<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">You got this partially right....There were no stockpiles of WoMD, however the final analysis of the data and the 9/11 reports show there was connections between terrorism and Saddam, no one in the Bush administration said Saddam was behind 9/11.</font>[/QUOTE]You got this partially right ;) What the administration did do was repeatedly and repeatedly say that there were links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (cleverly not specifically saying September 11th). Even the day after the 9/11 commission report concluding there were no links, Cheney gave a news conference and repeated that there was a connection.

This administration just lies to your face man, constantly. The upshot of all this misinformation was that over 66% of the American public thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11th, rising to over 80% in America's armed forces. It's true that the administration didn't specifically link Sep 11th with Iraq, but you can be sure as hell that they wanted the American people to make that little extra (and, from the public's point of view, reasonable) assumption.

Now, you may not think this is much of a problem. But mass deception and delusion like this strikes at the core of democracy in your country.

Edits for clarity and corrections

[ 11-02-2004, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

</font>[/QUOTE]I wont try to put my answers inside the box above, I would just mess up the tags. I'll quote directly.

"You cannot and must not judge both sides as if they are the same or equal or even that both ideologies are valid... in this conflict"
If you don't judge them by the same standards, then what standards to use and what are then the justifications for them? If you judge the two sides by the same, or similar standards, you are automatically doing a comparison between them and I would bet the insurgents and terrorists wont score high at all. Issues can be raised on how the Coalition have handled the conlict, but the terrorists are just a hopeless case.

"Both sides do not have to be suicidal immoral anti-humanitarian religious zealots...only one side has to be."
Not all of them are all these, there are many different insurgent groups. Just wondering, what exactly do you mean by immoral and anti-humanitarian?

" The sides are not even, one side is for Human liberty and for freedoms and rights, the other represents islamofacism and supression of human rights and equality."
Only from our perspective. They appearantly think they're doing the right thing, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. If it's right or wrong in a absolute way is a different matter. In any case, they islamists have their own brand of human rights and equality based on religious laws. They don't like ours and believe theirs is superior.

"Again, you are placing both sides on the same moral level and this is wrong. (in my opinion...I know people who can justify any murder or killing so others may have different views)"
Whomever pulls the trigger is responsible for the resulting death. It might be seen as justified given the situation, perhaps, but the responsibility is clear, in my opinion.

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">You got this partially right....There were no stockpiles of WoMD, however the final analysis of the data and the 9/11 reports show there was connections between terrorism and Saddam, no one in the Bush administration said Saddam was behind 9/11.</font>[/QUOTE]You got this partially right ;) What the administration did do was repeatedly and repeatedly say that there were links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq (cleverly not specifically saying September 11th). Even the day after the 9/11 commission report concluding there were no links, Cheney gave a news conference and repeated that there was a connection.

This administration just lies to your face man, constantly. The upshot of all this misinformation was that over 66% of the American public thought that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11th, rising to over 80% in America's armed forces. It's true that the administration didn't specifically link Sep 11th with Iraq, but you can be sure as hell that they wanted the American people to make that little extra (and, from the public's point of view, reasonable) assumption.

Now, you may not think this is much of a problem. But mass deception and delusion like this strikes at the core of democracy in your country.

Edits for clarity and corrections </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
I have a copy of the report...there is credible evidence of links between Saddam Hussein and terrorism and Al-queda. THere is no credible link between Hussein and 9/11 the Bush administration wasn't being "clever" when they didn't link him to 9/11...they were being honest andusing the intelligence they had on hand. If I get the chance tonight after my math homework is done I'll quote the document directly.


See it's people like you who make those kind of statements as if it's fact....as if you KNOW what they are thinking so that you can claim what they were doing even though they never said it...and never implied it...you just Bet to hell they were thinking this or that... brother....
</font>

[ 11-02-2004, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

I also have a copy of the 9/11 commision report, No links between Iraq and the terror atcks on 11 Sept., 2001 is what the report says. Not that there are no links between at all on anything between Iraq and Al Queda, as many try to make it say when they spout the "No Links" line of happy horse manure. If they are going to be honest at less finish the thought and idea presented by the report, there are no links between Iraq and Al Queda on the ATTACKS of 11 Sept., 2001. Anything else is deceitful at best plain old fashsioned out right lie at worse.

And equally, it's people like you who make these kinds of statements as if they're fact. But lets not make this personal, as that has no place in a debate. Instead, I shall answer your accusation with a bundle of fact, because I have no interest in basing my opinions on anything but.

Allow me to quote from the 9/11 Commission panel responding directly to allegations by Bush and Cheney about Iraq and al-Qaeda links:

Of course they were ignored, the last people Saddam would have wanted to work with were Islamic fundamentalists. He's a Ba'athist not an Islamist.

Yep, looking like they had a great working relationship here.

Briefly to respond to John D:

Are these quotes not in the report John D? Do you still think it's 'horse manure'? They are clearly referring to long-term possibilities of a relationship here. You can choose to interpret them as only saying they "didn't have a relationship for the attacks of Sep 11th" but it seems pretty clear upon reading that the intention of the wording is "didn't have a relationship, period".


Bush finally stops lying through his teeth months too late.

General Wesley Clark identifies the push by the administration to pin the two together:

I mean, this guy was one of your top military men (the top?). Surely you're not going to tell me he's making this all up? The Bush administration wanted a link, even before September 11th ever happened.


Diplomats (who are, after all the Middle-East experts):

Former Bush administration intelligence figures:

Donald Rumsfeld catching himself out:

Comments from Al Gore

Ranking members of the Senate Intelligence Committee:

I'm sure you'll discount this one out of hand because it was commissioned by the UN, but:

I might as well add this one in as there are no British documents as yet. This comes from a leaked intelligence document:

With specific reference to the connection between Saddam and September 11th and your claim that the administration never claimed that:

That's what they want you to believe of course. But look here:

Also Cheney:

Here he offers no evidence for links, and clearly is encouraging the American public to continue making the connection that I referred to in my original post. How can you tell me I'm making falsehoods about the attempts of the administration to not discourage links when you see a quote like that?


As for the more general link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda:

Yet the New York Times reported that according to documents I could go on for hours, but frankly, I'm getting bored and tired because its 3am. You are more than welcome to go on selectively interpreting the reports and playing with semantics about exactly what type of co-operation they did or did not engage in. You've heard it from the 9/11 Commission, the Senate Intelligence Committee, current and former Bush administration figures. I don't see how a greater body of evidence from so many separate sources can fail to convince people, when all you have is the word of an administration who hasn't been straight with the American people about the war from Day 1.

I think I'll leave you with this little gem from President Bush:

I mean, come on! As if Osama would ever let himself be commanded by someone else. And as if Hussein would let anyone like that near him. These policy makers in the Bush administration just live in a different world to reality. That quote of his is straw-clutching at its very worst, and unfortunately some people just lap it up.

[ 11-02-2004, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color = lightgreen>Bottom line, every death in Iraq due to conflict is the sole fault of the insurgents who want only to kill people regardless of national origin. We, of course, are not in the wrong. </font>

</font>[/QUOTE]1. It doesn't matter if the Nazi's didn't have the right to commit genocide, they took themselves the "right" by might alone. In any case, a good deal of them had to have thought it was "right"; it would be impossible to carry out something like the Holocaust if you thought it was morally repulsive.

Now, this doesn't make it right, and I never claimed it did, I just wanted to point out that ALL people who commit genocide or carry out terrorist attacks believe they are doing the right thing. They sleep well at night because they think they did the "right thing", regardless of what they did. Further, I never said that they were equally moral, what I meant was that we should judge them by the same standards. As I see it, that's the only reasonable thing to do. Use different standards and your subjective opinion comes into play.

Only one side commited genocide during WW2, and only one side cut the heads of people in this current conflict in Iraq. That alone mean the both sides aren't on the same moral level, even if you judge them by the same standards.

2. I just found it mildly "amusing" that religionists such as the islamists always claim they're morally superior. How blowing up civilians is morally defencible is beyond me.

3. Yes, they are against several Western values regarding human rights, but they nonetheless claim their own version of human rights are better. The islamist would probably say that following the religious leader is the best thing to do since he's in better contact with God, that the womans role is in the home and that homosexuality is a mortal sin, punishable by death. They probably think God made these laws, and since God is absolutely fair, so are his laws.

4. I really wonders how many bombs dropped by American bombers malfunctions or hits the wrong target. No, civilians killed by these bombs died because the were near the spot the bombers aimed at. They were obviously not the target, but they were there. The motives and targets of the Coalition and the insurgents are completely different; they're not morally equal and I never said they were. What I meant was that you cannot judge them as morally inequal if you don't judge them by the same standards.

[ 11-03-2004, 06:36 AM: Message edited by: Stratos ]

Hey, whatever makes you sleep well at night. [img]smile.gif[/img]