Al Qaeda Serves Baked Boys To Their Families For Lunch

Originally posted by BO XIAN
IF IT WERE A THREAD started by ya'll, propagandizing y'all's perspective, and I dared to in a microgram way say anything off topic, then I'd be slapped down so hard I'd have bruises for 3 months.

Ain't double standards nice!

I guess this is the off topic your mentioning this post?

I do believe your right its off topic.

Spank me for being the one to mention other topics first

Just because it comes from high ranking officials doesn't means it's correct info To name a few : Saddam has WMD's , Saddam is using chemical weapons, We caught the leader of Al Qaeda/ (how many times?),crying wolf with terrorist threats

I was making a point that

Just because it comes from high ranking officials doesn't means it's correct

To stumason,

Same with the claim you made about WMD's going to Syria. What an effing joke

Iraq WMD's found in Three Syria Sites ^

AT:

www.freerepublic.com...

Stating in part:

A senior Syrian journalist reports Iraq WMD located in three Syrian sites 06 January, 2004

Nizar Nayuf (Nayyouf-Nayyuf), a Syrian journalist who recently defected from Syria to Western Europe and is known for bravely challenging the Syrian regime, said in a letter Monday, January 5, to Dutch newspaper “De Telegraaf,” that he knows the three sites where Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are kept. The storage places are:

click for images of Iraq's WMD location in Syria

-1- Tunnels dug under the town of al-Baida near the city of Hama in northern Syria. These tunnels are an integral part of an underground factory, built by the North Koreans, for producing Syrian Scud missiles. Iraqi chemical weapons and long-range missiles are stored in these tunnels.

-2- The village of Tal Snan, north of the town of Salamija, where there is a big Syrian air force camp. Vital parts of Iraq's WMD are stored there.

(2) Why don't we chase Iraqi WMD's in Syria and Lebanon ? ^

From:

www.freerepublic.com...

Stating in part:

We know how they get there : www.nysun.com...

We know how they were hiding : www.frontpagemag.com...

General De Long, deputy of commanding general Tommy Franks, said so : www.eyeonbooks.com...

We know they are buried in the valley of the Bekaa between Syria and Lebanon in caves of 60 feet deep and 12 feet large, dig by the syrian pioneers forces, with the collaboration of the Russian secret services.

A journalist dissent of the Syrian regime fled in 2003 and reported the exact location of the Iraqis WMD's.

(3) Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges ^

From:

www.freerepublic.com...

Stating in part:

(CNSNews.com) -- A former Iraqi general alleges that in June 2002 Saddam Hussein transported weapons of mass destruction out of the country to Syria aboard several refitted commercial jets, under the pretense of conducting a humanitarian mission for flood victims.

That's one of several dramatic claims made in the book by former Iraqi General Georges Sada: "Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied and Survived Saddam Hussein." Since the launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Sada has served as the spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and continues to serve as national security advisor. He is the former vice marshal of the Iraqi Air Force. Sada was interviewed at the headquarters of Cybercast News Service on Jan. 30.

Sada contends that Saddam took advantage of a June 4, 2002, irrigation dam collapse in Zeyzoun, Syria, to ship the weapons under cover of an aid project to the flooded region.

(4) Miniter's New Book : "Disinformation" WMD's Found In Iraq

From:

www.freerepublic.com...

Stating in part:

Contrary to ongoing reports by mainstream media outlets, WMDs have been found in Iraq, so reports New York Times best-selling author Richard Miniter in his new book, Disinformation.

Consider these shocking facts:

• Found: 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

• Found: 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons

• Found: Roadside bomb loaded with sarin gas

• Found: 1,000 radioactive materials--ideal for radioactive dirty bombs

• Found: 17 chemical warheads--some containing cyclosarin, a nerve agent five times more powerful than sarin

(5) Man Says He Has Proof Of Possible WMD's In Iraq

From:

www.freerepublic.com...

Stating in part:

Jack Fink Reporting


(CBS 11 News) DENTON A Denton man says the United States was premature in calling off the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

He was one of a handful of people who helped the U.S. military in its search, and says he's concerned about four sites in Iraq that he knows were not searched.

Dave Gaubatz, who is a retired military counter-terrorism agent, believes biological and chemical weapons could be buried at the four sites in Iraq.

The now chief investigator for the Dallas County Medical Examiner’s Office disputes the U.S.'s previous findings that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war.

MANY more links and proofs to follow . . . when I get back to it.

Cheers.

Originally posted by stumason

One could just as easily say the Christian world is the same, seeing as the major wars of the past 3-400 years have all been Christians fighting Christians. It's hardly a Muslim phenomenon.

man im done with you,telling you facts and thinking you would believe them is the hieght of ignorance..

and yes there has been a war in iraq and other muslem countries between the sunni and shiite for many many years.you need to do your research before you come trying to say were full of bs..clearly its vice versa...
www.washingtonpost.com...
www.irfi.org...
www.ict.org.il... heres one by Al-quada saying they did'nt start the sunni shiite rift,wich u claim does'nt exist..
www.csmonitor.com...

Places such as Iraq where tens of thousands of Muslims have been slaughtered by fellow Muslims are the main source of Muslim deaths in the world today. The sectarian bloodbath that afflicts Iraq is the result of a theological schism in Islam, not a result of Israel or the Palestinian issue. The Shiite-Sunni divide has existed from the dawn of Islam. In the eyes of the Sunni Islamists, the Shiites not only dominate the oil-rich areas of Iran, Iraq, and the eastern region of Saudi Arabia, but are - through the actions of Hezbollah - attempting to usurp the role of "protector" of the central Mythos of all Arabs: the Palestinian cause.
www.bnp.org.uk...

i can keep them coming if you want,this is why i just say what i know,i hate going to get links....anyway read this last one if you ignore all the rest.these wars have been ragin since the begining of islam..


And Bo Xian kepp up the good fight brother....

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

Mod Edit: Please follow the quoting policy as outlined in the u2u's I sent you.

[edit on 7/8/07 by FredT]

Originally posted by Project_Silo
man im done with you,telling you facts and thinking you would believe them is the hieght of ignorance..

Oooh, touchy! Don't get your knickers in a twist!

Originally posted by Project_Silo
and yes there has been a war in iraq and other muslem countries between the sunni and shiite for many many years.you need to do your research before you come trying to say were full of bs..clearly its vice versa...
www.washingtonpost.com...

First link is dated 2006. Not 1991.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
www.irfi.org...

I know all about the Sunni/shia divide, what I am saying is there was virtually no sectarian violence in Iraq pre-invasion. Can you read at all?

Originally posted by Project_Silo
www.ict.org.il... heres one by Al-quada saying they did'nt start the sunni shiite rift,wich u claim does'nt exist..

Show me where I said it doesn't exist. Go on. Show me.

What I said was there was no widespread sectarian violence in 1991, such as described in the original article.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
Places such as Iraq where tens of thousands of Muslims have been slaughtered by fellow Muslims are the main source of Muslim deaths in the world today.

Key word: Today.

They weren't doing it prior to the invasion, where they? Jeebus....

Originally posted by Project_Silo
The sectarian bloodbath that afflicts Iraq is the result of a theological schism in Islam, not a result of Israel or the Palestinian issue.

Duh.... Really? thanks for telling me something I am already aware of. Who said it was to do with the Israelis/Palestinians?

Originally posted by Project_Silo
The Shiite-Sunni divide has existed from the dawn of Islam.

Well done. have a gold star. Again telling me something I already know and not addressing the point I actually raised.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
In the eyes of the Sunni Islamists, the Shiites not only dominate the oil-rich areas of Iran, Iraq, and the eastern region of Saudi Arabia, but are - through the actions of Hezbollah - attempting to usurp the role of "protector" of the central Mythos of all Arabs: the Palestinian cause.
www.bnp.org.uk...

All very recent political events, I'm afraid. Nothing to with 1991.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
i can keep them coming if you want,

You've got to arrive before you keep on coming chap. Address the point I actually raised as opposed to just telling us what we already know.

PROVE to me that AQ was in Iraq in 1991 kidnapping Shia on mass, as per the orginal article.

All you've posted here is information about the Sunni/Shia rift, which has nothing to do with AQ being in iraq in 1991, because they weren't there.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
this is why i just say what i know,i hate going to get links....anyway read this last one if you ignore all the rest.these wars have been ragin since the begining of islam..

What you know is nothing to do with my question... Jeebus....

Originally posted by Project_Silo
And Bo Xian kepp up the good fight brother....

You and your "brother" can take your fight to an English lesson. You might find it easier to debate a point then.

As for the other poster who maintains that the Muslim world has been at war with itself for centuries, that's just utter garbage too. The Ottoman empire was actually very stable for over 200 years, from the end of the 17th Century to the early 20th. Any wars that the Ottomans fought before their last period of expansion ended in 1695 were about conquest, not religion. They were actually very liberal when it came to religious issues. Sectarian violence in that part of the world has only reached a head in the past couple of decades.


is what you said..and i demolished it,my work here is done..and yes they all have subject matter of the sunni/shiite conflict,please read farther...

And the internal muslem war has been raging since Islam started...but once again u said ..

As for the other poster who maintains that the Muslim world has been at war with itself for centuries, that's just utter garbage too..

and you have plenty of links,i refuse to go get more that prove this utterly wrong,and yes i am truly done arguing with you because u will nto accept fact,and are purely engaging in the talk just to argue..

So i'm done posting on this thread and stop hiding from the truthe...

and you my friend are the one who needs to pay attention..ive stated many time there was Alquada in iraq very very few and only in the northern uncontrolled lands..your making yourself look petty and childish,i have addressed everything you said,,provided links, and said plenty of time idk about AQ in Iraq before or around 91 but i do know that before the iraq war we knew a high lvl AQ official was in north Iraq,since i am done getting links for you,you can go find it yourself........

And why are you so big on defending AQ? or are you just here to argue that they are to kind to ever commit such an act?

OR are you a terrorists?

Your posts state no facts,they simply mock and poke fun of,i am in awe of your intelligence.

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

A touchy little bugger, aren't you?

Ok, let me take you through this slowly, ok?

Here is a link with actual Iraqi citizens answering questions given to them. Here is what one man said:

Q: What can you tell me about how Sunnis and Shias in Iraq relate to each other?

Samir Ali
Samir: It's a religious difference. The schism is related to historical approaches in Islam, to who has the right to interpret the Koran. It's a historical issue started more that thousand years ago.

Relations between Shia and Sunni were very good before the occupation. There are many mixed marriages. Nobody will be willing to give his daughter to man who he dislikes.

Now, here is a graph showing the actual casualties as a result of sectarian violence from 1/1/2003 to the present:



Now, the AQ you refer to being in Iraq prior to the invasion was a tiny group holed up in Northern Kurdistan that numbered about 200 fighters. The Peshmerga quickly took care of them when the invasion began. They weren't even "AQ", per se, but rather a group with affiliations and ideological similarities.

I'm sure your aware that the Northern part of Iraq was not under any sort of control from Baghdad since the end of GW1.

So, in short, your assertion that there was widespread sectarian violence in Iraq prior to the invasion is shown to be wrong.

As for your little swipe at me at the end there...

No, I am not defending AQ in the slightest. If you had a brain on your shoulders you'd see that I have been disputing the veracity of the OP article, which claimed that in the period 1991-1993, AQ recruited young biys in iraq for missions, carried out sectarian killings and even baked children in order to coerce support and recruit new fighters.

Not only does that not stand up to any logical reason, as described by others in this thread, but I have shown that sectarian violence in Iraq started AFTER the invasion, and as a result, it cannot be true that AQ was in Baghdad in 1991 performing kidnappings and murders.

one mans interview means absolutely nothing,and once again either does your post ..anser to me why u said to say there was sectarian violence is rubbish and they were liberal in religion...lol keep reaching man keep reaching....there is no dispute no matter how many charts u show that sectarian violence has raged through the mid east and oncintues to,

And i dont care how much it fluctuated,thats not the point,the point is u were completely wrong and still are..You said i was skirting around the conversation whats this garbage..

Now u want to provide proof of sectarian violence when u just said im rubbish for believing there was..make up your mind...

And respond to the facts i made in my previous posts,did u re read my links?bet not because u only want info that pertains to your story..

okok im truly am done,just get annoyed by poeple who think they know,are proven wrong,then argue your facts against you,,,wow your a special kind of person.and ill gladly ignore u ,have a good one

lol at first i just checked out your source,but its so terribly funny when i read you last comment ...

Not only does that not stand up to any logical reason, as described by others in this thread, but I have shown that sectarian violence in Iraq started AFTER the invasion, and as a result, it cannot be true that AQ was in Baghdad in 1991 performing kidnappings and murders. hahahahah]

Read any other source but your it has split the country into three sections,and it has been like that for a long long long long time....please man please just give up,your so very wrong here that its irratating,EXCEPT FACTS...

this time i truly am done.every muslem who has fealt the pain and anguish over the past centuries due to sectarian violence should get ahold of you so you can tell them they are imagining it..

Oh and btw buddy,AQI has nothing whatsoever to do with the sunni shiite war,,well im wrong that have some biddings with it,but everyday civilians that belong to no organization often carry out acts of violence against the opposing sect...

address these issues,do not skirt around them with some snide remarks,

and please do notice i was not throwing in any snide remarks untill you started,so instead of come up with a joke,i'll just laugh at your ignorance

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

And I thought you were "done with this thread" and went off in a hump?

Anyhoo...

Originally posted by Project_Silo
one mans interview means absolutely nothing,and once again either does your post ..anser to me why u said to say there was sectarian violence is rubbish and they were liberal in religion...lol keep reaching man keep reaching....there is no dispute no matter how many charts u show that sectarian violence has raged through the mid east and oncintues to,

Read the link I posted about the Ottoman Empire, did we? Heard of the Millet system? Doesn't look like it.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
And i dont care how much it fluctuated,thats not the point,the point is u were completely wrong and still are..You said i was skirting around the conversation whats this garbage..

Dude, your bonkers. I started by saying this article is rubbish because sectarian violence did not exist in Iraq prior to 2003, so the claim AQ was rampaging around Baghdad in 1991 is tripe..

Your arguing with me saying it was otherwise. I can prove my point, but all you do is say "I'm wrong" without providing any evidence to back you up.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
Now u want to provide proof of sectarian violence when u just said im rubbish for believing there was..make up your mind...

You seem to have some comprehension difficulties. I said there was none PRIOR to 2003, as claimed in the OP. I have proved my point and now your squirming.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
And respond to the facts i made in my previous posts,did u re read my links?bet not because u only want info that pertains to your story..

Yes, hence why I commented on each one individually. Did you read my reply?

Originally posted by Project_Silo
okok im truly am done,just get annoyed by poeple who think they know,are proven wrong,then argue your facts against you,,,wow your a special kind of person.and ill gladly ignore u ,have a good one

You haven't proven anything, chap. Ignore away, couldn't give a monkeys to be honest. I think I've made my point, whereas your debating style is all over the shop and not sticking to the point.

ur full of bs and lies.this is your post that i destroyed,well one of many
As for the other poster who maintains that the Muslim world has been at war with itself for centuries, that's just utter garbage too. The Ottoman empire was actually very stable for over 200 years, from the end of the 17th Century to the early 20th. Any wars that the Ottomans fought before their last period of expansion ended in 1695 were about conquest, not religion. They were actually very liberal when it came to religious issues. Sectarian violence in that part of the world has only reached a head in the past couple of decades.

u confusing yrs 1695 with 1991?just sftu,this thread should be closed because i cant help but to come back and prove your ignorance after every single post.

Ya it does like like i cant comprehend what ur saying because YOU CHANGE STORIES EVERY SECOND,you have said there was never sectarian violence,then u said there was but it was mild,then you said you only talking about 91 and AQI,then u said u proved sectrian violence in iraq was caused by the us..

so ya it does look like i don't understand what your saying,and frankly either do you,your no good at this stuff you know nothing and are trying to learn as you go,do not come talking like your well informed about these issues if your BLATENTLY NOT,

and im sure when u respond you wont talk about all your "discrepencies"
im sorry i ever tried to educate you,and im truly done this time so have fun making up more stuff and making rude comments,

imma copy and paste this down here to so u remember to address why your stance has shifted so much,go re read al

,

lol my debate point doesnt stick to the issue because u attacked my thread saying that sectarian violence has raged for centurys and it has your wrong end of story...

and u jump all over the place with your opinions,u urself said

As for the other poster who maintains that the Muslim world has been at war with itself for centuries, that's just utter garbage too. The Ottoman empire was actually very stable for over 200 years, from the end of the 17th Century to the early 20th. Any wars that the Ottomans fought before their last period of expansion ended in 1695 were about conquest, not religion. They were actually very liberal when it came to religious issues. Sectarian violence in that part of the world has only reached a head in the past couple of decades.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG like every other piece of crap you have written

Sorry - but this sounds like completely ludicrous propaganda. Similar to the nutty stories told about the Japanese and Germans during WWII. Similar to the crazy fables told about the 'enemy' in pretty well every war in history...

J.

Your actually quite mad, aren't you?

Anyhoo, I'm sure other, sane posters will see what I am saying. You just seem to bounce all over the place.

u confusing yrs 1695 with 1991?just sftu,this thread should be closed because i cant help but to come back and prove your ignorance after every single post.

Er, no. How did I confuse 1695 with 1991, exactly? I was just pointing out that their period of expansion ended then.... About the only internal strife the Ottomans suffered were Janissary rebellions, which were over pay, but I don't want to confuse you more than I apparently have....

As a helpful note, telling members to "stfu" and other insults don't go down to well...

Ya it does like like i cant comprehend what ur saying because YOU CHANGE STORIES EVERY SECOND,you have said there was never sectarian violence,then u said there was but it was mild,then you said you only talking about 91 and AQI,then u said u proved sectrian violence in iraq was caused by the us..

er, I've maintained the same story throughout, chap. If you go back and read what I have posted, the thrust of my argument is

THERE WAS NO AQ IN IRAQ, NOR ANY SECTARIAN VIOLENCE,INCLUDING KIDNAPPING AND MURDER, PRIOR TO THE US LED INVASION IN 2003, ESPECIALLY IN 1991 WHICH THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE CLAIMS

Understand?

so ya it does look like i don't understand what your saying,and frankly either do you,your no good at this stuff you know nothing and are trying to learn as you go,do not come talking like your well informed about these issues if your BLATENTLY NOT,

I know exactly what I'm saying and have remained consistent throughout. If you have difficulty following, perhaps you could take an Adult learning course in English Language. Could help you with your grammar and punctuation.

and im sure when u respond you wont talk about all your "discrepencies"

Please, do post where my "discrepencies" (discrepancies) are. Just saying I am contradicting myself without actually showing where is not helping me improve myself, is it?

lol my debate point doesnt stick to the issue because u attacked my thread saying that sectarian violence has raged for centurys and it has your wrong end of story...

But it hasn't. The Ottoman Empire saw a very long period of no sectarian violence. They were very liberal with any of the Abrahamic religions and allowed freedom to all. I'm not denying there has NEVER been violence, but your assertion that they have been at it for 1400 years since the inception of Islam is wrong.

Christianity has shown more violence between sects over the years than Islam ever has.

and u jump all over the place with your opinions,u urself said

As for the other poster who maintains that the Muslim world has been at war with itself for centuries, that's just utter garbage too. The Ottoman empire was actually very stable for over 200 years, from the end of the 17th Century to the early 20th. Any wars that the Ottomans fought before their last period of expansion ended in 1695 were about conquest, not religion. They were actually very liberal when it came to religious issues. Sectarian violence in that part of the world has only reached a head in the past couple of decades.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG like every other piece of crap you have written

Er, how is what I said there "jumping" all over the place? Care to show me exactly how I am wrong, rather than wining like a little girl?

done with you,theres no winning against ignorance and downright idiocracy.

and i like how u still skirt around my facts and try to make me look stupid,lol stop changng ur story every second and u urself would not be confused...

go talk about something you understand such as crayons

also i have yet to mention christianity so whats ur major malfunction.and yes it has been since islam started so plz go lok at my link,oh wait u did thats right..again wrong,and please adress all the things i listed ,as i knew u could not and would not

Ya it does like like i cant comprehend what ur saying because YOU CHANGE STORIES EVERY SECOND,you have said there was never sectarian violence,then u said there was but it was mild,then you said you only talking about 91 and AQI,then u said u proved sectrian violence in iraq was caused by the us..

explain go for it...cmon lets hear it,why wont u address this,because ur wrong and u know it but u will not give up,

and yes u did get on my nerves because your simple foolish in nice terms,and yes i am over it now because i see this is clearly going no where.you will not adress why u have switched stories about 4 times,and there is 0 missunderstanding here,all these things you said and thats also fact


[edit on 8-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

````````````````````````
please read Courtesy is mandatory

www.abovetopsecret.com...


[edit on 8/7/07 by masqua]

Okay...

Still not providing any evidence to prove you right though, are you?

Look, I'm willing to have a debate with you over this and I have provided enough evidence to show that this article is utter bull poo.

You have yet to show anything that would prove it otherwise.

Alrighty then!

Kindly STOP the personal sniping. It adds nothing to the debate at hand and violates the T&C of the site.

Also, way to much quoting of other posts so please keep it to a minumum.

Thanks
FredT

sry mod was gathering this while u made post.

Originally posted by Project_Silo
www.ict.org.il... heres one by Al-quada saying they did'nt start the sunni shiite rift,wich u claim does'nt exist..

Show me where I said it doesn't exist. Go on. Show me.

Prior to the invasion, internal strife between the sects was almost non-existent(wrong,lmao u even say show me where i said they do not Exist,then you said vitually NON EXistant).......

I don't dispute that they operate there now, what I am disputing is any sort of sectarian violence prior to the fall of Saddam. Isolated incidents aside, Saddam kept a very tight lid on it.
(oh did he keep a tight lid on it?is that why he used chemical bombs on the kurds?)lmao way way wrong,

As for the other poster who maintains that the Muslim world has been at war with itself for centuries, that's just utter garbage too. The Ottoman empire was actually very stable for over 200 years, from the end of the 17th Century to the early 20th. Any wars that the Ottomans fought before their last period of expansion ended in 1695 were about conquest, not religion. They were actually very liberal when it came to religious issues. Sectarian violence in that part of the world has only reached a head in the past couple of decades. (lol again wrong)

I know all about the Sunni/shia divide, what I am saying is there was virtually no sectarian violence in Iraq pre-invasion. Can you read at all?
)hugely wrong again ty )

Not only does that not stand up to any logical reason, as described by others in this thread, but I have shown that sectarian violence in Iraq started AFTER the invasion, and as a result, it cannot be true that AQ was in Baghdad in 1991 performing kidnappings and murders( sect violence was brought on by the US and not Islam?whoa thanks for the update on history)

every single on of these is incorrect,i left out all your useless comments about how dumb i am and such,and i provided plenty of proof check out the links wich u claim to have read.......

wait theres more.........

Now, the AQ you refer to being in Iraq prior to the invasion was a tiny group holed up in Northern Kurdistan that numbered about 200 fighters. The Peshmerga quickly took care of them when the invasion began. They weren't even "AQ", per se, but rather a group with affiliations and ideological similarities. ( i have said there were very very few.. thanks for helping me?)

I'm sure your aware that the Northern part of Iraq was not under any sort of control from Baghdad since the end of GW1.(umm ya i said they were in uncontrolled part of the north...

So, in short, your assertion that there was widespread sectarian violence in Iraq prior to the invasion is shown to be wrong. (oh ok so no sectarian violence because Al Queda wasnt there?,hahaha,so AQI is the only sectarian violence contributer?negative,everyday sunni/shiits commit acts of violence on the opposite sect,this is fact ..)

Originally posted by Project_Silo
The Shiite-Sunni divide has existed from the dawn of Islam.

Well done. have a gold star. Again telling me something I already know and not addressing the point I actually raised.

And when u respond with what ur gonna say,i propose we stop this,if not for anything else then for the reason,both your country and my country faces this problem,no matter when it started.I think its fare to say(even if you rip me up with your next post)we got a little heated.

So i offer you my apology and look forward to more calm civil debates.

No harsh feelings?
(feel free to own me in your next post though heh)

Plus i think you thought i was talking about the AQI ,when i was talking about sectarian violence alone as a issue,not including AQI except to say there were few of them.But this debate went up down and side to side,so i think it was hard for both of us to keep knowing whats going on you know?

Anyway good luck to you

[edit on 8-7-2007 by Project_Silo]

You know what the sad thing is? I know people who beleive this.

Intelligent people actually beleive this.

I'm not saying they're saints, and i know they are barbarics, but unless i have proof, i wont beleive it. I dont just take it for granted, i need to see the cooked bodies.

TO STUMASON:

Same with the claim you made about WMD's going to Syria. What an effing joke

Actually, as my first 5 linked quality articles proved, the perspective asserted above in the quote is the joke. There are quite a number of additional diverse articles proving that assertion utter hogwash as the first 5 did.

Rick Moran reviews all the previous information to the effect that Saddam transported his WMD’s to Syria before the war, information now confirmed by Iraqi General Sada, author, Saddam’s Secrets. He does a wonderful job of putting it all together. I’d add just one thing: the aborted post-invasion chemical attack on Jordan where that government said the chemicals for the attack had been transported to Jordan from Syria. Macsmind reminds us that Senator Rockefeller made his trip to
Damascus just prior to the reported transshipment of WMDs, a trip in which he has admitted he warned Assad that the invasion of Iraq was certain. Clarice Feldman 1 26 06


UPDATE:

Doug Hanson writes:

In addition to the moving WMD to Syria theory, there are two things relating to this case that the left and the antique media continue to cover up or ignore.

First, the press has continually moved the goal posts on what constitutes a “stockpile” of weapons. As I pointed out in my piece from almost two years ago, the criteria for the press seems to be pallets of chemical projectiles standing ready in bunkers or near artillery positions. The media fails to explain the biological seed agents that were discovered by the ISG, and the huge amounts of CW precursors found in underground bunkers. Nor has the left provided the rationale for Saddam retaining and possibly seeking processed uranium in order to supposedly fuel destroyed reactors and enrichment labs.

(7) Saddam's WMD's, more infos ^

From:

www.freerepublic.com...

More importantly, its significance was known to Saddam Hussein and Islamic terrorist organizations.

Even Iraqi citizens were aware of the Pig system. Chemical, Biological, and/or Nuclear weapons can be stored in the Pig and moved remotely through the thousands of miles of sewage, oil, and water pipes throughout Iraq.
There is a reason the water and sewage pipes (infrastructure) were bombed during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

(8) Saddam's WMD's: The Syrian Connection ^

From:


www.freerepublic.com...

Saddam's WMD's: The Syrian Connection

By Laurie Mylroie

FrontPageMagazine.com | February 8, 2006

The New York Sun is doing yeoman’s work in explaining why the latest group-think—that Saddam Hussein had no proscribed WMD—may be very wrong. Ha’aretz has lent its support, reporting that Israeli officials believe “[m]aterial was transferred to Syria in the dark of the night, on the very eve of the war,” and “[t]he Americans are the ones who are making the mistake now." That is also the view of retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, who headed the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.

The little that has emerged about the Iraqi documents captured by U.S. forces supports the idea that Baghdad retained WMD programs. The Weekly Standard reports that one such document from February 2003, just before Operation Iraqi Freedom began, was entitled by U.S. translators, “Chemical, Biological Agent Destruction.” Other documents indicate that Iraq acquired and mustard gas in 2000. And Bill Tierney, who worked in Iraq both before and after OIF, recently detailed for FrontPageMagazine evidence that Iraq maintained such programs, as well as Baghdad’s efforts to hide such evidence.

(9) SADDAM's WMD's : The Russian - Syrian Connection

From:

www.freerepublic.com...

Stating in part:

SADDAM's WMD's : The Russian - Syrian Connection

Front Page Magazine ^ | Monday, March 20, 2006 | Ben Johnson


Posted on 03/20/2006 7:17:28 AM MST by IrishMike


When a military man – especially a patriot like Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney – states Saddam Hussein shipped his WMD stockpiles to Syria before Operation Iraqi Freedom, the media castigate him for overweening fealty to his commander-in-chief. One wonders how they will react when the man making that statement is a former high-ranking official in the Iraqi military, personally called out of retirement by Saddam Hussein. That man is Gen. Georges Sada, and his reception has consisted of silence.Sada, the author of Saddam’s Secrets, was the number two man in Saddam Hussein’s air force. Sada’s story confirms the testimony of Lt. Gen. McInerney – from the inside.Sada recently spoke at the Wednesday Morning Club. This author was privileged to get to interview Sada on the national radio program “Hey, Wake Up America” on February 15 – at the invitation of regular co-hosts Dave Marshall and Scott Crofut. Sada confounded the conventional wisdom in its every detail: he said Saddam did possess stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, which were transported across the Syrian border by truck and plane in late 2002.

Before the war, Sada says Saddam invested great planning in hiding his weapons stash. “He had a committee specifically to hide [WMDs],” Sada told me. The committee met “until a natural disaster happened in Syria in 2002,” when Saddam saw his chance. Sada says Saddam used the dam collapse in northwestern Syria as cover, sending out jets filled with WMDs – which the world would believe was humanitarian aid to Iraq’s fellow Ba’athist neighbor and longtime ally. He tells of WMDs being smuggled out of Iraq in “two ways – over the ground and air,” in “747s and 18-wheelers.”

(10) KFI in Los Angeles -- Capt. Dale Dye to talk about moving of WMDs to Syria ^

From:

www.freerepublic.com...

Posted on 01/29/2006 6:32:10 PM MST by doug from upland

Capt. Dale Dye will be discussing, after the bottom of the hour news, the story about WMDs being moved to Syria from Iraq before OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM.

Listen online: wwwkfi640.com...

I ASSUME an MP3 file of the audio is available somewhere.

to dgtempe

You know what the sad thing is? I know people who beleive this.

Intelligent people actually beleive this.

I'm not saying they're saints, and i know they are barbarics, but unless i have proof, i wont beleive it. I dont just take it for granted, i need to see the cooked bodies

You know what the sad thing is? I know people who actually automatically disbelieve that such horrors are true--based on absolutely no comprehensive, reliable evidence proving that and CONTRARY TO A HOST of solid evidence PROVING VIVIDLY IN BLOOD RED VIDEO AND PHOTOS OTHERWISE.

Intelligent people actually automatically--on groundless, hollow, nothing foundation--disbelieve such routinely horrific stunts on the part of Al Qaeda.

. . . . unless I have quality multi-sourced evidence proving such horrors did not occur, I will choose to believe the most probable option--that all the folks in the chain of disclosure were honorable, honest, candid folks merely relating THEIR PERSONAL EXPERIENCES close to such horror and it's aftermath.