Quote:
|
Originally Posted by muspell
How do you know, O omnisentient one? (the words used was "linked with", not "helped with", btw.)
|
What the hell are you talking about? Why are you making a personal attack? Did I say I know everything? And, what do you mean by "the words used was [sic] "linked with", not "helped with"? Have you found a quote from the Bush admin that says, "Iraq was 'linked with' 9.11"?
Quote:
|
I have a question worthy of your abilities, actually. The meeting between an Iraqi official and one of the hijackers from the 9.11 attacks allegedly happened some time in April 2001 according to Czech intelligence (or in June 2000, according to other Czech intelligence). The Czech expelled the Iraqi diplomat later in April, probably for being a spy, but that the meeting was connected to this is not confirmed by the Czech. Also, the information about the meeting did not reach the US until after the events of 9.11, since the reason why the meeting could be relevant was that the name or the face of one of the hijackers matched(noone has yet made public enough information about the intelligence to clarify this, so this is an assumption from the media). At that time, the US denied that such a meeting could've happened, since Atta had - according to the CIA - never left the US. Since then, some Czech officials have noted that Atta might resemble another connection the Iraqi official often met with, even though the official stance from the Czech is that the meeting did happen. (or was it that the foreign minister claim it did, and the rest claim it didn't? I don't remember). Indifferent of this it seems, many members of the Bush administration(i.e. Wolfowitz, Cheney) claim that "if the meeting happened", then this shows that Iraq had ties to al- Quida at worst, or terrorist activities in general.
|
Maybe this will be worthy of your cognitive abilities: Bush never said that Iraq was linked with, had helped with, had conspired with, had done anything in relation to 9.11.
Bush, his administration, the 9.11 Commission, and several intelligence services around the world have always contended that Iraq had ties to terrorism and specifically al Queda. Does that mean that Iraq bombed the USS Cole? No. Does that mean that Iraq helped bomb embassies in Africa? No. Does that mean Iraq funded Fariq Aidid in Somalia? No. Does that mean that Iraq is responsible for any terror attack on the US or her interests? No.
Are you pissed at Bush because you also believed in Santa Claus for the first ten years of your life?
Quote:
|
The question to you is: why is it important to say this in relation to the rationale for the war?
|
When did I say that? The only reference I made to the war was when I commented that if you believe that "links to terrorism" is the same as "helped attack the US on 9.11" then you must also agree with the US taking action against Iraq. See, I don't believe they're the same thing. So I don't believe attacking Iraq because she helped attack the US on 9.11 is a valid reason - Iraq did not help attack the US on 9.11.
Quote:
|
Am I to understand that they are saying that /if/ there /might/ be a connection, then the war was perfectly justified due to the harbouring terrorists clause in the 2002 authorization? Is there another reason or justification? What do you think?
|
There were many reasons:
1) Iraq had not complied with the cease fire of 1991.
2) Iraq was believed to have chemical and biological weapons.
3) Iraq supported terrorism and the possibility that she would give or sell her chemical and biological weapons to terrorists was great.
4) Iraq was a threat to the US.
Gee, I hope I've enlightened you. :rolleyes: