newprotest.org: A LITTLE LATE

A LITTLE LATE

September 12, 2006
by: jovial_cynic
I intentionally didn't jump on the 9/11 blog bandwagon and post something, because... well, because I prefered to go most of the day not really talking about it or even thinking about it. I grew weary over the weekend seeing and hearing blurbs about it on every form of media that reached me, I just figured I'd back off and let other folks talk about it. I'm all 9/11'd out.

I will, however, say this piece.

As anti-war as I am, and as much as I disagree with most of the Bush Administration's policies, I believe that the attack on Afghanistan after the 9/11 attack was justified. The connection between the Taliban in Afghanistan was evident, and the Taliban's failure to turn over Osama and company was the catalyst for the massive retaliatory strike against them. That said, I will say again and again that Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attack, nor did Iraq have any connection to al-Qaida. None. No WMD's, no joint effort to attack America, nothing. While I mourn the death of those that died in the World Trade Centers and in the planes that were used in the attack, I hardly think that the US response since our attack on Afghanistan has been reasonable or justified.
np category: politics
tags:

COMMENTS for A LITTLE LATE


Steve said:
911 should have been the wake up call for what is now facing all of those in the modern western world. I believe it was for a short period of time until those who prefer to bury their heads in the sand went on with their pre-911 lives as if it was just a blip and not more of what is to come. While I too have gone on with my life as I will not ever let this enemy affect my life through terror, I am one not to forget the real consequences that 911 has moved us towards. I agree that the connection was easily made between Afghanistan and al-Qaida and that our response was justified. I disagree with you regarding the response in Iraq. While the connection between Iraq and al-Qaida was not as visible, it was there. How do you think Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was in Iraq mending wounds "before" the Iraq conflct began. Because there were ties. He did not just sneak in and set up shop. In addition, almost every member of Congress agreed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Now some try to have it both ways? In reality, this war is one against Islamic fascism that has no borders. It is a crusade of sorts by those who want the destruction of free-will throughout the world. It amazes me that there are still those who just do not get it. This war will cross our borders again eventually and someday may have even more serious consequences directly to those living here behind those borders. We spoke of a Utopia of sorts the other day when discussing the theories of a perfect government and society. What these folks want is the extreme opposite of that Utopia. where will we be if they win? In any case, the war in Iraq is just a small part of what will eventually become a wider conflict as terrorist are uprooted as we are offensively seeking them out. They will seek a safe environment anywhere they can until we eliminate every place to hide. While I agree with you in disliking war, never the less we are in one against a new kind of enemy that we have very little experience in facing. It will not go away, even if we were to cease military operations worldwide, pull every troop from every Muslim country in an attempt to appease the enemy, it will arrive on our doorstep again eventually. This conflict will rage on for decades as we try and protect ourselves from the new crusades! I for one believe I see it for what it is.
September 12, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
Did you read the article I linked in my post?

Declassified U.S. intelligence reports:

"There is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any relationship with the late terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or with al-Qaida."

So, your Zarqawi connection doesn't exist. And I don't care that everybody on both parties believed that Iraq had WMD's. They believed because the Administration pushed the "evidence" in front of their faces and didn't allow room for dissent. And think about it -- what elected official wanted to face political suicide by saying that we shouldn't join hands and fight "the war on terror?"

The whole thing is a sham. The US is NOT in Iraq fighting the war on terror. The US is in Iraq attempting to build a US-friendly environment to benefit the US economy. The government is not some benevolent creature that wants to hug every creature it encounters -- it's a power-hungry war machine.

And... please break your text up into paragraphs. It makes it easier on the eyes. :)

September 12, 2006


Steve said:
You choose to believe there was no relationship based on what you read, digested and created a link to. Just like you, I obviously do not believe everything that is put in front of me and stated as truth. I choose to believe there was a relationship based on the simple fact that he was there before the war so he must have had a support system in place just to be there. You choose to believe this particular report because the liberal powers that want control are pushing this "evidence" in front of you and everyone else as it supports their agenda and consequently it supports your beliefs that you live in a power hungry war machine.

On the flip side there were plenty of U.S. intelligence reports that showed that Iraq had these weapons. I chose to believe them and you did not.

Same difference.

Your view on the country you live in and the intentions of its elected leadership is very pessimistic .A healthy criticism is one thing, but WOW.

Power hungry war machine, now I've heard it all.

That is a very telling statement.

Sorry about your eyes. I will try to remember to accomodate you on that one.

September 12, 2006


jovial_cynic said:
I choose to believe because the evidence is overwhelming.

Here's some more quotes from additional sources:

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of Al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," the report said.

In fact, the Senate investigation concluded that Hussein regarded al Qaeda as a threat rather than a potential ally and that the Iraqi intelligence service "actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success."

But a CIA report completed in October concluded instead that Mr. Hussein's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or even turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates," according to the new Senate findings.

Sources: SFGate, WFAA, and just for fun, Al Jazeera.

This is all the result of an investigative report by the US Senate, and by the CIA.

September 12, 2006


add comments. you are limited to 5,000 characters:

<< your name
<< your email (won't be displayed)
<< your website / location
<< type these numbers: 833805 (plus 0NE)

(html -enabled- / no scripts)

<< Comments temporarily disabled >>

Rules: Don't spam. Don't harrass. Don't be a jerk. Your IP address (54.225.16.10) will be logged.