Originally posted by Freelancer
For Chrissakes wookie, I was 18 when we invaded Iraq. Then it was all "WMD this, WMD that, the US is in danger, we must make a preemptive strike", and then that reasoning slowly shifted from security to spreading democracy as the war went on. I am sure spreading democracy came up in places at the beginning but that by itself was nowhere near enough to go to war. If it was - why not invade North Korea, or Cuba, or any country with a dictator?

and eventually came to the conclusion that if anyone thinks there is any legitimate information in there to form an opinion on a major issue, they're an idiot.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Oh it's "the truth" is it? Says who? How the hell can you prove which of two symbols is more recognizable? That is complete bullcrap.

Originally posted by Wookie06
Because they don't have direct connections to Islamic Terrorism. You're that old and you understand this little of the situation?

Nevermind.

Originally posted by Eversor
Alas if I could find the source, you'd realize its a fact. Its hard to believe, but it is infact true.

Originally posted by Eversor
Um, neither does Iraq...?

Originally posted by Eversor
I don't mind that you think it's absurb, because it sounded absurd to me at first.

Personally i find it fascinating more than any reason to dislike my country, but it is the case.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
And yet it is chock full of terrorists and terrorist groups.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
It's not so much that I find it hard to believe that the MCdonald's logo could be more recognizable then the christian cross, it's that I find it completely absurd that you think there could be some valid source to definitvly prove this. How do you even define what is more "recognizable" let alone prove it to be a truth. It's just too abstract of a concept.

Originally posted by Eversor
And so is Egypt (don't forget that most of the September 11th terrorists came from Egypt) yet that doesn't stop it from being America's second largest benefactor of aid.

Originally posted by Freelancer
Wookie, prove that Iraq had connections to the 9/11 attack.

Originally posted by Eversor
Um, neither does Iraq...?

Originally posted by Darth Evad
then i'm an idiot. :p

any president that owns oil companies and has members of a nation which owns oil over to his house for dinner and then says he's acting in the interests of the people while he makes billions on deals from oil, needs to be questioned as to thier motives.
i can't help but think the bush's have $$$$ in thier eyes. from grandpa to daddy to w. it has to be questioned or we're just a bunch of idiots for not questioning.

Originally posted by Wookie06
You have got to be kidding. No? Brainwashed then?

You people.

Originally posted by Nubs
I can't believe this thread has gone from one of sympathy and prayers towards the British, to one that is one giant condemnation of America. For god's sake people, couldn't you just take it somewhere else, like another thread?

Originally posted by Eversor
Alas if I could find the source, you'd realize its a fact. Its hard to believe, but it is infact true.

Originally posted by Raoul Duke
Oh it's "the truth" is it? Says who? How the hell can you prove which of two symbols is more recognizable? That is complete bullcrap.

Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Supersize me, the documentary. He's not lying. They also did another survey, and the Wendy's girl is more recognizable than the commonly accepted picture of Jesus.

Originally posted by alpha1
i skimmed through this thread, and i have come to the conclusion that on massassi, any thread that even mentions religion or politics is bound to decend into a flame war.

Originally posted by Mort-Hog
There is no link between Al Queada and the Ba'ath party. Which is hardly surprising, considering Al Queada are radical Islamists and the Ba'ath party are secular socialists.

The intelligence community had been speculating about a possible connection between Saddam's regime and known terrorists, including al Qaeda. The evidence was not airtight, but it was certain that several terrorist camps of the Ansar al Islam group were up and running in northern Iraq.

These camps were examples of the terrorist "harbors" that President Bush had vowed to crush. OPne known terrorist, a Jordanian-born Palestinian named Abu Musab Zarqawi who had join al Qaeda in Afghanistan---where he specialized in developing chemical and biological weapons---was now confirmed to operate from one of the camps in Iraq. Badly wounded fighting Coalition forces in Afghanistan, Zarqawi had received medical treatment in Baghdad before setting up with Ansar al Islam. And evidence suggested that he had been joined there by other al Qaeda leaders, who had been ushered through Baghdad and geven safe passage into northern Iraq by Iraqi security forces.

What was especially troubling about this intelligence were reports that Zarqawi and his al Qaeda colleagues were using the camps to train other terrorists for WMD attacks in France, Britain, Chechnya, and the former Soviet Republic of Georgia. (In January 2003, when British police broke up a terrorist cell in Manchester that Zarqawi had helped train, they discovered traces of ricin, the deadly biological toxin, in the terrorists' flat; reports indicated that they were plotting to use it to poison the food supply on military bases across Britain.)

If the evidence were confirmed that the Iraqi regime was in fact linked to al Qaeda, there would be an insatiable appetite in Washington for immediate action. Our Special Operators had discovered proof in Afghanistan that the terrorists were trying to acquire a chemical and biological capability. And the U.N. inspectors' January 1999 report stated that Iraq could have ample supplies of such weapons.

Saddam Hussein, a dictator bent on repressing Shai Muslims, and Osama bin Laden, on of the world's foremost Islamic extremists---if these two were indeed collaborating, it was proof that war made strange bedfellows. Yet I knew that money transcended both ideology and faith, and bin Laden had plenty of money. Any power that could provide al Qaeda with nerve agents or anthrax was a major strategic concern, and Saddam was very likely in a position to make such elements available for the right price.

Because they don't have direct connections to Islamic Terrorism.

Now, that along with Eversor's link illustrates a clear trail between Saddam and al Qaeda. Were they colloborating with each other? Probably not. But they certainly weren't enemies and were giving passive consent to each other.

The anti-war people in America, Australia, and Britain may be louder than the pro-war, but that by no means makes them the majority. The recent elections of all three of those countries prove there is a "silent majority" that approve or tolerate what is going on.

Originally posted by Matthew Pate
Neither did Iraq, Wookie...

Originally posted by Matthew Pate
Civilians are killed in Iraq. Civilians are killed in Britain. What's the difference if the bomb is dropped from a plane or hidden in a bus? People still die.

Pull your head out of the sand. And you don't need to call me "Wookie". You know my name. I grant you permission to use it.

Not to demean any civilian deaths, I think it fair to say you need to look at intent. We don't target civilians. Terrorists do. We have killed many in the war on terror and that is a real tragedy. Most soldiers don't want to kill civilians. It is also against the Rules of Engagement. It does happen though. Sometimes on a small and personal scale and sometimes in a larger and massive scale.

Originally posted by Matthew Pate
OK, but only if I can jokes about the Steve Miller Band.

Also, if you want people to use your real name instead of a mispelling of an alien creature from a movie, you could have chosen that name to start with, Space Cowboy.

Originally posted by Matthew Pate
And are civilians really innocent when they, at least tacitly, support the actions of their government by voting them in?

Originally posted by Dj Yoshi
Supersize me, the documentary. He's not lying. They also did another survey, and the Wendy's girl is more recognizable than the commonly accepted picture of Jesus.

Originally posted by Matthew Pate

The astute will notice that Canada, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Germany have not been bombed.

Originally posted by Darth Evad
then i'm an idiot. :p

Originally posted by oSiRiS
Someone needs to send Evad an updated set of talking points. The thing about BUSH WANTS OIL MONEYS LOLOLOLOL is /so/ 2002.

Do you really think Al Qaeda would still have conducted the attack on 9/11 if they knew how hard we would hit back and how far we would hunt them? I know many on all sides and for many reasons would say yes but I disagree.

Yes. Seriously, though, you walk a road I don't even know if the terrorists go down. I don't think they attack civilian targets because they support the actions of their government. They attack civilians to try to make political change. Doing so in the US and GB is really counter-productive to their causes because we react with over-whelming force.