US Avoided Attacking Terrorist Zarqawi??

Timber Loftis · 03-03-2004, 11:52 AM

Source.

Interesting article. If it's true, then:
1. The US administration was right, Saddam did have links to terror;
2. The US administration was right, WMD were being made in Iraq;
3. HOWEVER, by failing to attack a known terrorist in a known location in Iraq, the US administration revealed to going to war with Iraq was more important than combating terrorism.

There are so many ways to spin this one it makes one dizzy.

Donut · 03-03-2004, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Source.

Interesting article. If it's true, then:
1. The US administration was right, Saddam did have links to terror;

Not so. Saddam had little or no control over that part of Northern Iraq. These terrorists opposed him.

dplax · 03-03-2004, 12:18 PM

If they attacked the terrorist camp it could have been considered an act of war against Iraq, since the camp was in their territory. And (correct me if I'm wrong) the first time they debated about it weren't the US still hoping for the UN to approve their plan on attacking Iraq? That could go for the first debate, and then the other two could be that they wanted to take them down during the Iraq war.

Timber Loftis · 03-03-2004, 12:47 PM

Wasn't this done around the same time as the U.S. took out terrorists traveling via car in Yemen? It wasn't an act of war against Yemen.

Djinn Raffo · 03-03-2004, 01:52 PM

It's obviously Clinton's fault.

Black Baron · 03-03-2004, 04:37 PM

Saddam paid 25000 usa $ to suisiders in israel, so he is connected to the terror.
As any dictator is.

03-03-2004, 11:52 AM	#1
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Source. Interesting article. If it's true, then: 1. The US administration was right, Saddam did have links to terror; 2. The US administration was right, WMD were being made in Iraq; 3. HOWEVER, by failing to attack a known terrorist in a known location in Iraq, the US administration revealed to going to war with Iraq was more important than combating terrorism. There are so many ways to spin this one it makes one dizzy. __________________

03-03-2004, 12:18 PM	#3
dplax Jack Burton Join Date: July 19, 2003 Location: an expat living in France Age: 39 Posts: 5,577	If they attacked the terrorist camp it could have been considered an act of war against Iraq, since the camp was in their territory. And (correct me if I'm wrong) the first time they debated about it weren't the US still hoping for the UN to approve their plan on attacking Iraq? That could go for the first debate, and then the other two could be that they wanted to take them down during the Iraq war. __________________

03-03-2004, 12:47 PM	#4
Timber Loftis 40th Level Warrior Join Date: July 11, 2002 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 11,916	Wasn't this done around the same time as the U.S. took out terrorists traveling via car in Yemen? It wasn't an act of war against Yemen. __________________

03-03-2004, 04:37 PM	#6
Black Baron Red Wizard of Thay Join Date: September 7, 2003 Location: Israel Age: 40 Posts: 877	Saddam paid 25000 usa $ to suisiders in israel, so he is connected to the terror. As any dictator is. __________________ Case from my reservist service: Kids attention, I have brought you something... Don't pull that ring private!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Al-Zarqawi killed in Iraq	Memnoch	General Discussion	21	06-09-2006 05:08 PM
'Zarqawi' calls for the release of Margaret Hassan	shamrock_uk	General Discussion	0	11-06-2004 09:34 AM
Zarqawi to target female soldiers	Morgeruat	General Discussion	33	07-06-2004 10:41 AM
Things to be avoided	onthepequod	General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005)	22	05-22-2001 07:53 PM
attacking	sumo	Baldurs Gate II Archives	1	12-16-2000 06:59 PM

03-03-2004, 01:52 PM	#5
Djinn Raffo Ra Join Date: March 11, 2001 Location: Ant Hill Age: 50 Posts: 2,397	It's obviously Clinton's fault.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)