Alliedassault - View Single Post - Iraq had no WMD, no ties to Al-Qaeda, & no ties to 9/11

TGB! · 10-15-2005, 03:24 PM

What a silly thread which - as usual - has no real basis in relevant current events.

Great - there are some folks who believe that Saddam had ties to AQ, to 9/11 and had stockpiles of WMD's. . .and - shocks and shit-kittens they are Conservative (as if there arent liberals who believe any one of those three). Newsflash - people manufacture their own realities to support their beliefs. Some neo-cons believe all three - how many Left-Wing liberals believe Bill Clinton didnt do anything wrong, that Bush "stole" both elections, that blacks were intimidated at polling places, that - because of Fed Fuckupery - blacks were dying every hour in the Superdome; nevermind that not a SINGLE one of those previous statements has been proven true. Yet people believe it all the same.

When I see articles/threads like this I'm always amused at what "facts" are missing from the refutation: that Saddam HAS aided terrorist efforts (such as providing for the families of Palestenian suicide bombers, medical aid to Abu Nidal a terrorist - who nobly commited "suicide" in Iraq", providing support for Abdul Rahman Yasin - that wacky guy involved in the first WTC bombing), that he DID violate numerous UN Sanctions (including possessing weapons/ordinance that he should not have), and that he was using the OFF program to relax attention and sanctions on his country (check Paul Volkers report) - certainly for philanthropic concerns.

No no, the focus is always on the spurious and "9/11, AQ link and WMD" arguments that are made and easily "shot down". Never does the argument narrow BEYOND these three accusations to show what Saddam HAS done, and was trying to accomplish - because to do so would actually mean to argue a point that isnt so cut-and-dry, it would mean having the overarching argument of "The US rushed to war" attacked and shown to be an invalid limited view of the situation. This is how the anti-war peanut-gallery plays - "frame the argument around a proven fallacy, so that by implication you can invalidate all other positions of the pro-war front".

Sloppy silly, and sadly - not over yet.

	(#52)
TGB! is Offline Command Sergeant Major Posts: 2,644 Join Date: Dec 2003	10-15-2005, 03:24 PM What a silly thread which - as usual - has no real basis in relevant current events. Great - there are some folks who believe that Saddam had ties to AQ, to 9/11 and had stockpiles of WMD's. . .and - shocks and shit-kittens they are Conservative (as if there arent liberals who believe any one of those three). Newsflash - people manufacture their own realities to support their beliefs. Some neo-cons believe all three - how many Left-Wing liberals believe Bill Clinton didnt do anything wrong, that Bush "stole" both elections, that blacks were intimidated at polling places, that - because of Fed Fuckupery - blacks were dying every hour in the Superdome; nevermind that not a SINGLE one of those previous statements has been proven true. Yet people believe it all the same. When I see articles/threads like this I'm always amused at what "facts" are missing from the refutation: that Saddam HAS aided terrorist efforts (such as providing for the families of Palestenian suicide bombers, medical aid to Abu Nidal a terrorist - who nobly commited "suicide" in Iraq", providing support for Abdul Rahman Yasin - that wacky guy involved in the first WTC bombing), that he DID violate numerous UN Sanctions (including possessing weapons/ordinance that he should not have), and that he was using the OFF program to relax attention and sanctions on his country (check Paul Volkers report) - certainly for philanthropic concerns. No no, the focus is always on the spurious and "9/11, AQ link and WMD" arguments that are made and easily "shot down". Never does the argument narrow BEYOND these three accusations to show what Saddam HAS done, and was trying to accomplish - because to do so would actually mean to argue a point that isnt so cut-and-dry, it would mean having the overarching argument of "The US rushed to war" attacked and shown to be an invalid limited view of the situation. This is how the anti-war peanut-gallery plays - "frame the argument around a proven fallacy, so that by implication you can invalidate all other positions of the pro-war front". Sloppy silly, and sadly - not over yet.