• 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!

Osama Bin Laden is dead

don't be lazy, it is there; if you do not want to face with the truth , then it is your choice, my another proof is the research of Charles Duelfer, he says there were no nukes,biological or chemical weapons in Iraq as alleged, anyway , it seems you do not want to accept the excuse Bush used to intervene into ıraq, it is ok for me; but it is sad to still see some people who have no idea what is going on the ''earth' where i live ....

It's indeed sad that many Americans have never read the reports covering this issue.
 
Simon W. Moon , Andalublue
i really cannot understand you, the us army along with England did invade ıraq after those claims there were nukes,biological and chemical weapons...
They did not claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
You don't have to understand me, just English. English isn't your first language, is it?
 
They did not claim that Iraq had nuclear weapons.
You don't have to understand me, just English. English isn't your first language, is it?

it is neither my language nor english; it is interpretation; there is a report, which claims somethings, if you do not want to accept the truth , what can my language or english do? btw, i thought you were stick to the debate not debater.


i want to immigrate your planet, please tell me the terms and conditions...
 
I really can't believe people still refuse to educate themselves about this subject.

From the ISG report that's been available for years:

Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions
were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that
which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion,
irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic
missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither
was there an identifi able group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants
understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent,
but fi rm, verbal comments and directions to them.

To implement its procurement efforts, Iraq under Saddam, created a network of Iraqi front companies, some
with close relationships to high-ranking foreign government offi cials. These foreign government offi cials, in
turn, worked through their respective ministries, state-run companies and ministry-sponsored front companies,
to procure illicit goods, services, and technologies for Iraq’s WMD-related, conventional arms, and/or
dual-use goods programs.

Saddam directed the Regime’s key ministries and governmental agencies to devise and implement strategies,
policies, and techniques to discredit the UN sanctions, harass UN personnel in Iraq, and discredit the US. At
the same time, according to reporting, he also wanted to obfuscate Iraq’s refusal to reveal the nature of its
WMD and WMD-related programs, their capabilities, and his intentions.

• Saddam used the IIS to undertake the most sensitive procurement missions. Consequently, the IIS facilitated
the import of UN sanctioned and dual-use goods into Iraq through countries like Syria, Jordan,
Belarus and Turkey.

Saddam used the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientifi c Research (MHESR) through its universities
and research programs to maintain, develop, and acquire expertise, to advance or preserve existent research
projects and developments, and to procure goods prohibited by UN SC sanctions.

Numerous ministries in Saddam’s Regime facilitated the smuggling of illicit goods through Iraq’s borders,
ports, and airports. The Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and the Military Industiralization Commission (MIC),
however, were directly responsible for skirting UN monitoring and importing prohibited items for Saddam.

ISG uncovered Iraqi plans or designs for three long-range ballistic missiles with ranges from 400 to 1,000
km and for a 1,000-km-range cruise missile, although none of these systems progressed to production and
only one reportedly passed the design phase. ISG assesses that these plans demonstrate Saddam’s continuing
desire—up to the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)—for a long-range delivery capability.

ISG judges, based on available chemicals, infrastructure, and scientist debriefi ngs, that Iraq at OIF probably
had a capability to produce large quantities of sulfur mustard within three to six months.

ISG uncovered information that the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) maintained throughout 1991 to 2003
a set of undeclared covert laboratories to research and test various chemicals and poisons, primarily for
intelligence operations.
 
Again, wanted to is not equal to did. Read the report. :coffeepap
 
Simon W. Moon , Andalublue

i really cannot understand you, the us army along with England did invade ıraq after those claims there were nukes,biological and chemical weapons, after the invasion they created a research group to prove what they claimed was true; however, the group said the contrary; a war started and ended , but one of you still do not know the reason , and the other one is thinking those claims are the facts not excuses to invade Iraq so we should read the exact words in that report.

Soguks, I agree with you entirely EXCEPT for the 'nukes' bit. No one claimed he had 'nukes', just weapons of mass destruction, specifically long-range missiles and chemical weapons. No such weapons were discovered after the invasion, hence all the controversy.
 
it is neither my language nor english; it is interpretation; there is a report, which claims somethings, if you do not want to accept the truth , what can my language or english do? btw, i thought you were stick to the debate not debater.
Well, the language of the report is English. So any failures in understanding English can lead to failures to understand what the report says.

When the report says, "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," it is not the same as the report saying "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons."
See, in that sentence, "weapons" is used as an adjective to describe the noun "program." Weapons is not the noun in this instance, but merely a descriptor of the word program.

So, as you can now see, the NIE did not say that Iraq had nukes.
 
Again, wanted to is not equal to did. Read the report. :coffeepap

This is why Libs are so very dangerous.

They need to see the mushroom cloud before they take action, and then that's not enough. Never mind the idiot had and used WMD and committed all manner of atrocities.

And as if he would parade the program in front of us. The Iranians had a secret program for 18-years that was revealed not by our intel services, but a few Iranian individuals.

What was that line from after 911? C O N N E C T T H E D O T S...

.
 
Last edited:
Again, wanted to is not equal to did. Read the report. :coffeepap

another person another start, tell me please if there was no nukes or such weapons; why usa invaded Iraq then? and why the cia set a research group for those 'weapons'?
 
Soguks, I agree with you entirely EXCEPT for the 'nukes' bit. No one claimed he had 'nukes', just weapons of mass destruction, specifically long-range missiles and chemical weapons. No such weapons were discovered after the invasion, hence all the controversy.
Well, to be fair we did find the missiles we went looking for. Also, we did find some WMD remnants from the past. however, we didn't find what we said was there like, "a few hundred metric tons of CW agents" or mobile bio-weapons labs.
 
This is why Libs are so very dangerous.
They need to see the mushroom cloud before they take action, and then that's not enough.
The above is meaningless partisan noise.
 
another person another start, tell me please if there was no nukes or such weapons; why usa invaded Iraq then? and why the cia set a research group for those 'weapons'?
There can be no assertion that there were nukes but still be an assertion that there were other weapons. The two are not mutually exclusive.

If you want to change you original assertion that the reason we shouldn't believe that ObL was buried at sea is because the CIA said that Iraq had WMD as opposed to the reason we shouldn't believe that ObL was buried at sea is because the CIA said that Iraq had nukes, just say so and we can go on from there.
 
wanted to is not equal to did

yup

and gitmo looks like it's gonna be with us forever

detention, rendition, the patriot act---legacies of what's-his-name preserved and protected by barack the slash

and ubl is dead!

wanted to is not equal to did---profound

how's sydney this time of year?
 
Last edited:
This is why Libs are so very dangerous.

They need to see the mushroom cloud before they take action, and then that's not enough. Never mind the idiot had and used WMD and committed all manner of atrocities.

What was that line from after 911? C O N N E C T T H E D O T S...

.

no, I require claims to reflect the evidence we have. You can't claim he has them, and expect he wanted them to be the same thing. Making up dots ins not cnnecting dots.
 
There can be no assertion that there were nukes but still be an assertion that there were other weapons. The two are not mutually exclusive.

no i am still sticking to my claim, cuz there is a report, claiming there were nukes, chemical and biological weapons in ıraq; so why i should believe in another claim Bin Laden is dead; where is the body?
 
no i am still sticking to my claim, cuz there is a report, claiming there were nukes, chemical and biological weapons in ıraq; so why i should believe in another claim Bin Laden is dead; where is the body?

Buried at sea. With the fish. There's no reason to doubt his death here.
 
no i am still sticking to my claim, cuz there is a report, claiming there were nukes, chemical and biological weapons in ıraq; so why i should believe in another claim Bin Laden is dead; where is the body?

In the bellies a few dozen crabs at this point.
 
I don't think that anyone said it was incorrect to do so.

But saying that someone has WMD doesn't mean the same thing as saying someone has a nuke. The reason it's not the same is that WMD applies to more things than just a nuke.

For an example, if someone says that they have vegetables, it's not the same as saying that they have carrots.

I agree, I must have missed something in the back and forth. I thought you were claiming a "nuke" was not a WMD. My bad.
 
great credit goes to president barack hussein obama for NOT dismantling the anti terror tactics implemented by his predecessor, thus allowing our heroes to eliminate the main author of 9-11
 
Buried at sea. With the fish. There's no reason to doubt his death here.

were you there?..think a bit, you killed your most dangerous enemy and then threw him at sea without sharing any info, Do you think everybody but yourself would believe you?
 
Simon W. Moon , Andalublue

i really cannot understand you, the us army along with England did invade ıraq after those claims there were nukes,biological and chemical weapons, after the invasion they created a research group to prove what they claimed was true; however, the group said the contrary; a war started and ended , but one of you still do not know the reason , and the other one is thinking those claims are the facts not excuses to invade Iraq so we should read the exact words in that report.

So, it's your position that since some intel was wrong that all intel is wrong?
 
News from sources around the world are not in agreement with the US news on Bin Laden. The US official story keeps changing. One of the helicopters has been reported to have crashed and was left at the site.

Bin Laden was captured alive. Or was not captured at all but was declared captured and killed to put the matter to rest. The positive impact of saying he is dead will be obvious in the next few days if not already obvious in the markets. If the truth is that he was not captured then no pictures will be produced of his body. If the truth is that he was captured alive then pictures of him drugged unconscious will be produced with him made up to look dead. It will be quite easy to fake.

Now all we need to do is wait and see how they want to play it. Of course there will be much resistance to believing in these theories because the American people want him dead. But unfortunately, there are people in Pakistan that are talking and making the US story inconsistent with the facts. There is only one reason to skew the facts of this drama. There can be no other legitimate reasons.
 
were you there?..think a bit, you killed your most dangerous enemy and then threw him at sea without sharing any info, Do you think everybody but yourself would believe you?

Yeah, I do, with all the witnesses available, and the dna, the pictures, and so on, yes, i do believe it would be enough. now, if you come up with some reason to dioubt all of it, present it. But overall, so far, I see no reason to leap off the cliff.
 
Back
Top Bottom