Here You Go Warfish!

[NYJet94]

Hijackers had ties with Iran, sez 9/11 panel



BY LEO STANDORA
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

The 9/11 Commission found no evidence of ties between terror mastermind Osama Bin Laden and Iraq - but Iran is another matter.

[b]As many as 10 of the Sept. 11 hijackers passed through Iran - practically on a red carpet - in the year before the attacks, the panel is set to report next week.[/b]

Sources say there's no evidence Iran had a part in the attacks, but the report will show numerous connections between Iran and Al Qaeda.

Most prominently, according to a story on Time magazine's Web site last night, the commission found that Iran gave Bin Laden's minions free passage between Afghanistan and Iran as far back as October 2000.

In some cases Iranian officials told border guards not to stamp passports of Al Qaeda soldiers to make it easier for them to cross the frontier.

The 9/11 report uncovered evidence that eight to 10 of the 14 "muscle" hijackers - those who subdued the passengers and crew on the planes used in the attacks - passed through Iran that way, sources said.

Iran has long been linked to Al Qaeda through the Lebanese terror group Hezbollah, which it sponsors. Federal indictments have cited the connection repeatedly, and a 9/11 commission staff report last month suggested Al Qaeda may have worked with Hezbollah and Iran in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia.

[b]But the 9/11 report shows more extensive ties. Besides offering passage for hijackers, a senior official told Time that Iran reached out to Bin Laden after the bombing of the warship Cole in Oct. 2000 to collaborate on new strikes at the U.S. Bin Laden nixed the offer because he didn't want to alienate Saudi support, the report says.[/b]

[u]One of the U.S.' primary justifications for war in Iraq was that country's alleged ties to Al Qaeda, but the commission found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between those two. [/u]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Warfish]

I notice no comments from the Party-Line Conservatives here....no shock there, they go along with Bush that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East.

I have said all along that the REAL clear and presant danger to the U.S. in the Middle East is IRAN, and not Iraq. Iran is a documented supporter of International terrorism, is run by an insane religious (Islam) fanatic (and his supporting fanatics), is only TWO YEARS away from having a viable Nuclear Weapon, fiscally supports enemies of the USA, interferes in almost all Middle Eastern states (against the USA) and overall just drips with hatred of the USA and all we stand for. Comparitively, Saddam was a small little nothing to the evil of Iran.

Hopefully, our actions in Iraq will, as the Weebs of the forum think, act as a deterant to Iran in it's goals. Hopefully we can stave off a second invasion, this time of Iran, since the US millitary is already stretched so thin. Hopefully the future will not look back and see that the USA made a BIG mustake invading Iraq, when the REAL danger was really Iran.

[pope]

One at a time.

Hopefully GDub is re-elected and we take down these *****es as well.

I wonder how Frankenkerry would deal with this :rolleyes:

[Come Back to NY]

[quote][i]Originally posted by pope[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 08:35 PM
[b] One at a time.

Hopefully GDub is re-elected and we take down these *****es as well.

I wonder how Frankenkerry would deal with this :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Totally agree....I've state over and over on this board; Iraq is a stepping stone, a way to get a foothold in the door and set up a base.

I've also stated had that rat-lib Jimmy Carter had [b]any[/b] balls in '79 instead hiding under a desk while a decrepid old man in Tehran dictated America's every more the flicker would not have been the out-of-control fire it is now.

[Bugg]

Iran will have Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other, complete with a very young populace that is fed up with the mullahs. This might not require much more than a helping hand, not even a push. And as Iraq becomes a more stable government, the pressure on the mullahs to let go will become enormous. And they don't know how or can't.

[NYJet94]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Bugg[/i]@Jul 18 2004, 02:06 AM
[b] Iran will have Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other, complete with a very young populace that is fed up with the mullahs. This might not require much more than a helping hand, not even a push. And as Iraq becomes a more stable government, the pressure on the mullahs to let go will become enormous. And they don't know how or can't. [/b][/quote]
Nice theory; the only problem is Iraq has a major insurgency problem that shows no signs of going away anytime soon.

Iran has vested interest in supporting the insurgents as well. You mentioned Afghanistan and I don't get your point. Afghanistan is still a mess as well. Maybe if we had finished business there before invading Iraq, I would be more inclined to agree with you. But it is as Warfish stated in his post, Iran always posed the greater terrorist threat (than Iraq).

[Piper]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 08:21 PM
[b] I notice no comments from the Party-Line Conservatives here....no shock there, they go along with Bush that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East.

[/b][/quote]
It's comforting to know that you will start most of your posts with a blanket statement.

I've never seen one post on this board stating that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East. I doubt you have either.

But why let that interrupt your rant?

[Warfish]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Piper+Jul 18 2004, 10:23 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Piper @ Jul 18 2004, 10:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 08:21 PM
[b] I notice no comments from the Party-Line Conservatives here....no shock there, they go along with Bush that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East.

[/b][/quote]
It's comforting to know that you will start most of your posts with a blanket statement.

I've never seen one post on this board stating that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East. I doubt you have either.

But why let that interrupt your rant? [/b][/quote]
Sure, and you've NEVER seen folks from your side of the isle post similar things like "No Rat Dirty ****e-eating Liberal Arses have posted here so far, no shock since they must all be out having abortions and gay sex" right?

If you nail me for that, I wait with extreme anticipation for your flaming rant against Mr. CBTNY, who starts EVERY post he makes with such a statement deriding his "opposition". I mean, yoyu wouldn't pick and choose who you make this kind of comment against, would you?? :lol:

Moral High Horses can be dangerous creatures, try not to fall off yours piper, LOL! :lol:

Fact is, I started a thread a while back asking any and all why Iraq was chosen over Iran, when Iran presented a clear & presant danger with a better WMD program, better documented ties to terrorism, and a more religiously fanatic leadership. Only TWQ self-described conservative were willing to answer that question, and folks like Weeb didn't even try, they just attacked me for asking it. If I recall, you yourself failed to answer the question, opting instead to mock me as being "ignored by the board" (or was that pope, I get you two mixed up sometimes).

In any event, the general word on this forum from the Conservative Extreme Right has been "Iraq was REALLY REALLY justified because Bush said so, but Iran....uh......well........Grrr, you must be a scumbag Liberal to ask that question!!!!"

So, IMO, it was no shock to see this thread going without Conservative response.

[Savage69]

Iran should be a easy overthrow since alot of the Population
remember life before the Ayatollah Khomeini took power from
our Dictator the Shah!!LOL The young people there want freedom
from the Muslim Clerics and their Oppressive Govt! Most of the ME
is a threat including our Phony Friend Saudi Arabia..One at a time!! ;)

[Piper]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish+Jul 18 2004, 11:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Warfish @ Jul 18 2004, 11:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> [quote]Originally posted by -Piper@Jul 18 2004, 10:23 AM
[b] <!--QuoteBegin--Warfish[/i]@Jul 17 2004, 08:21 PM
[b] I notice no comments from the Party-Line Conservatives here....no shock there, they go along with Bush that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East.

[/b][/quote]
It's comforting to know that you will start most of your posts with a blanket statement.

I've never seen one post on this board stating that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East. I doubt you have either.

But why let that interrupt your rant? [/b][/quote]
Sure, and you've NEVER seen folks from your side of the isle post similar things like "No Rat Dirty ****e-eating Liberal Arses have posted here so far, no shock since they must all be out having abortions and gay sex" right?

If you nail me for that, I wait with extreme anticipation for your flaming rant against Mr. CBTNY, who starts EVERY post he makes with such a statement deriding his "opposition". I mean, yoyu wouldn't pick and choose who you make this kind of comment against, would you?? :lol:

Moral High Horses can be dangerous creatures, try not to fall off yours piper, LOL! :lol:

Fact is, I started a thread a while back asking any and all why Iraq was chosen over Iran, when Iran presented a clear & presant danger with a better WMD program, better documented ties to terrorism, and a more religiously fanatic leadership. Only TWQ self-described conservative were willing to answer that question, and folks like Weeb didn't even try, they just attacked me for asking it. If I recall, you yourself failed to answer the question, opting instead to mock me as being "ignored by the board" (or was that pope, I get you two mixed up sometimes).

In any event, the general word on this forum from the Conservative Extreme Right has been "Iraq was REALLY REALLY justified because Bush said so, but Iran....uh......well........Grrr, you must be a scumbag Liberal to ask that question!!!!"

So, IMO, it was no shock to see this thread going without Conservative response. [/b][/quote]
Hmmm. A classic Warfish strategy. When an inaccuracy is pointed out in his post, he attacks the poster.

So in short your anwser is "If everyone else posts blanket statements filled with innaccuracy, so will I. And you shouldn't question me unless you question every poster"

Got it.

[jets5ever]

The first line of this article is false and belies the bias within. The commission found ample evidence of "ties" between Iraq and AQ. There exists ample evidence of ties between Iraq and AQ. "Passing through Iran?" OBL rejected a collaborative relationship?

You guys are simply unable or unwilling to acknowledge that you have been duped by a headline and lead in the exact direction in which the author desparately wants to lead you. If we had invaded Iran instead of Iraq, the headlines would have mentioned that the commission found that OBL "rejected" Iran's overtures, and thus there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two, even though some AQ members were allowed to "pass through" Iran. Yeah, people who opposed this war would have been happy to support an invasion of Iran based on this.

There is ample evidence of ties between Saddam and AQ, and Saddam and other terrorist networks. The perps behind the 1993 WTC attack, who were affiliated with OBL, though not known universally as AQ at the time, were allowed to "pass through" Iraq and even had Iraqi passports and one was an Iraqi.

Libya has WMD, supports terror. Iran pursues WMD and supports terror. So do ALL of them. What, we are to believe that Saddamw as the lone exception? Please...the facts are that ankle-biting and harping over which country we invade and ni which order is nonsense, especially coming from people who wouldn't support any invasion, and only act like they do for credibility's sake. These same people were against the Afghan War, up until the Iraq War started...and now they use the Afghan War they didn't support as a hammer with which to browbeat Bush. "He diverted resources from Afghanistan! At least that war was justified (even though I protested it)!"

Those countries over there are actively supporting terrorism and pursuing dangerous weapons. Bush gets it. I get it. Most people get it. We can't invade them all, and we can't even invade the ones we want to at the same time. Soft power, like diplomatic pressure and sanctions in return for increased cooperation has been attempted, and seems to have made a difference in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Libya...and is presently becoming contentious in Iran. Force was used in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, after soft pressure failed after 12 long years. You guys need to grow up. It's not a perfect world, and things like this are by their nature fluid and unpredictable.

[url=http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200407160827.asp]http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanso...00407160827.asp[/url]

[bman]

Iran WILL NOT be easy to overthrow..Iraq had a p***y army and NO weapons..Iran has an airforce, a navy and very real weapons...
the insurgency won't be there but the army will...and invading iran will be the STUPIDIST thing the US can do...all those pro western iranian youth will soon comse to see the USA as a devil.

[Warfish]

[quote][b]When an inaccuracy is pointed out in his post, he attacks the poster.[/b][/quote]

What inaccuracy Piper? At the time I posted my response, none of the well know Conservative-view posters had replied. And while I am not going to go back and pull old threats just to answer you, most of the Conservatives here have stated time and again that the Iraq invasion was justified because Iraq was the biggest threat to the USA around.

And yes, I think if you are going to criticise me for what you call "Blanket Statements", I think you should be consistent and criticise others for doing the same thing. What is wrong with that? All I am asking for is consistency in belief and action.

And of all the things I posted, that is the onmly thing you can respond to? How about the fact that Iran is more dangerous than Iraq was? Any position on THAT statement?

[Piper]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Jul 19 2004, 09:47 AM
[b] [quote][b]When an inaccuracy is pointed out in his post, he attacks the poster.[/b][/quote]

What inaccuracy Piper? At the time I posted my response, none of the well know Conservative-view posters had replied. And while I am not going to go back and pull old threats just to answer you, most of the Conservatives here have stated time and again that the Iraq invasion was justified because Iraq was the biggest threat to the USA around.

And yes, I think if you are going to criticise me for what you call "Blanket Statements", I think you should be consistent and criticise others for doing the same thing. What is wrong with that? All I am asking for is consistency in belief and action.

And of all the things I posted, that is the onmly thing you can respond to? How about the fact that Iran is more dangerous than Iraq was? Any position on THAT statement? [/b][/quote]
Sure.

That is an opinion. Just because you call it a fact doesn't make it so.

Is Iran currently in violation of any UN resolutions? That's a real question because I don't know.

But I know that Iraq was.

And you know what the innaccuracy was.

Can you show me a single post from anyone on this board stating that Iraq was the ONLY threat, as you claim.

Face it. You just like stirring the soup.

and I'm not here to police the board. When I feel you are lumping me in with one of your blanket statements, like
[quote][b][b]I notice no comments from the Party-Line Conservatives here....no shock there, they go along with Bush that Iraq was the only threat in the Middle East.
[/b][/b][/quote] I'm going to call you on it.

[TheBrodyMan]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Jul 19 2004, 08:47 AM
[b] the Iraq invasion was justified because Iraq was the biggest threat to the USA around.

[/b][/quote]
You are making like that comment is wrong, which it isnt. The posters who are wrong are the ones who say Iraq is the "only" threat, which I dont see many people saying.

Iraq is a bigger threat, IMO, because Saddam essentially builds his army around the philosophy that they must kill Americans. Name me another country where the only way they feel they can protect their way of life is to kill Americans? And this wasnt just preached during the Gulf War or the current war...but also during the mid-90's when things were relatively quiet compared to recent years.

The fact of the matter is, no matter who the US attacked, Bush would be criticized. The ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda are there, and for those of you who dont think so, I advise you to read "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes.

Not saying Iran isnt a threat, because they are, but Iraq was and will always be the bigger threat. Iran hates the US, but I personally believe they are smart enough to try to keep away from the US until they feel they are strong enough to defend.

[bman]

Iraq is a bigger threat, IMO, because Saddam essentially builds his army around the philosophy that they must kill Americans. Name me another country where the only way they feel they can protect their way of life is to kill Americans?



dude..you are making up more things than Cheney!

please provide me the 'iraqui army philosphy'!!.

[TheBrodyMan]

[quote][i]Originally posted by bman[/i]@Jul 19 2004, 11:30 AM
[b] Iraq is a bigger threat, IMO, because Saddam essentially builds his army around the philosophy that they must kill Americans. Name me another country where the only way they feel they can protect their way of life is to kill Americans?



dude..you are making up more things than Cheney!

please provide me the 'iraqui army philosphy'!!. [/b][/quote]
On January 1, 1996, Saddam met with his soldiers, and one of his high-ranking soldiers, Sabah Khodada annd retold the meeting.

"We all met with Saddam personally, "Khodada recalled, " And he told us we have to take revenge from America. Our duty is to attack and hit American targets in the Gulf, in the Arab world, and all over the world. He said that openly. When you volunteer to become Saddam's fighters...they will tell you the purpose of your volunteer[ing] is to attack American targets and American interests, not only in Iraq, not only in the Gulf, [but] all over the world, including the Europe and America. "

Still think Iraq wasnt a threat :rolleyes:

[Warfish]

[quote][b]Still think Iraq wasnt a threat
[/b][/quote]

NOW who is twisting the words of others, LOL! I NEVER claimed Iraq was no threat, I simply stated Iran was a bigger potential threat, with a better WMD program, better ties to AQ and terrorsim in general, and a more religiously fanatic leadership. All of which are facts.

But I never said Iraq wasn't a threat. They just weren't the biggest threat.

[TheBrodyMan]

[quote][i]Originally posted by Warfish[/i]@Jul 19 2004, 11:48 AM
[b] [quote][b]Still think Iraq wasnt a threat
[/b][/quote]

NOW who is twisting the words of others, LOL! I NEVER claimed Iraq was no threat, I simply stated Iran was a bigger potential threat, with a better WMD program, better ties to AQ and terrorsim in general, and a more religiously fanatic leadership. All of which are facts.

But I never said Iraq wasn't a threat. They just weren't the biggest threat. [/b][/quote]
Was I responding to you? I believe I was responding to b-mans quote that I was making things up. <_<

[Spirit of Weeb]

Does this thread imply that liberals have suddenly grown some stones? Would they now support a GWB march into tehran?

The utter lack of shame and transparent hypocracy from the left is absolutely mind boggling.