Right-Wingers Blame Saddam for 9/11...AND Okla. City Bombing!!??!!

[Facial_King]

One of those claims was made by former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer, and the other by some wing-nut who somehow always manages to get his face on tv so he can spout such absurdities. Funny/scary stuff:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_03/017271.php

:1orglaugh

 

[bodie54]

Holy crap!

How have these people avoided being institutionalized?

 

[Facial_King]

(btw, if you haven't actually seen/heard Fleischer say that shit - or Gaffney with his - be sure to click the links within that article - some appalling shit there, my friends!)

 

[HeartBroker]

Sounds like someones been into the mushrooms again!
:dunno:

 

[BlueBalls]

So who actually did do a turd in the school urinal?

Kyle: So who caused 9/11?
Stan: What do you mean? A bunch of pissed off Muslims.
Hardly Boy: Yeah, what are you, retarded?

 

[stampede2873]

Let's see....

The general consensus amongst those on the right is that Saddam was the one that funded Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attack. Is this true? I don't know.

As far as Frank Gaffney is concerned... I wouldn't put to much into his theories.

I do know him, and he is an egomaniacal DICKHEAD. He loves to be the center of attention. He is probably saying this stuff so he can get more funding for his thinktank.

 

[Shindekudasai]

Let's see....

The general consensus amongst those on the right is that Saddam was the one that funded Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attack. Is this true? I don't know.

Stamp, honestly, it isn't true. I'm not a friend of Saddam Hussein or his regime. And believe me, during the Second Gulf War (the first war between the US and Iraq, 1900-1991) most of us Germans had more reason for concern than any American, because his SCAT missiles actually had the range to reach Germany. So he has been quite a thread to us and I wouldn't defend him just to prove an American politician wrong.

But in this case I don't have to defend him, because this allegation just isn't true. Iraq under Saddam Hussein was actually one of the most progressive Arabic states and the first one that in its constitution clearly separated state and religion. Hussein may have been a tyrant, but he also was no fan of religious fanatics. He knew what had happend in Iran and would happe in Afghanistan. He was just interested in securing and hightening his secular and worldly power and making Iraq the dominant regional power. Why do you think he fought it out with Iran for eight years (supported by the USSR, France and the US)? The First Gulf War from 1980 to 1988 was a dish of ice-cream made from the "icy relations" stemming from a thousand year old feud between these two regions formerly know as Mesopotamia and Persia, with a sweet topping of powerhungry Saddam-chocolate and fundamentalistic Iran-sprinkles, both authoritarian on the verge of totalitarian.

Saddam Hussein considered religious fanatics a thread himself. He would have never supported the mullahs in Iran or the Taliban in Afghanistan. The only religious fundamentalists he supported were some Palestinian extremists. And for that he thought himself in the right, because Israel repeatedly violated his sovereign rights (for example when they just flew into Iraq and bombed a power plant in 1981 without international consent, UN mandate or even agreement of the US, Germany, Britain, the USSR or France).

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Let's see....

The general consensus amongst those on the right is that Saddam was the one that funded Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attack. Is this true? I don't know.

As far as Frank Gaffney is concerned... I wouldn't put to much into his theories.

I do know him, and he is an egomaniacal DICKHEAD. He loves to be the center of attention. He is probably saying this stuff so he can get more funding for his thinktank.

The smart general consensus is the having Al Qaeda in Iraq or funding it would have undermined his Baath party power since it was run pretty much secular. Having Crazy Wahhabi Muslims running around would not have been smart on his part.

 

[maildude]

Hmmm....I suppose Bin Laden gets off scott-free. Even though We had everything to do with his rise to power. Plus these same people who cling to the right-wing hegemony that supports gun toting want nothing to do with the reactionism of McVeigh or Nichols. Maybe American comfort had a lot to do with how the Al-Qaeda infiltrated this nation. And I agree with the right to bear arms. But where do we as American citizens get the allowance to draw the line?

 

[E-Ann-Hilden]

Hmmm....I suppose Bin Laden gets off scott-free. Even though We had everything to do with his rise to power. Plus these same people who cling to the right-wing hegemony that supports gun toting want nothing to do with the reactionism of McVeigh or Nichols. Maybe American comfort had a lot to do with how the Al-Qaeda infiltrated this nation. And I agree with the right to bear arms. But where do we as American citizens get the allowance to draw the line?

would have been one of McVeigh's favorite sites, if he had access to a computer. Hometown proud!

http://www.michiganmilitia.com/

:crash:

 

[warman2442]

hmmmm... it was bush

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

It's no more absurd than the conspiracy theory nuts who claim 9/11 was an inside job.

 

[Facial_King]

Let's see....

The general consensus amongst those on the right is that Saddam was the one that funded Al Qaeda for the 9/11 attack. Is this true? I don't know.

No, that's NOT the "general consensus amongst those on the right". It's popular among the FAR right, but not just everyone (or even most of those) to the right of center. No more than the 9/11-was-an-inside-job is a "general consensus" among those on the left (and btw, there are some conservatives who entertain that sort of 9/11 conspiracy, too).

And what do you mean you "don't know" if Saddam funded Al Qaeda for 9/11? How desperately deprived of the facts are you?

 

[bodie54]

March, 2008

The U.S. military's first and only study looking into ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda showed no connection between the two, according to a military report released by the Pentagon.

The report released by the Joint Forces Command five years after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq said it found no "smoking gun" after reviewing about 600,000 Iraqi documents captured in the invasion and looking at interviews of key Iraqi leadership held by the United States, Pentagon officials said.

The assessment of the al Qaeda connection and the insistence that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction were two primary elements in the Bush administration's arguments in favor of going to war with Iraq.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/13/alqaeda.saddam/

2006
Cheney admits there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWdq7hg4dLU&feature=related

2006
Bush admits there was no connection between Saddam and 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_A77N5WKWM&NR=1

Way back in January of 2003, nearly two months before the invasion of Iraq, Bush was asked, during an interview, if he believed there was a direct link between Saddam Hussein and the September 11th attackers. His response: "I can't make that claim". And yet, his administration went on to play that card to their advantage. At one time something like 70% of Americans believed it. A Harris poll taken in the summer of 2006 (prior to contrary statements by Bush and Cheney) found that even at that late date 50% of those polled believed it.

 

[Facial_King]

Good points and reminders, bodie - facts!

I suppose if I wanted to make the right - in general, not just the extreme fringe right - look worse than they already do, I would agree that they DO share a consensus that Saddam funded Al Qaeda for 9/11, but I do give them more credit than that. There's still plenty of reasons to find them despicable, even if their more respectable factions don't give "mega-dittoes!" to such silly b.s.

 

[stampede2873]

No, that's NOT the "general consensus amongst those on the right". It's popular among the FAR right, but not just everyone (or even most of those) to the right of center. No more than the 9/11-was-an-inside-job is a "general consensus" among those on the left (and btw, there are some conservatives who entertain that sort of 9/11 conspiracy, too).

And what do you mean you "don't know" if Saddam funded Al Qaeda for 9/11? How desperately deprived of the facts are you?

You know, I've had enough of you and your antics toward me. You are an ass!!!

Did you ever just say "I don't know, because at that VERY moment in time you didn't have all the answers!! I'm sorry I'm not like you and sit in front of the computer with every resource book and article available just so you can tell others off!

You're the guy that has ALL the Freak'in answers, so why don't you just tell me "Oh Wise Blow-Hard!!"

Jesus, you just have to pick an arguement with me OVER EVERY SINGLE LITTLE THING I SAY don't you!!

 

[Facial_King]

^^^

No, I definitely don't have all the answers - oops, sorry, there I go again disagreeing with you. Sorry!

Why do you make comments in a discussion forum thread? Do you just want everyone to post - "Yeah, right on, stampede!" in response and pat you on the back ???

If so, then maybe FreeRepublic or some site like that is more your style, I dunno...

Or find a group that only contains people who read less than you do and know less than you do. Then you won't get upset and have to resort to name-calling.

I've studied conservative politics pretty closely - sorry that I am pretty knowledgeable on the matter.

 

[TITS KING]

History proves the truth and lie........but its always late...

Like the US aeroplane hitting by Cuba decades ago.....was later on proved as a false drama at that time against Cuba............

Similarly......the Iraq attack...Bush apologise for .....false drama of weapons of mass desruction.........but after the death of over 3000 US soldires and hundreds of thousands of IRAQI people, whose only sin is being born in an oil rich country.......

I saw somewhere on the internet that there are certain document now open in British Museum Library after decades......which proves the ......how the US was interested in Middle East since 1970's.

Furthermore US was a close Ally of Saddam when he was fighting Iran, using chemical weapons................. at that time US liked the use of chemical weapons. The Bush senior visited IRAQ and liked Saddam and his suppressive regime......... Later on they said oh use of chemical weapons is against humanity..... they were silent for 10 years.....later on they said..lets search WOP in IRAQ. US just attacked IRAQ to get control of oil.......nothing else..
This is my personal opinion..... and billions of people in the world including US citizens think the same way.....
This is the recent history..........:hatsoff::hatsoff::hatsoff:

 

[stampede2873]

No, I definitely don't have all the answers - oops, sorry, there I go again disagreeing with you. Sorry!

Why do you make comments in a discussion forum thread?

Why would I make a comment on a discussion board? Really that is a silly question. I think I would have to read the rules again, but I believe comments are allowed on discussion boards.

Do you just want everyone to post - "Yeah, right on, stampede!" in response and pat you on the back ???

Are you sure that's not what you want? I mean let's be honest. All you do is buzz the board and drop an article or two and then condemn everyone that does't agree with you, seems to me your the one looking for the cheerleader. If you really want a pat on the back, well, here you go.
<ATTABOY!>

If so, then maybe FreeRepublic or some site like that is more your style, I dunno...

We already know that I read from FreeRepublic, your just pointing out the obvious here.:nono:

Or find a group that only contains people who read less than you do and know less than you do. Then you won't get upset and have to resort to name-calling.

I've studied conservative politics pretty closely - sorry that I am pretty knowledgeable on the matter.

So you define yourself based on the fact that you hole yourself up in a study and obsess all things political.

Sorry, I have many other interests that occupy my time, politics is just one of them.

As far as name calling goes, well, I call you as I see you. If you don't like it, don't engage.

 

[Facial_King]

^^^

Stampede, you're quite the mystery. I start a "talk" thread, you write stuff that I disagree with and I question you on it and call you on it, and you get all pissed.

I made you an offer before:
http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=3020577&postcount=9

...that we stay off each other's threads, but you didn't accept my offer and have since responded to my threads, flamed me, and argued with me. If it all upsets you so much, why not just accept my earlier offer (you can do it here in this thread) and we'll be done with it? You stay outta my threads (and don't respond to my posts in OTHER threads) and I'll extend the same courtesy to you. Deal?

I'm offering this more for your sake than mine. I don't get all emotional about our disagreements, as you seem to...