• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Officials: Al-Qaida in Iraq's al-Zarqawi killed

The BBC has a good article about the composition of the insurgency.

The following is a quote from that article:

US and Iraqi government sources say al-Qaeda has recruited foreign fighters for its operations in Iraq. A September 2005 report released by US think-tank, the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, said foreign volunteers account at most for 10% - some 3,000 fighters - of the insurgency, the remainder being Iraqi Sunni Arabs.
Click to expand...

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4268904.stm

I stated 5%, some estimates put it between 5 and 10 percent.
 
Captain America said:
So....what you're saying is that, by the same token, that since Al Queda was here in the US pre 9/11 (and more than likely post 9/11) somehow there is a tie between them and President Bush? I mean, that's your argument here isn't it?
Click to expand...

America is not America's enemy.

America was Hussein and Al Qaeda's enemy. As one poster said above, to think that the 2 had not thought about joining forces to combat a common enemy is naieve. Plus, several top libs had made the argument that Hussein had never met with Al Qaeda Reps and would have never tolerated a terrorist training camp in his country. yet another board member quickly posted a news story showing that not only had Hussein met with the Reps (though not vowing to prvide any direct support) but that he was aware of the training camp being established in his country.

I am saying that libs constantly declared the war was illegitimate because there were no Al Qaeda in Iraq, that there were no WMD in Iraq, that Hussein had never met with Al Qeda.....and now, in 1 post earlier, a lib acknowledges that Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq and that there were WMD labs - yet when confronted on it tries to explain it away.

For cripes sakes, its ok to acknowledge the facts - they are out there. He even quoted them - Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq before the war, Zarqawi WAS in Iraq before the war, Hussein DID meet with Al Qaeda reps before the war, and, although not directly helping them, he was assisting them by giving them safe passage/not taking action against them at the time.

The fact is he is so anti-Bush that he will only acknowledge the facts about Al Qaeda and WMD when it benefits his attacks on Bush but quickly denies them/attacks his own argument when it disproves the lib's claims of 'No Al Qaeda/WMD in Iraq'!

You can't have it both ways - there was either Al Qaeda and WMD in Iraq or there wasn't! Stop the party-1st political gaming here! Sheesh!

And I guess it wasn't OK to go into Iraq, a 'soveriegn nation', after 9/11 in order to go after Al Qaeda, Hussein, and the WMD but it would have been OK to bomb that same nation's territory in attacks against the Al Qaeda that wasn't there and who weren't really running chem/bio weapons labs that didn't exist! :shock: :confused:
 
easyt65 said:
And I guess it wasn't OK to go into Iraq, a 'soveriegn nation', after 9/11 in order to go after Al Qaeda, Hussein, and the WMD but it would have been OK to bomb that same nation's territory in attacks against the Al Qaeda that wasn't there and who weren't really running chem/bio weapons labs that didn't exist! :shock: :confused:
Click to expand...

Where are those chemical and biological weapons then? Have we found them? No.

Where are those labs? Have we found them? No.

What you are hanging your hat on is the fact that Al Qaeda had a small training camp operating out of Kurdish Controlled northern Iraq. By your reasoning, that was more than enough to go to war, spend half a trillion so far and loose thousands of lives.

I mean come on, there are logical arguments for this war that could be made, but that isn't one of them.
 
That's all well and good EZ but the issue at hand is a poster claiming that because Al-Queda was on Iraqi soil, they must have been in cohorts with Iraq. We were merely pointing out that they were on American soil as well.

If someone from Hussein's camp was identified with meeting with an Al Queda representative, that's all well and good. My dollar is on the bet that they did meet at one point or another. But what does that conclude? Saddam and Al Queda were in bed together? We have certainly met with similar people in the past. Does the same apply to us?

I'm not saying there was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda. I am not saying there were no WMD's in Iraq.

I am merely saying that people need to wake up and quit taking things at face value as the political spindoctors manipulate them to do so. When Powell showed us an overhead picture of a couple of Semi-trucks and trailors, and said, "These are mobile chemical labs" people who wanted to believe never questioned it. I could have very easily have taken the same picture from the top of our local truck stop.

I presented a piccy of Rumsfeld and Saddam shaking hands. If I said that the US and Hussein were in bed together resulting with the gassing of the Kurds and Iraq stockpiling WMD's you would say I was absurd. And I would agree.

The same goes if Iraq had some government representitive meet with Al Queda or Hamas. That does not conclude they were married together as others would like us to believe.

They very well may have been two of the same. I don't know. But the evidence presented to me in order to get me to believe that is just weak. Some people will swallow anything. I'm just a skeptic. Call me crazy.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Where are those chemical and biological weapons then? Have we found them? No.

Where are those labs? Have we found them? No.

What you are hanging your hat on is the fact that Al Qaeda had a small training camp operating out of Kurdish Controlled northern Iraq. By your reasoning, that was more than enough to go to war, spend half a trillion so far and loose thousands of lives.

I mean come on, there are logical arguments for this war that could be made, but that isn't one of them.
Click to expand...


I have posted the links and stories about how UK Special Ops stopped the convoy of uranium from iraq into Iran days before the war buct could not confiscate the material because the war had not started and how the U.N. has backed the story up.

I have posted numerous stories from Iraqi generals, base commanders, etc who personally accounted for the WMD in the days prior to the war to personally ordering it be taken into Syria.

I have posted links to the audi tapes we have found where Hussein, in his own voice, orders WMD to be taken to Syria.

None of it has done any good to dissuade the Bush-haters and the Die-hard libs. Now a libe even posts, himself, the link showing their argument was BS because Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq and there WERE WMD in Iraq (because Al Qaeda was running the WMD weapons labs) but then attacks his own story when it is pointed out what he has just done by posting the link/story!

:rofl

Remarkable! As I said, even though you libs point out the facts yourself when it benefits you, you will attack your own arguments when it lends credibility to those you hate so much! It is amusing to watch how you can bend the arguments in so many different ways and directions, flip-flopping like Kerry in an interview. :lol:
 
BodiSatva said:
I heard that Zarqawi was really the mastermind behind Al-Qaida and not Bin Laden. Bin Laden is the mouthpiece. This was from some Special Operations Middle East Terrorist experts. I just wonder if this will not hurt them more than most people realize.
Click to expand...

Al-Queda's upper hierarchy has been taking a beating. We have killed leaders in Chad (Chadenese did it for us), in Pakistan, in Iraq, and Afghanistan. This did indeed hurt them. They will recover (religious fanatics will always find more lost souls for a cause), but they are battered for now.

Bin Ladden is the charismatic leader that built a movement. He is the spiritual face of Al-Queda. Like all his kind, he has withdrawn so deep into his religion, that he has created a splinter religion. He does not build anything. He only serves to destroy society and anything that does not reflect that single dogmatic existence. It's his words and black heart that guides the ideal.

Zarqawi was his field commander. Many people first heard his name after Iraq. However, he was very much a military presence and leader during the genocide in Sudan for Al-Queda. Bin Ladden was also there, but it was Zarqawi that led the rampage.

In our terms, Bin Ladden is (was) the CO and Zarqawi was the XO.

CO = Commanding Officer
XO = Executive Officer
 
easyt65 said:
I have posted the links and stories about how UK Special Ops stopped the convoy of uranium from iraq into Iran days before the war buct could not confiscate the material because the war had not started and how the U.N. has backed the story up.

I have posted numerous stories from Iraqi generals, base commanders, etc who personally accounted for the WMD in the days prior to the war to personally ordering it be taken into Syria.

I have posted links to the audi tapes we have found where Hussein, in his own voice, orders WMD to be taken to Syria.

None of it has done any good to dissuade the Bush-haters and the Die-hard libs. Now a libe even posts, himself, the link showing their argument was BS because Al Qaeda WAS in Iraq and there WERE WMD in Iraq (because Al Qaeda was running the WMD weapons labs) but then attacks his own story when it is pointed out what he has just done by posting the link/story!

:rofl

Remarkable! As I said, even though you libs point out the facts yourself when it benefits you, you will attack your own arguments when it lends credibility to those you hate so much! It is amusing to watch how you can bend the arguments in so many different ways and directions, flip-flopping like Kerry in an interview. :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The problem is that more than one commission, appointed by the President himself, has looked at all that right wing rag crap you seem to believe is irrefutable evidence, and found it to be quite lacking.

However, even if we are to believe what are you are claiming, then it would only serve to hurt the case for war, as we would not have disarmed Iraq by going in, but merely prompted Saddam to disperse those weapons to the very terrorist organizations and states the war was supposed to keep them out of.

As I stated earlier, there are reasonable arguments for the war in Iraq, yours just isn't one of them.
 
GySgt said:
Al-Queda's upper hierarchy has been taking a beating. We have killed leaders in Chad (Chadenese did it for us), in Pakistan, in Iraq, and Afghanistan. This did indeed hurt them. They will recover (religious fanatics will always find more lost souls for a cause), but they are battered for now.

Bin Ladden is the charismatic leader that built a movement. He is the spiritual face of Al-Queda. Like all his kind, he has withdrawn so deep into his religion, that he has created a splinter religion. He does not build anything. He only serves to destroy society and anything that does not reflect that single dogmatic existence. It's his words and black heart that guides the ideal.

Zarqawi was his field commander. Many people first heard his name after Iraq. However, he was very much a military presence and leader during the genocide in Sudan for Al-Queda. Bin Ladden was also there, but it was Zarqawi that led the rampage.

In our terms, Bin Ladden is (was) the CO and Zarqawi was the XO.

CO = Commanding Officer
XO = Executive Officer
Click to expand...

I agree. If I am not mistaken, Zarqawi wanted to eventually take over the leadership of Al Qaida.
 
CaptainAmerica said:
Well, we supported Bin Laden for quite some time in Afghanastan. I would only imagine that the gov't met him before but I can't prove it.
Click to expand...

Well, no, not exactly. bin Laden didn't arrive in Afghanistan until 1996, long after the mujahedin efforts to oust the Russkys had been successful (the Russkys departed in 1989). Though based until 1996 in Sudan, he did travel occassionally to Afghanistan, where he personally played a very small role in that conflict (though he played the publicity of that modest contribution to the hilt, and gained the reputation of having been a 'fighter', though his involvement as such seems to have been pretty minimal), except for providing money that purchased weapons and the provision of training facilities for the Arab fighters that he recruited to come to Afghanistan to join the jihad. In one interview with a European (I think) journalist, bin Laden states that he never received one nickel from the CIA or US government sources during the fight against the Russians. In or about 1996, bin Laden joined forces with Mullah Omar of the Taliban.

All of bin Laden's money came either his part of his family fortune, Islamic charities (some of which were here in the US), wealthy Saudis,and the Pakistani ISI (to which we also provided lots of dough). The Saudi government, through its intelligence service headed by Prince Turki at the time, who is now the Saudi Ambassador to the US, also provided a great deal of dough to the Pakistani ISI.

Following the departure of the Russians, the US began to focus on bin Laden, with efforts by the CIA, the State Dept and the NSC. The attack in Yemen in 1992, the 1993 WTC bombing and the Khobar Towers (June 25, 1996) helped motivate those efforts. Even so, there was tremendous disagreement in official circles about what to do about bin Laden. The CIA proposed various plans to capture or kill bin Laden, the majority of which were bogged down by WH lawyers under both Clinton and Bush due to the prohibition on US participation in assinations. Independent CIA and State Dept efforts to recruit Ahmed Massoud's Northern Alliance to capture or kill bin Laden were among those continually shot down.

So no, according to bin Laden himself, the US never supported him, though we did support many of the other factions opposing the Russians, and it is certainly possible, perhaps even probable the the Pakistani ISI diverted weapons to his group.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yeah, yeah, yeah. The problem is that more than one commission, appointed by the President himself, has looked at all that right wing rag crap you seem to believe is irrefutable evidence, and found it to be quite lacking.
Click to expand...
I find it amusing how libs such as yourself are so quick to discredit the numerous accounts, witnesses, and pieces of evidence disproving your arguments as 'right wing rag crap', especially considering half the links i provided were from 'left wing rag' media and from the U.N., who backed up the U.K. Special Ops' story.

SouthernDemocrat said:
However, even if we are to believe what are you are claiming, then it would only serve to hurt the case for war, as we would not have disarmed Iraq by going in, but merely prompted Saddam to disperse those weapons to the very terrorist organizations and states the war was supposed to keep them out of.
Click to expand...
I bleieve the planner's were short-sighted in not forseeing the possibility of the WMD being shipped out. they actually believed that 1)they would either use them against us or 2) we would sweep in and secure them before they were allowed to move out. the weeks of build-up time and politicking with the U.N. gave hussein more than enough time to get rid of his goods.

SouthernDemocrat said:
As I stated earlier, there are reasonable arguments for the war in Iraq, yours just isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

:rofl Why, because YOU say so?! My friend, it is not MY argument. All those links and stories I posted were not written by 'Easy'. unlike you, it seems at times, I don't hold anything personal and do not attempt to post personal opinion in such matters. I have found that posting the links and stories that substantiate the truth are much better debators than simply flip-flopping, opinionated rants, tirades, and attacks!

If you want to use persoanl opinion to claim that all the reports/links to stories producing evidence in the form of witnesses, U.N. reports, and other facts are BS because you call them right wing rag, so be it...but don't confuse them with being solely MY argument.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I agree. If I am not mistaken, Zarqawi wanted to eventually take over the leadership of Al Qaida.
Click to expand...

Oh, you are not mistaken. There has been some dissention and criticisms from within the organization, but even without this, these types of people are all the same. This is historical among religious fanatics. They soon always re-invent their beliefs to conform around them gaining more power. This is the sentiment that destroyed Europe during the religious rampages of early 16th century through the divisions of the diversities among Catholicism. Islam is just as vibrant and full of potential, but it's being torn apart by men who face forward and men who are clinging to the past (which is mostly myth).

Bin Laden and Zarqawi were both torn from the same cloth. Where they differed was in their tactics. Bin Ladden soothed his tortured soul by perverting and blaspheming Islam and convincing countless Muslims that his vision is of the purest kind. Zarqawi embraced the notion of spilling blood (anyones blood) and offering it to his god. But in the end, death and destruction are their true gods and the quest for power was their motivation.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Oh, you are not mistaken. There has been some dissention and criticisms from within the organization, but even without this, these types of people are all the same. This is historical among religious fanatics. They soon always re-invent their beliefs to conform around them gaining more power. This is the sentiment that destroyed Europe during the religious rampages of early 16th century through the divisions of the diversities among Catholicism. Islam is just as vibrant and full of potential, but it's being torn apart by men who face forward and men who are clinging to the past (which is mostly myth).

Bin Laden and Zarqawi were both torn from the same cloth. Where they differed was in their tactics. Bin Ladden soothed his tortured soul by perverting and blaspheming Islam and convincing countless Muslims that his vision is of the purest kind. Zarqawi embraced the notion of spilling blood (anyones blood) and offering it to his god. But in the end, death and destruction are their true gods and the quest for power was their motivation.
Click to expand...

True, from what I have read, Zarqawi was quite dissatisfied with Bin Laden, he believed he was not brutal enough. Bin Laden did not like Zarqawi's tactics believing that they were so brutal that they hurt their cause more than helping it. Which, really is quite remarkable when one considers Bin Laden's tactics.
 
I think Zarqawi got off too easy. I would have preferred a slower, more painful death for him like African Driver Ants before we sent his evil soul to hell.
 
easyt65 said:
I would be tempted to saw his head off like he did Nick Berg (except Berg was alive at the time) and put it up on a Pike in Baghdad as a warning to all other Al Qaeda and foreign Insurgents.
Click to expand...

Then we become what we despise...

Anyone that thinks that this is over is sadly mistaken. There is no head of the snake whaen it comes to Al Qaeda. This war is a Global jihad against America.

Now - let's get back to the important stuff like gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
easyt65 said:
I have posted the links and stories...

I have posted numerous stories...
Click to expand...
Somehow your links and stories aren't convincing to the US Intelligence Community which says otherwise. For some reason, despite these stories, they find it improbable that any WMD were transferred from Iraq to Syria.
Maybe you should send them copies of yoru stories? Or perhaps these stories and the journos who published them aren't exactly what they cracked up to be.
why so much faith in stories and journaos as opposed to the professional intelligence agencies of the US?

easyt65 said:
I have posted links to the audi tapes we have found where Hussein, in his own voice, orders WMD to be taken to Syria.
Click to expand...

You have never done any such thing.
These things do not exist.
Please repost the stuff you erroneously think is Hussein, in his own voice, orders WMD to be taken to Syria.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Somehow your links and stories aren't convincing to the US Intelligence Community which says otherwise. For some reason, despite these stories, they find it improbable that any WMD were transferred from Iraq to Syria.
Maybe you should send them copies of yoru stories? Or perhaps these stories and the journos who published them aren't exactly what they cracked up to be.
why so much faith in stories and journaos as opposed to the professional intelligence agencies of the US?


You have never done any such thing.
These things do not exist.
Please repost the stuff you erroneously think is Hussein, in his own voice, orders WMD to be taken to Syria.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the source you are relying on here. Would you be so kind as to point me to the official “US Intelligence Community” statement you are referring to?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Somehow your links and stories aren't convincing to the US Intelligence Community which says otherwise. For some reason, despite these stories, they find it improbable that any WMD were transferred from Iraq to Syria.
Maybe you should send them copies of yoru stories? Or perhaps these stories and the journos who published them aren't exactly what they cracked up to be.
why so much faith in stories and journaos as opposed to the professional intelligence agencies of the US?


You have never done any such thing.
These things do not exist.
Please repost the stuff you erroneously think is Hussein, in his own voice, orders WMD to be taken to Syria.
Click to expand...

Don't you know, its a huge conspiracy. Thats why all the supposed "experts", "mainstream media", "intelligence community", and "presidential commissions" wont accept the truth that guys like easy know all to well. Its just like the other conspiracies like "Global Warming" and "Evolution".
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Somehow your links and stories aren't convincing to the US Intelligence Community which says otherwise. For some reason, despite these stories, they find it improbable that any WMD were transferred from Iraq to Syria. Maybe you should send them copies of yoru stories? Or perhaps these stories and the journos who published them aren't exactly what they cracked up to be. why so much faith in stories and journaos as opposed to the professional intelligence agencies of the US?
Click to expand...


BTW, I AM one of the professionals in the US Intelligence Community you are alluding to. I don't think YOU are and can not possibly speak for us! We have quite a bit of evidence that the public is unaware of, like testimony from key Syrians and other information. there is no need to release everything that we have because there us enough out there now. would it do any good if we did? The U.N. has backed a UK Special Ops report and yet the die-hard Bush haters still reject the truth, so what good is there in releasing any more? It is futile! Truth is wasted on those who are so close-minded and convinced of what they want to be true!

Tell me something - what would Hussein possibly have in his possession that would take several convoys to deliver into Syria days before the war began. I am sure you are aware of the Intelligence reports that were reported about how we sat back and watched truck convoys from Iraq into Syria while we waited on the political negotiations between us and the U.N. to reach their end. Nevermind the eye witness Iraqi base general who says he inspected the trucks that left his base for Syria and what HE says were in those trucks that we watched for days - I am eager to hear YOUR explanation of what was so vast in quantity and so valuable that Hussein had to ship in the days prior to the war.

I am sure you have an explanation for everything, though. Every media that has run stories is 'right wing crap', the U.N. can't be trusted unless they back something the libs are arguing, the tape recordings of Hussein himself, according to you, can not be believed, and you are telling me what we, the intel community, must know. BTW, while I have posted links and reports, all I have seen from you is personal opinion...but I guess that is enough for a liberal to counter any facts from the right! We should all disregard all else on your say so! I mean, YOU know, right!

You want my list of posts - click my name and 'search' through my posts. As far as the Hussein tapes, will somone who has a clue please fill him in on what i am talking about since the guy who KNOWS is totally cluelesss about the tapes we found/have in our possession!?
 
Last edited:
I AM one of the professionals in the US Intelligence Community
Click to expand...

Holey moley! :shock:
That explains a lot!:mrgreen:
 
GPS_Flex said:
I must have missed the source you are relying on here. Would you be so kind as to point me to the official “US Intelligence Community” statement you are referring to?
Click to expand...

Addendums to the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD (pdf) page1 (page 4 of the pdf)
ISG formed a working group to investigate the possibility of the evacuation of WMD-related material from Iraq prior to the 2003 war. This group spent several months examining documents, interviewing former Iraqi officials , examining previous intelligence reports, and conducting some site investigations. The declining security situation limited and finally halted this investigation. The results remain inconclusive, but further investigation may be undertaken when
circumstances on the ground improve.
The investigation centered on the possibility that WMD materials were moved to Syria. As is obvious from other sections of the Comprehensive Report, Syria was involved in transactions and shipments of military and other material to Iraq in contravention of the UN sanctions. This indicated a flexibility with respect to international law and a strong willingness to work with Iraq—at least when there was considerable profit for those involved. Whether Syria received military items from Iraq for safekeeping or other reasons has yet to be determined. There was evidence of a discussion of possible WMD collaboration initiated by a Syrian security officer, and ISG received information about movement of material out of Iraq, including the possibility that WMD was involved. In the judgment of the working group, these reports were sufficiently credible to merit further investigation.
ISG was unable to complete its investigation and is unable to rule out the possibility that WMD was evacuated to Syria before the war. It should be noted that no information from debriefing of Iraqis in custody supports this possibility. ISG found no senior policy, program, or intelligence officials who admitted any direct knowledge of such movement of WMD. Indeed, they uniformly denied any knowledge of residual WMD that could have been secreted to Syria.
Nevertheless, given the insular and compartmented nature of the Regime, ISG analysts believed there was enough evidence to merit further investigation.
It is worth noting that even if ISG had been able to fully examine all the leads it possessed, it is unlikely that conclusive information would have been found.
At best, barring discovery of original documentary evidence of the transfer, reports or sources may have been substantiated or negated, but firm conclusions on actual WMD movements may not be possible.
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials.
​
Note that "WMD-related materials" ≠ WMDs

But as WMD to Syria devotees and Bigfoot devotees are apt to say, "Absence of evidence does not equal evidence of absence. " And of course, they're both right.
However, in the meantime, folks in the reality-based community have to deal with the facts that are available and make the best decisions in light of what's known.
And, based on the evidence available at present, the WMD to Syria transfer theory seems unlikely. But, so does Bigfoot, so who's to say.
 
easyt65 said:
BTW, I AM one of the professionals in the US Intelligence Community you are alluding to.
Click to expand...
Sure dude, whatever.
How about a link to the audio you said you linked to earlier?

easyt65 said:
I don't think YOU are and can not possibly speak for us!
Click to expand...
Never said that I did. I've just read what's been publicly disseminated. How about a link to the audio you said you linked to earlier?

easyt65 said:
We have quite a bit of evidence that the public is unaware of, like testimony from key Syrians and other information.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. Are trying to imply that the audio you said you linked to is some of this super-secret stuff?
How about a link to the audio you said you linked to earlier?
easyt65 said:
I am eager to hear YOUR explanation of what was so vast in quantity and so valuable that Hussein had to ship in the days prior to the war.
Click to expand...
Because you're rel;ying on the logical fallacy that if I can't provide an acceptable explanation then your theory must be correct? Is that it?
How about a link to the audio you said you linked to earlier?
easyt65 said:
...the tape recordings of Hussein himself ...
Click to expand...
Um yeah, about those. Could you please trouble yourself to provide a link?

easyt65 said:
... I have seen from you is personal opinion...
Click to expand...
If that is true, it's a problem of your perception rather than reality.
How about a link to the audio you said you linked to earlier?
easyt65 said:
You want my list of posts - click my name and 'search' through my posts.
Click to expand...
you refused to back up your claims previously. I'm already well aware of this. I just hoped this time would be different.
How about a link to the audio you said you linked to earlier?
easyt65 said:
As far as the Hussein tapes, will somone who has a clue please fill him in on what i am talking about since the guy who KNOWS is totally cluelesss about the tapes we found/have in our possession!?
Click to expand...
Actually, I familiar with them. That's why I know that there's not one where Saddam talks about transferring WMD to Syria.

When you get done bluffing please provide the link to a transcript of the non-existent audio.
 
easyt65 said:
BTW, I AM one of the professionals in the US Intelligence Community you are alluding to. I don't think YOU are and can not possibly speak for us!......
Click to expand...

:bsWhat do you do for the "US Intelligence Community"? Oh wait, if you told any of us, you would have to kill us.
 
Captain America said:
Holey moley! :shock:
That explains a lot!:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

They ought to like color code the Nut Jobs posts on here or something. Like anytime you make the claim that Clinton is a murderer, Bush is evil and went to war for whatever wack job conspiracy, 9/11 is a government conspiracy, or claim you are a member of the "Intelligence Community", you should have your posts from then on color coded in Hunters Orange or something.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
They ought to like color code the Nut Jobs posts on here or something. Like anytime you make the claim that Clinton is a murderer, Bush is evil and went to war for whatever wack job conspiracy, 9/11 is a government conspiracy, or claim you are a member of the "Intelligence Community", you should have your posts from then on color coded in Hunters Orange or something.
Click to expand...

Please do not refer to our mentally challenged as "Nut Jobs." Kook is more acceptable.:mrgreen:

Thank you.
 
What the hell are you people talking about?

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Zarqawi going :boom ?


God bless America! And God bless the US soldiers in Iraq! :2usflag:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom