacked Kuwait [Gulf War]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war
c) Attacked Saudi Arabia [Gulf War - previous to the Desert Storm]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war
d) Attacked Israel [Gulf War - previous to the Desert Storm]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_war

4) TERRORISTS IN IRAQ
a) Abu Nidal (Planned Rome Airport Machine Gun Massacre)
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen082002.asp
b) Abu Abbas (Planned Achilia Lauro Hijacking)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/15/sprj.irq.abbas.arrested/
c) Terrorist Training Camp Found in Iraq
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html
d) Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Quaida affiliated terrorist in Iraq)
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/10/07/pentagon.al.qaeda/index.html
e) Former Iraqi Prime Minister admits Saddam ties with terrorists
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/27/220702.shtml
f) Iraq & Terrorists collaborated
http://www.nysun.com/article/29746?page_no=1
g) Al-Zarqawi harbored/protected by Saddam's regime
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/Display...middleeast_May570.xml&section=middleeast&col=

5) OTHER CASUS BELLI
a) Radar tracking & SA missiles fired upon "No Fly Zone" Aircraft
(violation of Gulf War surrender terms)
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqaction.cfm
b) Assassination attempt on former President George Bush, Sr.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm
 
What really amazes me is guys like Kerry that have absolutely no moral character.

He gets up on his horse yesterday and tells everyone he was wrong to support the war and that he was lied to by Bush, blah blah blah. But back in 1998 when Bush was nowhere to be seen, Kerry was a war hawk and talking about Iraq WMD blah, blah, blah.

I wish I had the money to run full page ads in every major newspaper and make 30 minute 'infomercials' laying out every single statement from these hypocrites and their willing accomplices in the media. I just can't stand it. Why isn't he called out on the carpet? Because he is a liberal Democrat and the media worships at the feet of the liberals in this country. :mad:
 
Where are the WMD's though?:shifty: Just saying they slipped across the border into Syria doesn't really mean jack #$%@.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Where are the WMD's though?:shifty:
Click to expand...

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, rather than being either too lazy or too in denial to bother clicking one of the links that would answer your rather insipid question, you are simply computer illiterate.

I will therefore do all the work for you.


Reprinted from NewsMax.com
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/29/133526.shtml?s=ic
Sunday, Jan. 29, 2006 1:33 p.m. EST
Iraqi General: Syria Gave Al-Qaida Saddam's WMDs


A former senior military advisor to Saddam Hussein is warning that the chemical weapons used by top al-Qaida terrorist Abu Musab al Zarqawi in a foiled 2004 plot to attack Amman, Jordan were the same weapons Saddam Hussein transported to Syria before the U.S. invasion.

Gen. Georges Sada offered the stunning revelation Saturday while explaining why he didn't decide to go public about Saddam's hidden WMD stockpile until recently.

"As a general, you see, we should keep our secrets," Gen. Sada told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley. But when news broke of the foiled WMD attack on Amman, he changed his mind.

"I understood that the terrorists were going to make an explosion in Amman in Jordan . . . . and they were targeting the prime minister of Jordan, the intelligence [headquarters] of Jordan, and maybe the American embassy in Jordan - and they were going to use the same chemical weapons which we had in Iraq," he told WABC.

Last week, Gen. Sada generated headlines when he told the New York Sun that Saddam had shipped his biological and chemical weapons stockpiles to Syria in the weeks before the U.S. attacked in March 2003.

But until yesterday, the former top Iraqi official had said nothing about al-Qaida gaining access to those same weapons.

"It was a major, major operation. It would have decapitated the government," said Jordan's King Abdullah at the time, in an interview about the Zarqawi plot with the San Francisco Chronicle.

Had it succeeded, the WMD strike would have been the most deadly terrorist attack in world history, with Jordanian officials estimating that Zarqawi's al Qaida team could have killed up to 20,000 people.

While King Abdullah said that trucks containing chemical weapons had come from Syria, he did not identify Iraq as the ultimate source of Zarqawi's WMDs.

Gen. Sada, however, said he had no doubt that Zarqawi intended to use the same chemical weapons Saddam had sent to Syria.

Telling Crowley that he was "shocked" when news of the Zarqawi plot broke, Saddam's former top advisor recalled thinking: "My God, I know many things. How can I keep them [secret any longer]."

Gen. Sada also detailed on Saturday the Iraqi dictator's plan to launch his own WMD attack during the first Gulf War, explaining, "He wanted to attack Israel with chemical weapons."

The top Iraqi military man recalled a meeting of senior defense ministers where Saddam ordered: "I want you to do two things that are very important - to attack Israel and to attack Saudi Arabia with chemical weapons."

Gen. Sada said the planned WMD strike was to be carried out by 98 aircraft, including Soviet-built Sukhoi 24s, MiGs and French-built Mirage jets.

"One wave would fly through Syria and the other wave through Jordan and then penetrate to Israel," he said.

Gen. Sada recalled that he was the only one to raise objections, warning Saddam that such an attack would surely provoke a nuclear response from Tel Aviv.

"I told all this directly [to Saddam] and everybody was listening. If a needle was dropped on the carpet you would hear it," he told Crowley.

After presenting a nearly two-hour-long argument against the WMD attack, Gen. Sada said Saddam was finally persuaded to pull the plug on the deadly operation.
 
fossten said:
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that, rather than being either too lazy or too in denial to bother clicking one of the links that would answer your rather insipid question, you are simply computer illiterate.

I will therefore do all the work for you.
Click to expand...

1) I'm not a lazy person by nature
2) I'm don't live in denial, at least not politically
3) It was not an insipid question, has America actually found WMD's?
4) I'm no super techy; but I know how to click a link chief.

I read the article and I still ask...Does someone saying that the WMD's where shipped across the border make it a fact? This guy is an Iraqi general, can America really trust him? Is he just saying this for his own interest? Is he working on the behalf of a third party’s interest? Not sure America should throw all its eggs in one basket on the word of one possibly shady guy.
 
MonsterMark said:
What really amazes me is guys like Kerry that have absolutely no moral character.

He gets up on his horse yesterday and tells everyone he was wrong to support the war and that he was lied to by Bush, blah blah blah. But back in 1998 when Bush was nowhere to be seen, Kerry was a war hawk and talking about Iraq WMD blah, blah, blah.
Click to expand...
Perhaps Kerry will do the right thing and resign out of protest of himself for casting a wrong vote--We can only hope. :rolleyes:
 
95DevilleNS said:
1) I'm not a lazy person by nature
2) I'm don't live in denial, at least not politically
3) It was not an insipid question, has America actually found WMD's?
4) I'm no super techy; but I know how to click a link chief.

I read the article and I still ask...Does someone saying that the WMD's where shipped across the border make it a fact? This guy is an Iraqi general, can America really trust him? Is he just saying this for his own interest? Is he working on the behalf of a third party’s interest? Not sure America should throw all its eggs in one basket on the word of one possibly shady guy.
Click to expand...

In response, I have one question for you:

DID YOU BELIEVE JOE WILSON?
 
95DevilleNS said:
1) I'm not a lazy person by nature
2) I'm don't live in denial, at least not politically
3) It was not an insipid question, has America actually found WMD's?
4) I'm no super techy; but I know how to click a link chief.

I read the article and I still ask...Does someone saying that the WMD's where shipped across the border make it a fact? This guy is an Iraqi general, can America really trust him? Is he just saying this for his own interest? Is he working on the behalf of a third party’s interest? Not sure America should throw all its eggs in one basket on the word of one possibly shady guy.
Click to expand...

Wow, what a smart guy. Let me ask you this. You have a dog in your backyard, with your kids. The dog is constantly foaming at the mouth, growling and snapping. Is the dog rabid? Should you leave him around your kids until he tears one of their arms off and they happen to get rabies as well as loose an arm? Do they have to loose an arm for you to believe that the dog could be rabid? Would we have to set off a small nuke in your living room for you to believe Saddam had one?:rolleyes:
 
stang99x said:
Wow, what a smart guy. Let me ask you this. You have a dog in your backyard, with your kids. The dog is constantly foaming at the mouth, growling and snapping. Is the dog rabid? Should you leave him around your kids until he tears one of their arms off and they happen to get rabies as well as loose an arm? Do they have to loose an arm for you to believe that the dog could be rabid? Would we have to set off a small nuke in your living room for you to believe Saddam had one?:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Wow, a childish insult, thank you.

Well, since ZERO repeat ZERO WMD's have been found, that foaming, snapping dog turned out to be toothless.
 
fossten said:
In response, I have one question for you:

DID YOU BELIEVE JOE WILSON?
Click to expand...


Enough to not completely dismiss his reports just because they contradict the Bush admin.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Enough to not completely dismiss his reports just because they contradict the Bush admin.
Click to expand...

Then you are no more than a political kool-aid drinker. Wilson's stories were discredited, he's been proven out to be a liar. And yet you believed him while not believing Saddam's general, who by the way has NOT been discredited.. You can't have it both ways. You believe who you want to believe based on your political ideology, not based upon a search for truth.

You don't want to know the truth, Deville, you only want Bush & Co. and America to lose. Period.
 
95DevilleNS said:
Wow, a childish insult, thank you.

Well, since ZERO repeat ZERO WMD's have been found, that foaming, snapping dog turned out to be toothless.
Click to expand...

If you think that was an insult, you should see me when I'm not in a good mood. And the WMD's have already been shown to exist, and were deported by saddam before we got there while we were pussyfooting around with the Useless N.
 
fossten said:
Then you are no more than a political kool-aid drinker. Wilson's stories were discredited, he's been proven out to be a liar. And yet you believed him while not believing Saddam's general, who by the way has NOT been discredited.. You can't have it both ways. You believe who you want to believe based on your political ideology, not based upon a search for truth.
Click to expand...

Oh my Mr. Pot… I said I didn’t completely dismiss Wilson's reports solely based on the reason that they contradicted what the Bush admin was saying and I questioned what the general said since he was Saddam's general. If any if drinking kool-aid here as you say, it’s you. You discredited Wilson from the get go since he was attacking Bush (in your eyes) and you won't question what the general is saying now since it agrees with your political views.

fossten said:
You don't want to know the truth, Deville, you only want Bush & Co. and America to lose. Period.
Click to expand...

Spoken like a die-hard self righteous wing-nut. I want America to lose? Funny how I'd want that since I live here, make my money here, have a family here and I do not plan on leaving. Should I move out of your country and go live in France?
 
stang99x said:
If you think that was an insult, you should see me when I'm not in a good mood. And the WMD's have already been shown to exist, and were deported by saddam before we got there while we were pussyfooting around with the Useless N.
Click to expand...

News flash, I could care less what mood you're in; say whatever you like, insults on a posted board do not bother me. Again, that proof as of yet is only speculation, it has yet to turn out to be undeniable fact, Bush would be on TV yelling "I TOLD YOU SO!" if it were and I couldn't blame him for doing so.
 
If you had the resources to play back everything a politician said either R or D you would find that THEY ALL LIE!!!!!
 
95DevilleNS said:
It wasn't a Freudian slip, it was meant to point out your mind set.
Click to expand...

Well, let me point out yours then.
You don't want to leave the country. You want your leaders to regain power, no matter what the cost.

You want to see Bush & the Republicans removed from power, no matter how much it hurts the country. That means no matter who tells lies about Bush (Joe Wilson, the Democrats in Congress et al, the MSM), they are doing the right thing if it helps Dems regain control of the government.

The problem is that the more lies are told and the more damage that's done also hurts America. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Every time a soldier dies you can thank Jack Murtha and John F'ing Kerry for emboldening the enemy.

It's left wing policies like those of Clinton and Carter that got us into the situation we're in, not those of Bush and Cheney (whose daughter is a lesbian). Clinton's yellow streak in Somalia prompted bin Laden to call the US a paper tiger, and that's the reason they attacked us on 9/11.

Bush was blamed for not being prepared to prevent the attack by (big surprise) the Democrats and the Media, so he vowed never to let it happen again. Saddam violates over a dozen UN resolutions while buying off most of the major players and threatening us with WMDs, so we took him out.

There's not a single person (in his right mind) in this country who can logically say that Iraq was better off with Saddam in power, although I'd love to debate THAT one with ya, if you're that stupid. Now you Dems want to say Bush lied to take us to war. Frankly I'm sick of your two-faced attitude. If you've got something constructive to say about our troops (considering we've just kicked Al Qaeda in the balls about 50 times this week) then by all means speak up. Otherwise, I don't really want to hear it.

Frankly I'm sick of your lack of patriotism, especially on a day when we're supposed to be mourning the deaths of two (tortured) servicemen. Oh yeah, by the way, why aren't you upset about them being tortured? We went round and round about torture a while back and you said you're against it. Why no outrage about it from you? I'm sick of your hypocrisy and your unAmerican attitude.
 
fossten said:
Well, let me point out yours then.
You don't want to leave the country. You want your leaders to regain power, no matter what the cost.

You want to see Bush & the Republicans removed from power, no matter how much it hurts the country. That means no matter who tells lies about Bush (Joe Wilson, the Democrats in Congress et al, the MSM), they are doing the right thing if it helps Dems regain control of the government.

The problem is that the more lies are told and the more damage that's done also hurts America. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Every time a soldier dies you can thank Jack Murtha and John F'ing Kerry for emboldening the enemy.

It's left wing policies like those of Clinton and Carter that got us into the situation we're in, not those of Bush and Cheney (whose daughter is a lesbian). Clinton's yellow streak in Somalia prompted bin Laden to call the US a paper tiger, and that's the reason they attacked us on 9/11.

Bush was blamed for not being prepared to prevent the attack by (big surprise) the Democrats and the Media, so he vowed never to let it happen again. Saddam violates over a dozen UN resolutions while buying off most of the major players and threatening us with WMDs, so we took him out.

There's not a single person (in his right mind) in this country who can logically say that Iraq was better off with Saddam in power, although I'd love to debate THAT one with ya, if you're that stupid. Now you Dems want to say Bush lied to take us to war. Frankly I'm sick of your two-faced attitude. If you've got something constructive to say about our troops (considering we've just kicked Al Qaeda in the balls about 50 times this week) then by all means speak up. Otherwise, I don't really want to hear it.

Frankly I'm sick of your lack of patriotism, especially on a day when we're supposed to be mourning the deaths of two (tortured) servicemen. Oh yeah, by the way, why aren't you upset about them being tortured? We went round and round about torture a while back and you said you're against it. Why no outrage about it from you? I'm sick of your hypocrisy and your unAmerican attitude.
Click to expand...


Wow, I'm glad you go that off you chest...

1) That was argumentum ad hominem at it's finest...
2) I never said negative things about the troops. So don't try and pin the'you hate the soldiers' bit again.
3) Not sure if you're implying that I am happy about soldiers being tortured, but if you remember, I am against ALL torture.
4) Please point out were me questioning the validity of Saddam’s general as being a personal attack on Bush, the troops or America?
5) Im tired of your hypocrisy and your 'You're only a real American if you share Fossten's views' attitude.


Let me ask you something in return... If Saddam’s general had said that no WMD's were shipped across the borders and that Saddam had in fact been complying with the UN sanctions would you so willingly believe him then?
 
95DevilleNS said:
Let me ask you something in return... If Saddam’s general had said that no WMD's were shipped across the borders and that Saddam had in fact been complying with the UN sanctions would you so willingly believe him then?
Click to expand...

Of course not, but that's only because we have documented EVIDENCE that shows that Saddam was, in fact, NOT in compliance with the UN resolutions. Your straw man example has too many parameters. If he'd said that Saddam didn't ship the WMDs to Syria, but instead buried them in secret mountains or something, I'd have believed that. Why? Because we know that he had and used WMDs. Simple truth is that he had to do something with them, and the evidence shows he was not destroying them.

The silly 'what if' game you're trying to start with me has a fatal flaw: It does not and cannot fit with reality. That's the difference between you and me. You want Bush to be a liar, so you call him one, despite the mountain of preponderous evidence piled high in front of you to the contrary. The FACTS are that Joe Wilson is a proven liar, not just because his reports contradicted Bush's administration, but because they are shown to be false. Saddam's general's story fits the FACTS (see above links) that we know. It's less of a stretch for me to believe him than it is for you to disbelieve him. End of story.

Question for you: If (since) Joe Wilson has been proven a liar, would you STILL believe him?
Answer: Yes.
Conclusion: Deville is a Bush-hating kool-aid drinker.
 
fossten said:
Question for you: If (since) Joe Wilson has been proven a liar, would you STILL believe him?
Answer: Yes.
Conclusion: Deville is a Bush-hating kool-aid drinker.
Click to expand...

If you're going to answer for me you're not really asking a question...

What's really amazing with you, you come to the conclusion that I hate Bush because I question the validity of a story perpetuated by our enemy instead of just buying it hook line and sinker because it fit's what I truly want to believe. Your thinking process is truly facinating my friend.

Anyhow, when can we expect results from the intel General Sada spilled?
 
95DevilleNS said:
If you're going to answer for me you're not really asking a question...

What's really amazing with you, you come to the conclusion that I hate Bush because I question the validity of a story perpetuated by our enemy instead of just buying it hook line and sinker because it fit's what I truly want to believe. Your thinking process is truly facinating my friend.

Anyhow, when can we expect results from the intel General Sada spilled?
Click to expand...

Yeah I know, it was a rhetorical question.

Anyway, we'll know what happened to the WMDs when Al Qaeda uses them on somebody.
 
95DevilleNS said:
If you're going to answer for me you're not really asking a question...

What's really amazing with you, you come to the conclusion that I hate Bush because I question the validity of a story perpetuated by our enemy instead of just buying it hook line and sinker because it fit's what I truly want to believe. Your thinking process is truly facinating my friend.

Anyhow, when can we expect results from the intel General Sada spilled?
Click to expand...

You must be some sort of pacifist. AN ignorant one, but a pacifist of some sort. Toture is a well used method to get information to save lives, and if it benefits by saving only one single american life, torture them to the fine red line buddy. And trying to talk like someone who is overly intelligent is doing you no good whatsoever. Using a thesaurus to write your responses? I would almost believe it, but the randomosity of use for the likeness gives you away. Its called the Peter principle. "dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullchit" I my friend, am an expert and you are a mere rookie of such
 
stang99x said:
You must be some sort of pacifist. AN ignorant one, but a pacifist of some sort. Toture is a well used method to get information to save lives, and if it benefits by saving only one single american life, torture them to the fine red line buddy. And trying to talk like someone who is overly intelligent is doing you no good whatsoever. Using a thesaurus to write your responses? I would almost believe it, but the randomosity of use for the likeness gives you away. Its called the Peter principle. "dazzle them with brillance, baffle them with bullchit" I my friend, am an expert and you are a mere rookie of such
Click to expand...

Actually, torture has proven to be rather unreliable for the simple reason of; if you torture someone hard enough and long enough they will admit to whatever it is they think you want to hear. I am certain that the CIA, Mossad, Al Qaeda or any other organization skilled in torture techniques could get you to admit to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll, the tooth fairy or admit to having a penchant for wearing your grandmother’s panties if they tortured you enough. So unless you're absolutely certain the guy in the chair has the intel you need, torture is a big maybe.

I am trying to sound like an intellectual? Hmmm... I read back, the biggest word I used in the thread you responded to was 'perpetuated' and that is a common word, so go back to your drawing board with your childish and ever failing attempts to insult me or at the very least be original and make it a funny insult.. It's randomness, 'randomosity' is not an actual word and I didn't need a thesaurus for that either. Look it up in Websters since I'm certain you'll doubt an amateur like me. While you're at it, look up 'argumentum ad hominem'; that's a Fossten favorite.

I’m happy you see yourself and a brilliant dazzler and baffling bullsh!tter. It’s great to feel good about oneself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 323 (members: 0, guests: 323)
Back
Top