Closed Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57

Thread: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

  1. #1
    Scotlands finest SuperMod michaeljohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Glasgow Scotland Heritage: Scotsman; Pict
    Posts
    45,783
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 28 Times in 22 Posts
    Rep Power
    1000

    For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Violent attacks are down, and citizens are turning against al-Qaeda.

    http://news.aol.com/story/_a/major-a...00010000000001

    thread to be copied to BOTH.

    Download from same host simultaneously for free, 3 times per day per link.
    Rename files if you d/l multiple parts (split rar files)
    .

    http://www.fileleech.eu/
    http://www.premiumgenerator.eu/
    http://tigerleech.com/index.php
    http://www.powerleech.eu/



  2. #2
    whore supersatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Oceanside, CA
    Posts
    639
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    522

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    More fuel to the fire:

    http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news...th_meu_070722/

    “This was a safe place for insurgents. We obviously wanted to have a presence here before, but we just didn’t have the resources. Now, there is influence in this area,” Chandler said.

  3. #3
    Psychic MOD CD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Your Mom's bedroom.
    Posts
    9,017
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    2273

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Whatever. If you still think Iraq is better today then it was with Saddam in power, you are sadly mistaken.

    Four suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq <- click link

    Yep... that link pretty much destroys your previous link from yesterday.

  4. #4
    whore odinme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    madison,wisconsin
    Posts
    17
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    305

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    boy... am i damn glad i got out while i did... otherwise i may well have been one of those

  5. #5
    Psychic MOD CD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Your Mom's bedroom.
    Posts
    9,017
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    2273

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by CD
    Whatever. If you still think Iraq is better today then it was with Saddam in power, you are sadly mistaken.

    Four suicide bombings kill 175 in Iraq <- click link

    Yep... that link pretty much destroys your previous link from yesterday.
    I'm sorry finley... they are now claiming at least 500 deaths... my 175 was way off.

  6. #6
    whore ringo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    MO
    Posts
    532
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    All hail the US police state!

  7. #7
    Test Tickel ddoubleez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    houston, texas
    Posts
    1,906
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    574

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    One of the biggest arguments to leave IS so the people in the region will eradicate al quedia, because we are interfering with them securing their own borders.... When we leave they will focus on those that have lengthen the occupation.

    Question, if most of the insurgents are coming from Saudi Arabia, why are we fighting them in Iraq?

    You do understand that the pentagon DID NOT support the administration's decision to send more troops... The pentagon has not supported much of ANYTHING that the administration has done with war, and the administration has actually undermined what the pentagon.

    Trends in the last year.Even within the last year, there has been a marked upward trend in violence. This trend is reflected in IBC’s monthly figures, which peaked in July at nearly 3,000 and have since remained elevated at around 2,500 or higher throughout the second half of the year. These IBC trends are broadly in line with the Pentagon’s latest assessment of trends in the security situation (which however include attacks on US and Iraqi troops as well as civilians). In the data collected by the Pentagon most casualties were Iraqis, despite that 68% of the attacks targeted US-led coalition troops.
    Coalition-caused deaths.Coalition forces, principally US as well as some UK, were identified to have killed at least 536 Iraqi civilians in year four (excluding a major incident in Najaf in January which is still under investigation by IBC). This compares with 370 in year three. If 536 seems insignificant in light of the overall total, consider for a moment what it would mean if in your country there were, on average, three incidents a week in which a foreign army killed civilians, including the killing of a 5-yr-old girl and entire families with their children. Would this army be a stabilizing influence?
    And Finley, it is obvious that you have a thing for Muslims, but you should investigate news sources to see how they are manipulating their story. To think you are having success, by bringing down the number of car bombs after the worst year but still having the second worst trends the war has seen does not seem successful to me... It just sounds like you are desperate to justify your presidents violent appetite...

    PS we are tracking a 66% increase of civilian deaths.

  8. #8
    whore ryster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    367

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    I would hardly say Bush has a violent appetite. I do think that the administration could've handled the war better, and I certainly don't think Bush is the greatest president ever. Its a shame though, because time is a' tickin and I don't know what will happen after the election. I would hate to see all we've done over there go to waste - and I do think it was the right thing to do to (send troops over) in the first place.

    I don't feel like digging up research, so I'm going to stick to matters more related to principle for now, but I wanted to address the 'coalition-caused' civilian deaths. I just want to point out that we are in war, and no matter how hard you try things like this will happen. This is especially difficult because the insurgency wants this to happen. Thats why they aren't wearing uniforms, and hide amongst civilian families, and themselves target civilians. What can you do? I know that our guys over there aren't trying to kill innocent people, they are trying to root out the terrorists.

    Also, I gotta ask ddoubleez, where did you get that second quote? It seems poorly written to be honest, I'd just like to see reference.

    My biggest problem with all this is just that pulling troops out will do nothing good. Terrorists will file back into Iraq, some other dictator might show up, and it'll be back to training insurgents to hate freedom and anything but their own religion. Its almost like people forget that they attacked us, for (at least) the third damn time. We weren't bothering them, and hell, if it weren't for their dictator, we (along with everyone else who buys any oil from them) would definitely have been helping their economy.

    But that doesn't matter to anyone, because even after all the lives lost and all the years spent trying to get it under control, we had no right to invade another country, we, the world police (what does that make the goddamn UN?), should have just tried harder. It is, after all, our fault they hate us - right?

  9. #9
    pimp facepeeler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    the world's largest cat-litter box
    Posts
    5,546
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    1340

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by ryster
    My biggest problem with all this is just that pulling troops out will do nothing good. Terrorists will file back into Iraq, some other dictator might show up, and it'll be back to training insurgents to hate freedom and anything but their own religion. Its almost like people forget that they attacked us, for (at least) the third damn time. We weren't bothering them, and hell, if it weren't for their dictator, we (along with everyone else who buys any oil from them) would definitely have been helping their economy.

    there's the thing....they didn't attack us....no factions from Iraq attacked on 9/11, none of them were Iraqi.

    and Al Qaeda in Iraq is a completely different group from Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. One of their founders even acknowledged that they have no real association with Al Qaeda, other than the propaganda that they spew in their videos. Matter of fact, Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, who was one of the original founders of Al Qaeda in Iraq, just renamed his extremist organization after we invaded.

    and Saddam wasn't bothering anybody outside his country anyway. He was just playing mind games, and he happened to screw with the wrong person, because 'Dubya' has a chip on his shoulder from the first Gulf War, and he wanted to have a war on his presidency, just like almost every other President.

    Now, I never disagreed with going into Afghanistan to root out Al Qaeda, because they are the ones responsible for the attacks. And even the Taliban, because they were giving safe haven to them, so they needed to go. But Iraq? Come on, what were they attacking? Saddam might have been a cold blooded bastard, but he kept the place in check. And the justification for invading Iraq was bogus, that's been known since the first day troops rolled across the berm.

  10. #10
    Psychic MOD CD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Your Mom's bedroom.
    Posts
    9,017
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    2273

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by ryster
    *1 I would hardly say Bush has a violent appetite. 1* I do think that the administration could've handled the war better, and I certainly don't think Bush is the greatest president ever. *2 Its a shame though, because time is a' tickin and I don't know what will happen after the election. I would hate to see all we've done over there go to waste - and I do think it was the right thing to do to (send troops over) in the first place. 2*

    I don't feel like digging up research, so I'm going to stick to matters more related to principle for now, *3 but I wanted to address the 'coalition-caused' civilian deaths. I just want to point out that we are in war, and no matter how hard you try things like this will happen. 3* This is especially difficult because the insurgency wants this to happen. Thats why they aren't wearing uniforms, and hide amongst civilian families, and themselves target civilians. What can you do? I know that our guys over there aren't trying to kill innocent people, they are trying to root out the terrorists.

    Also, I gotta ask ddoubleez, where did you get that second quote? It seems poorly written to be honest, I'd just like to see reference.

    My biggest problem with all this is just that pulling troops out will do nothing good. *4 Terrorists will file back into Iraq, some other dictator might show up, and it'll be back to training insurgents to hate freedom and anything but their own religion. 4* *5 Its almost like people forget that they attacked us, for (at least) the third damn time.5* We weren't bothering them, and hell, if it weren't for their dictator, we (along with everyone else who buys any oil from them) would definitely have been helping their economy.

    But that doesn't matter to anyone, because even after all the lives lost and all the years spent trying to get it under control, we had no right to invade another country, we, the world police (what does that make the goddamn UN?), should have just tried harder. *6 It is, after all, our fault they hate us - right? 6*
    1) You might be right, but tell that to Odell Barnes. He was sentenced to death from his blood that was placed there by police. How do I know this? The blood had preservatives in it, and the blood samples they took from him after his arrest were unaccounted for. So with forensic proof of his innocence The Government of France and The European Union pleaded with Bush to release him, but he became Bush's 122nd execution.
    Or how about the execution of Miguel Flores against International Law, under the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights?

    2) What have we done over there? I know that we've sure built a lot of military bases. We've also given contracts to Halliburton (which specializes in military base building as well as all things oil). So Halliburton will make $millions and that money will have to come from somewhere... how about from Iraqi oil? You know, cause we've taken it over. I believe now, that about 20% of the oil pumped from that country can go to the citizens of that country... the rest is basically ours. How would you feel if China or some other country started building military bases in the US and also took 80% of Wall Streets stocks? If this country's leaders could get their head out of the asses of lobbyists and could get back on track financially, there wouldn't be a need to do this sort of illegal activity in the middle east.

    3) So let me get this straight... on a much smaller scale, if someone were to go to your house, knock on the door and punch you in the face and declare war on your family, even though you never did anything to that person(s), innocent neighbors dying would be ok? You know, cause shit happens.

    4) So you'd rather have us put the dictator in charge and arm them, only for them to realize we only care about short term US gains and could care less about anyone in the middle east? (aka Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc...)

    5) When did Iraq attack us? Last I heard, all 16 intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion... Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11. Must be nice to be the Bush Administration... you can use those agencies when you want, and dismiss them when your goals are different.

    6) It probably is. We fuck with pretty much the entire world now-a-days...
    Case in point. Hear stories about the missile base we are trying to get in Czech? Yeah, I'm sure the Russians love that idea. That'd be like the Russians trying to set up a missile base in Mexico (or Cuba for that matter), and the American people going along with it. Not only that but the Czech people HATE the idea. The only ones for it would be the Czech government, and probably only cause Bush & Co. want to give them a ton of money to make it happen. Will that money go to the people? No... which is why they don't like it.

    I'm putting this up now, cause I don't like how facts are getting twisted in the Bush Era... Bush and his cabinet could execute your family and put a spin on it that would have people just like you supporting his decision. God Bless the Patriot Act!

  11. #11
    whore ryster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA
    Posts
    471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    367

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Firstly, wheres the article's saying none of the many terrorists trained in Saddam's camps had anything to do with attacking us? People seem to forget that we aren't waging war on Iraq (whatever the media dubs the war), we are fighting terrorists. They are spread through the middle east. Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden, and his little group was the one that headed up the 9/11 attacks (I don't know much about the first twin towers bombing or the USS Cole, but they were definitely Al Qaeda). So we deployed in Afghanistan to clear them up. Saddam had training camps, and with all his oil-rooted wealth he was able to adequately supply the more prominent terrorist factions. Moreover, we had plenty of suspicious evidence (satellite images for instance) pointing towards WMD - we never saw any (thats if you don't count the Halabja poison gas attack), but we did find facilities designed to store them. Saddam could've just let our people look for the WMD's and get the hell out, but nope, he would have nothing of it. So we head to Iraq to search for WMDs, clear out any terrorists, and that means that Saddam had got to go. So anyway's, among other things, I wouldn't say our justification for going into Iraq was bogus. I do, however, think that Bush should've added that we were going to clear out the terrorists and their facilities. I think he was probably worried that the only thing that could get our country worked up enough to support another war is the WMD's, but he was sadly mistaken - most of us supported the war in Afghanistan and there was enough patriotism left from 9/11 to keep our vote for heading to Iraq. And I daresay support for the war now would've been much higher, because I think the lack of WMD's definitely hurt Bush's credibility.


    1) You might be right, but tell that to Odell Barnes. He was sentenced to death from his blood that was placed there by police. How do I know this? The blood had preservatives in it, and the blood samples they took from him after his arrest were unaccounted for. So with forensic proof of his innocence The Government of France and The European Union pleaded with Bush to release him, but he became Bush's 122nd execution.
    Or how about the execution of Miguel Flores against International Law, under the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights?
    Fair enough, but its unrelated to the war and its justification, even if it does show something of Bush's character.

    2) What have we done over there? I know that we've sure built a lot of military bases. We've also given contracts to Halliburton (which specializes in military base building as well as all things oil). So Halliburton will make $millions and that money will have to come from somewhere... how about from Iraqi oil? You know, cause we've taken it over. I believe now, that about 20% of the oil pumped from that country can go to the citizens of that country... the rest is basically ours. How would you feel if China or some other country started building military bases in the US and also took 80% of Wall Streets stocks? If this country's leaders could get their head out of the asses of lobbyists and could get back on track financially, there wouldn't be a need to do this sort of illegal activity in the middle east.
    Firstly, we've done a lot more than you seem to understand. I feel like looking about for specifics, but, from talking to people who have been there, I can say that we're working hard to train the Iraqis and get them to work with us. It'll be a long time till they are anything more than a militia, but its effects are great regardless - if we can get the civilians to form up against the terrorists, than the terrorists won't be able to come hide amongst them. We can secure a village, train and arm its locals, then leave. They aren't going to let a bunch of terrorists come in and take over now that they have a reasonable lifestyle with some enjoyable freedoms, and a future much greater than their past. And this oil crap, I just don't get where everyone gets it? Have our oil-related prices changed any more so then they should given that we are at war? What proof do you offer that we are over their sucking up oil and taking it from its owner. Maybe we do get 80% of their oil, but we are a much larger country and use more than they do. And the profits they reap from such contracts are like the lifeline of their economy (one could go so far to say country as well) - it is their bargaining chip at the table. Having the US, who's economy is relatively healthy (meaning there money isn't going to all the sudden be worthless), buying mass amounts of oil from a country like Iraq is great for them. And the China analogy is just very flawed, not really a comparable situation at all.

    3) So let me get this straight... on a much smaller scale, if someone were to go to your house, knock on the door and punch you in the face and declare war on your family, even though you never did anything to that person(s), innocent neighbors dying would be ok? You know, cause shit happens.

    Again, thats a flawed analogy. But to humor you..

    Firstly, my neighbors would be other countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia. And it would start out more like I (the terrorists - from the wording of what you said) would go over to someones house (USA), and attack it on a number of different occasions. They would go to the police repeatedly, but the police (UN) would say that we just need to be nicer to them, perhaps ask them to stop nicely. And so the the person I attacked tries to be nice, but I hate them simply from the fundamental beliefs they hold, and decide to attack again. This time I kill one of their kids (innocence - nobody in 9/11 was a militant). They go to the police, the police give them the same old crap, so they decide its finally time to take things into their own hands - they are, after all, the ones being attacked (nobody has attacked the police). They come over to my house, and try to get rid of me. I pull my daughter in front of me and she gets shot. Then they kill me. Afterwards they try to help the rest of my family out by giving them some money and helping to rebuild my now recked house. They start to see that it was in really poor condition to start with - its foundations are crumbling. So my family and the family that I attacked tear it down to build a new one.

    I could go on, but perhaps you get the point.

    4) So you'd rather have us put the dictator in charge and arm them, only for them to realize we only care about short term US gains and could care less about anyone in the middle east? (aka Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, etc...)
    So when we go into a country and try to reform its government into a more stable form, democracy, its unecessary and cruel and controlling (besides the fact that we wouldn't have ever touched Iraq if it weren't for their actions against us). But when we go in, do what we were asked to do (kick Iraq out of Kuwait) and just let them handle their own business from that point, its selfish, inhumane, and mean. That doesn't make sense, explain please.

    6) It probably is. We fuck with pretty much the entire world now-a-days...
    Case in point. Hear stories about the missile base we are trying to get in Czech? Yeah, I'm sure the Russians love that idea. That'd be like the Russians trying to set up a missile base in Mexico (or Cuba for that matter), and the American people going along with it. Not only that but the Czech people HATE the idea. The only ones for it would be the Czech government, and probably only cause Bush & Co. want to give them a ton of money to make it happen. Will that money go to the people? No... which is why they don't like it.
    Wrong. We fuck with people who fuck with us. A country isn't like a person, a new leader isn't necessarily like a new life. Trends continue, and old grudges don't die. If it means butting our asses in someones business because we think their pointing nukes at us, then honestly, why the hell not. Is it worth the loss of lives. We would never use a WMD unless we had to (ie. in the long run it would save lives) but other countries aren't as honorable.

    And the missile base isn't for offensive use. Its meant to serve as an early warning and protection establishment to intercept missiles launched from Russia or the far east in general towards the US. They might not want it there because it perhaps makes their country a target to those who dislike the US. But the amount of protection they gain from befriending us far outweighs that.

    And if it takes us giving them a mother load of money to do it, why not? It boosts their economy, meaning that less taxes are needed to maintain the country (an immediate, and damn near direct, positive impact on the citizens); and from our point of view, are the potential lives saved (think in the up tens of thousands to hundred thousands) from intercepting a nuke worth the money? I would say so.

  12. #12
    Test Tickel ddoubleez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    houston, texas
    Posts
    1,906
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    574

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by ryster
    Firstly, wheres the article's saying none of the many terrorists trained in Saddam's camps had anything to do with attacking us?.
    How many would you like and why did you not google?
    The hijackers
    Main article: Organizers of the September 11, 2001 attacks
    Nineteen men boarded the four planes, five each on American Airlines Flight 11, United Airlines Flight 175 and American Airlines Flight 77, four on United Airlines Flight 93. Fifteen of the attackers were from Saudi Arabia, two from the United Arab Emirates, one from Egypt, and one from Lebanon.
    The group consisted of six core organizers, which included the four pilots, and thirteen others. Unlike many stereotypes of hijackers or terrorists, most of the attackers were educated and came from well-to-do backgrounds.[62]
    http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
    AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 11
    7:45 a.m.: Departed Boston for Los Angeles.
    8:46 a.m.: Crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
    Mohamed Atta, pilot and group leader
    Age: 33.
    Nationality: Egyptian.
    “A walking dead man.” That is how the head of one Florida flight school described this son of a middle-class lawyer and a doting mother. It was not a reference to Atta’s impending suicide, but to his demeanor. Most Floridians who encountered Atta remember him as always serious and frequently boorish. Thought to be a mastermind of the Sept. 11 plot, he and two other leader/pilots, Marwan al-Shehhi and Ziad Jarrah, go back to the late 1990s when they spent time together at Technical University of Hamburg-Harburg in Germany.
    Abdulaziz Alomari
    Age: Unknown.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    The last hijacker to arrive in the United States. His grinning face captured at an ATM machine in Portland, Maine, gave rise to an FBI theory that some hijackers did not know the Sept. 11 plot was a suicide mission. Took flying classes in Vero Beach. Trained at a Boynton Beach gym.
    Satam M.A. Al Suqami
    Age: 25.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    Tied to a foiled millennium plot to blow up tourist sites. Trained in a Boynton Beach gym.
    Wail M. Alshehri
    Age: 28.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    Stayed at motels in Hollywood, Deerfield Beach and Boynton Beach. Brother is Waleed, below.
    Waleed M. Alshehri
    Age: 22.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    Generally followed his brother’s movements in Florida. Their father last saw them in December 2000 when Wail Alshehri went away to seek religious help for a psychological problem.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 175
    7:58 a.m.: Departed Boston for Los Angeles
    9:02 a.m.: Crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center
    Marwan al-Shehhi, pilot and group leader
    Age: 23.
    Nationality: United Arab Emirates.
    Al-Shehhi was a friendly foil to his frequent companion, the brooding Atta, as they earned their commercial pilots licenses together in Venice, then trained on a simulator in Opa-Locka near Miami. He and Atta arrived in the United States in the summer of 2000. This time last year, al-Shehhi, Atta and several other Sept. 11 terrorists were living at a Deerfield Beach motel, where the owner noticed they dressed nicely, never went to the beach a block away, never swam in the kidney-shaped pool and always carried black duffel bags.
    Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad
    Age: 28.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    He left home in July 2000, telling his family he was joining the International Islamic Relief Organization. He turned up later in Delray Beach. A year ago this past Tuesday, he purchased his first-class ticket on Flight 175.
    Ahmed Alghamdi
    Age: 21.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    One of two Sept. 11 terrorists with ties to a foiled millennium plot to attack tourist destinations. Lived in Delray, but moved to Virginia by this time last year to get in place for the attack.
    Hamza Alghamdi
    Age: 20.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    Lived in Delray Beach with two hijackers from Flight 93, the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.
    Mohand Alshehri
    Age: 21.
    Nationality: Unknown.
    Not related to the Alshehri brothers aboard Flight 11. Lived in Delray Beach, where a librarian remembers his name on signup sheets to wait to use a computer.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77
    8:10 a.m.: Departed Washington Dulles for Los Angeles
    9:40 a.m.: Crashed into the Pentagon
    Hani Hanjour, pilot and group leader
    Age: 29.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    Hanjour led the terrorist group based in San Diego. His only Florida contact came in 1996 when he stayed with friends of his brother in Miramar. In the weeks before Sept. 11, he met twice with Mohamed Atta in Las Vegas. The FBI now believes those sessions at a discount motel were crucial in planning the attacks. Hanjour took flying lessons in Scottsdale, Ariz., where his instructors said his skills were poor. Investigators say that could be the reason Flight 77, with Hanjour at the controls, began to jerk.
    Nawaf Alhazmi
    Age: 25.
    Nationality: Unknown.
    Majed Moqed
    Age: Unknown.
    Nationality: Unknown.
    Khalid Almihdhar
    Age: Unknown.
    Nationality: Unknown.
    Salem Alhazmi
    Age: Uknown.
    Nationality: Saudi.


    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UNITED AIRLINES FLIGHT 93
    8:42 a.m.: Departed Newark for San Francisco
    10:01 a.m.: Crashed in Stony Creek Township, Penn.
    Ziad Samir Jarrah, pilot and group leader
    Age: 26.
    Nationality: Lebanese.
    Jarrah was the leader of the only hijacking group with four members, a factor that may have enabled a group of passengers to overpower them. Raised in a middle-class family, Jarrah left Lebanon in 1996. In Germany, he partied and seemed to enjoy Western culture. In 1999, after meeting Atta, he got his pilot’s license in Hamburg and dropped out of school. He turned up several months later in Venice, Fla., to take flying lessons. In 2001, he moved to Hollywood and began martial arts classes. On Sept. 9, he checked out of a Deerfield Beach motel with Atta, al-Shehhi and others.
    Saeed Alghamdi
    Age: 25.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    One of three hijackers who rented a $900-a-month condo in the Delray Beach Racquet Club near I-95. On Sept. 7, Alghamdi and roommate Ahmed Alnami flew from Fort Lauderdale to Newark on Spirit Airlines to get in position for Sept. 11.
    Ahmed Ibrahim A. Al Haznawi
    Age: 20.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    Once lived in Lauderdale by the Sea, two blocks from the beach, with Jarrah. Drove Jarrah’s sporty Mitsubishi Eclipse.
    Ahmed Alnami
    Age: 23.
    Nationality: Saudi.
    At 5-feet-9 inches tall, he was among the taller hijackers.
    And if you like, I can tell you why they were from Saudi Arabia....... The mean income earned in saudi arabia in the early to mid 90's was 27000 USD. It is now around 6000 and unemployment, child birth and education are showing record numbers.... The ruling family is a non-elected, non-Democratic totalitarian regime. They keep power by oppressing their dissidents with US backed and trained royal guards and US supplied weapons. The people of Saudi Arabia understand that we are keeping a monarchy in power, in exchange for the only substantial resource... We are experiencing blow back, just as Ron Paul pointed out and was ridiculed for....

  13. #13
    Test Tickel ddoubleez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    houston, texas
    Posts
    1,906
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    574

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by ryster
    . Afghanistan harbored Bin Laden, and his little group was the one that headed up the 9/11 attacks (I don't know much about the first twin towers bombing or the USS Cole, but they were definitely Al Qaeda). So we deployed in Afghanistan to clear them up.

    You have a poor memory, and no facts.... The first attack in afganastan was October 7th (AFTER WE STARTED PLANNING IRAQ) and we watched THOUSANDS of them DRIVE to pakistan...


    I am assuming you have not seen this:

  14. #14
    Test Tickel ddoubleez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    houston, texas
    Posts
    1,906
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    574

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by ryster
    Saddam had training camps, and with all his oil-rooted wealth he was able to adequately supply the more prominent terrorist factions.
    There is simply no evidence to support this.... In addition, saddam did not have wealth, nor was there ANY military resistance, he did not even have the means to feed his work force... Why would you mass all these military resources and not use them? It was a three day walk, through nothing but sand.... Our soldiers were sitting ducks and this was the best and only oppertunity to use weapons and it did not happen... We would not have marched if we really thought there were these weapons.....

  15. #15
    Test Tickel ddoubleez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    houston, texas
    Posts
    1,906
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Rep Power
    574

    Re: For those against sending more troops to Iraq

    Quote Originally Posted by ryster
    Moreover, we had plenty of suspicious evidence (satellite images for instance) pointing towards WMD - we never saw any (thats if you don't count the Halabja poison gas attack), but we did find facilities designed to store them.

    If you remember, many of the images that we were shown on the 'news' were computer illistrations and not satalite images.... One image that was from a satelite was later determined to be supply truck.........

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...258002,00.html


Closed Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Buy Twitter Followers