Original statement: "zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion." Still not sure what the contention was about, but it went this way: he was in the north where Saddam had little to no control = opinion. He was there, in the north where Saddam had pretty much zero control. = opinion To blame Saddam for it, or the Iraq nation under Saddam is simply foolish to say the least. = I didn't blame anyone When he used chemical weapons was also years before was it not? = Does the date matter? The issue is trying to say he was in Iraq in the way you do, such as the adminstration does is misleading to people who do not know better. = I've said nothing misleading at all. Those people who do not know better automatically assume that he was in Iraq under the care/blessing of Saddam which is not the case. = I never said he was under anyone's control. Though I suspect it was bin laden. It's not misleading to the very small percent of people who know what's going on = I've not said anything misleading. What's the beef?
There's really only two types of people that would like the course changed.. 1. Terrorists 2. Those that sympathize with them
Gtech it is not opinion that he was in the north where Saddam had little to no control, this is fact Actually most say he had no control, I gave a little and said little to no control. It's misleading exactly how I told you in the previous post, most people will assume it means he was there under Iraq/Saddam control. The entire terrorist connection the administration continued to attempt, much of it came from this. If you did not intend it to be misleading you should welcome the facts, not fight against them. The only reason to fight against them is because you did hope to be misleading by not giving the full and accurate story. If you were not intending to be misleading you also would not post something like you did. The above is fully misleading. #1 the kurd WMD attacks happened years before http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/16/sprj.irq.massacre.memory.ap/ #2 Saddam did not control this area of Iraq during Zarqawi being there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi There are simply tons of articles showing the time lines, showing he was in fact in the north where Saddam had no control, it is fact and to claim it's opinion is simply out there. Seriously it's the same Bush tried to do, at the time the experts said Bush was wrong, but it didn't stop you and others from jumping up and down and believing it. Just another point proven wrong, another point of misleading information. --- There is no 'beef' what's your 'beef' with having the full picture? All I wanted was to make sure the truth was there for those who did not know any better. Facts should be a good thing.
Grim, Gtech answered ssandecki's post. It doesn't refer to Saddam in either post, it had to do with al quesadilla and their cheese covered team.
Yes I understand that, ssandecki was incorrect, all I tried to do was make sure the full story, you know the truth was there. Not a false statement, or a not fully factual statement. The facts that someone who didn't know the entire truth could easily see the facts and not be mislead. I didn't think making sure facts were there was a bad thing, that is unless someone wants to mislead.
The issues about terrorism are too complex for a little minded person like Bush to understand. I don't expect for many others as well to understand it as well. Terrorists don't just decide: "lets bomb this or that building, or person ..". First we need to be on the side of "high morals" ourselves. Bush and the mafia that sent the US troops for the war in Iraq by international law are "war criminals". By simply staying in Iraq this admin is fueling the terrorism. Thanks to Bush US lost its standing on the international arena. I am kind of worried that it affected the US economy as well.
Looks like we've come full circle again. First it was misleading, then it wasn't misleading, now it's misleading again. I wish we could get some consensus here instead of the flip flopping. I had enough of john kerry in 2004, thanks very much! grim, I take no exception as to whether saddam had control in the north or not. At any time, as he clearly demonstrated in the past, he could bomb the north, kill in the north or do whatever he wanted. It doesn't negate the fact that zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion. It doesn't matter whether saddam knew it or not. He was there. If saddam knew, he turned a blind eye, if he didn't then shame on him for not know an alqaida terrorist was there preparing to fight our forces. http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/al_qaedas_man_in_saddams_iraq.html As noted, zarqawi was not on vacation in Iraq. He wasn't there to fight saddam. He was there for a reason. What's the beef? saddam and zarqawi are both dead. zarqawi was not in Iraq to make martini's for saddam. It doesn't matter whether saddam controlled the north or not. It's a red herring. zarqawi was there, directed by al qaida and he was there to kill US forces.
I don't know what kind of a person can laugh, while thousands of US soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands Iraqis (if not not hundreds of thousands). Bush's approval rating is less than 30%. Most americans believe Bush lied to them about the war in Iraq. A friend of mine said: "If I had such a low rating I would be ashamed of myself." Bush doesnt have what it takes to leave office. Tony Blair did it. The OIL boys are laughing too ($98 dollars per barrel) while more and more Americans are living on a paychekc to paycheck bases.
I'm laughing at you and the alternate reality you have made for yourself. You are without a doubt the funniest guy I have ever come across..
No flip flopping going on Gtech, me and you have discussed this previously, you have been shown to be incorrect. I gave you the benefit of the doubt, I showed you how it's misleading to those who do not know the truth, your continued 'beef' with facts shows to me that yes you do intend to be misleading. I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but as usual I guess I was mistaken to do just that. You could have simply said 'yes I welcome facts, thank you' but no instead you try your best to mislead, otherwise facts would be a good thing Blind eye, hardly when he did not have control over the north, how on earth could he do anything about it? We however did have a no fly zone and allies in the north, if you want to blame anyone it would be our allies not Saddam. It was misleading, I showed you how it was misleading. It's not my fault you have a problem with facts. You continue to show that yes you did intend to be misleading as you have a problem with the facts being posted. --- no beef Gtech other than having facts, something you appear not to like when it doesn't help your agenda. BTW the quote you have above, give me a break. No article I read claimed Zarqawi to be there to fight Saddam, he was fighting those in the North, not Saddam. He was also not in an area controlled by Saddam. Talk about more misleading twists to make something it was not. On the same side, oh please. Talk about trying with a failed attempt and last gasp of air to try to make a connection when there isn't one. Just because both fought the US does not make them on the same side at all, nor does it equal them working together. More 1/2 ass mistruths, sounds much like the same crap you believed all along in the build up, all proven to be totally false. If you were not intending to be misleading for the last time, you would have no problem of me simply pointing out the simple fact that he was in the North where Saddam had no control. What's the beef? I mean seriously unless you want to be misleading, I would think you'd welcome facts. -- He was there, he was a terrorist, fighting those in the north, an area where Saddam did not control.. Sigh as to the following from you, honestly do you even think before posting? I mean come on, my only point was to have the facts, why you are so threatened by the facts is beyond me. The only reason to fight against them is if you want people to believe the lies we were spoon fed and mislead during the buildup of the war and after it took place. So in other words, blame him even if he could do nothing about it? He bombed before the no fly zone, you do know what the no fly zone was do you not? You do know how we enforced it do you not? You do understand he could not bomb during this time do you not? Obviously you do not as you claim he could bomb any time he wanted to. He could NOT do whatever he wanted in the north at this time, what part of no fly zone and no control do you not understand? He also did not have much of his missiles anymore, you do understand this do you not? Secondly, sure appears to me that you're suggesting he should have bombed the area to get the terrorists. The area we were defending, keeping him out of, etc, etc, etc. Doing the exact thing we now use as a reason to of gone in, being brutal and all that. Yes he was in Iraq, in the north where Saddam had no control, we had much more control than saddam, as did our allies. If Saddam knew how is it a blind eye? Seriously? What part of no control do you not get? What part of no fly zone do you not get? A bit hard to bomb something when you can not fly in the area, a bit hard when you do not have your long range missiles, a bit hard for intel when you do not control the area, a bit hard for everything you think he should have done. Shame on him? Yet again no control, what do you not get about this? He did not control this area of Iraq! Zarqawi was also there fighting already, not simply there waiting for us... Yet you dont' think you're misleading. Got a bridge to sell me as well? For the last time I have no 'beef' other than simply stating, yes he was in Iraq, in the North where Saddam did not control. If you do not wish to be misleading you'd simply welcome facts, you continue to prove otherwise. I did not post to have a 'beef' simply to make sure the truth was there, that he was in the North. This was common misleading information from the admin about terrorists in Iraq, simple as that..
No, you attempted to claim I said all sorts of things, as outlined at the top of this page. I have no idea why you would say such misleading and dishonest things, but I did correct you on those misleading comments. The fact is, zarqawi was in Iraq before the invasion. For whatever reason, that upsets you. Wait...nevermind. It's about Bush again. I get it now. It might give Bush some sort of "whoopty doo" credit, so....yep, I get it now. Nuff said, you can have the last word...again. Good grief, how lame
Yes he was in Iraq, what upsets you is that I put the fact down that he was not under the control of Saddam. You instead of simply liking the fact that 'facts' were posted took exception to it. Talk about lame. Who said anything about Bush, other than the same misleading you tried to do is what he did. You were proven wrong again as usual, you dont' even make it a challenge. I had no 'beef' simply to put the fact that he was not in Saddam controlled Iraq, but I know you didn't like that as it doesn't fit the misleading prowar mantra. I would think you'd welcome facts...Yet you continue to prove otherwise. How would it give Bush credit? LOL the statement gives no credit to Bush, it shows how badly he mislead the american public, yet you try to twist it around to it might give him credit. Only if you choose to mislead it could. How sad and very lame.
ssandecki was wrong, Gtech corrected his incorrect statement below. Gtech is correct, however in my honest opinion left out a vital piece of information. Even if it was not his intent, many of the prowar people purposely leave the vital info out in order to mislead, as it goes against their agenda. All I did was in a friendly way add that vital piece of info. Instead of liking that facts were laid out Gtech counters, if he did not mislead why counter the facts? His counter is also totally misleading, he had control years before no fly zone, years before the gulf war, years before the north became autonomous. When Zarqawi was in Iraq he had virtually no control over the area, totally misleading to try to draw a connection. Yet the debate goes on, from simply one person being incorrect, Gtech correcting him and me simply adding what in my eyes was a vital piece of info. If one did not want to be misleading one would not try to 'counter' facts with fiction.. ---edit I had no want to debate in it, simply to add to the information Gtech corrected, I guess total facts is not a good thing in some peoples eyes. Only those that benefit them.
Nah, you finally stopped the misleading information after I pointed it out. Say goodnight, grim. Don't forget to trim your nose hairs
Not at all Gtech, you claim 'opinion' when in fact they are facts You are the one misleading. Again if you were not you'd have no problem with someone adding to what you said with the TRUTH, you know those pesky facts that he was in the north where Saddam did not control. That is fact, not opinion...
So after reading all of Grim's posts & Gtech's we can safely summarize that zarqawi was in Iraq prior to the invasion.
These Islamic "terrorists" want to pull their finger out, Even the Irish have a better track record at attacking Britain. Seems to be a lot of hot air. But by all means, Keep being frightened of a potential threat that never seems to materialise.