Say Anything Blog

Oh bullshit. If you want to be at war, and subjucate people that have harmed you go ahead. As a matter of fact move over there.I am sure they will welcome you with open arms and a myriad of red white and blue roses.

More right wing spin.

See if you can get one Republican to admit that Al Qaeda was bombing Iraqis BEFORE we invaded.  The fundamental problem with the wing-nuts argument is that THERE WAS NO AL QAEDA THREAT UNTIL WE BROUGHT THEM HERE.

The fly-paper theory is another bogus right-wing meme.  We didn’t finish the battle in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.  The idea that drawing them into Iraq to fight on our terms is nonsense and dishonest non-sense at that.  Further, we are not merely drawing those AQ terrorists from Pakistand and Afghanistan, we created many more that came to Iraq as a result to our invasion.  In other words, we made a much larger mess.

Now the right-wing loons want to say that the left is irresponsible because we would be giving the state to Al Qaeda, all the while lying to you for not telling you that it’s their fault they are there in the first place.  If you are going to tell me that Democrats were for the war too, fine, but then you must also admit Republicans are also for pulling out, now.  You can’t have it both ways you lying sacks.

Two trolls trying desperately to change the subject when their leftie BS has been called.  ‘Twas ever thus.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Now the right-wing loons want to say that the left is irresponsible because we would be giving the state to Al Qaeda, all the while lying to you for not telling you that it’s their fault they are there in the first place.

Even if we stipulate that Bush lied us into war, that has nothing to do with the wisdom of keeping al-Qaeda from taking over Iraq.

Surely, Hannitized, even you see that al-Qaeda conquering Iraq is an extremely bad thing.

Even if we stipulate that Bush lied us into war, that has nothing to do with the wisdom of keeping al-Qaeda from taking over Iraq.

I never said he lied us into war.  I say that they lie to you about why Al Qaeda is there now and never telling you its their fault.  Regarding the other matter, I do, however, think he was misleading the sense of urgency with Cheyney having one hand up Bush’s ass and the other on the CIAs neck.

Surely, Hannitized, even you see that al-Qaeda conquering Iraq is an extremely bad thing.

I do, and in fact I disagree with Obama on that issue.  I have a direct line to Barack through his sister and my personal friend Maya.  I make my opinion known. I am trying to drop that bug in her ear so that she realizes other Democrats recognize that possibility.

It certainly is a lot more effective than making false straw-men arguments to those in your party who already agree with you.

elinas opines:

Oh bullshit. If you want to be at war, and subjucate people that have harmed you go ahead. As a matter of fact move over there.I am sure they will welcome you with open arms and a myriad of red white and blue roses.

And in so doing mistakes clearly viewed necessity for preference.

Meanwhile, our military expert Hannitized offers:

More right wing spin.

Someone here is spinning like a top and spraying spittle…

See if you can get one Republican to admit that Al Qaeda was bombing Iraqis BEFORE we invaded.

I’d actually tend to disagree with that.  But then again I think you merely failed to express yourself clearly (as usual).

The fundamental problem with the wing-nuts argument is that THERE WAS NO AL QAEDA THREAT UNTIL WE BROUGHT THEM HERE.

Demonstrably false.  Saddam and his intelligence agencies had met with al Qaeda prior to the U. S. led invasion of Iraq.  Zawahiri (an active senior member of al Qaeda), who became the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, was resident there before the invasion.

The fly-paper theory is another bogus right-wing meme.  We didn’t finish the battle in Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq.  The idea that drawing them into Iraq to fight on our terms is nonsense and dishonest non-sense at that.

Except of course that it has worked out that way; tens of thousands of Jihadi have been drawn to Iraq and have died there.  You should also note that Afghanistan is logistically austere, and that cross border movements from the tribal areas of Pakistan and from Iran are very difficult to interdict.  Iraq, which actually has longer land borders with two hostile regimes (Iran and Syria) is easier (but by no means easy) to supply and to interdict.

Get some credibility there Hannitized, and get back to us afterwards.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

Demonstrably false.  Saddam and his intelligence agencies had met with al Qaeda prior to the U. S. led invasion of Iraq.  Zawahiri (an active senior member of al Qaeda), who became the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, was resident there before the invasion.

A resident?  Look how clever a Republican can be.  He was present, therefore he was working with the government. 

If you didn’t notice, Rodney, we had quite a few Al Qaeda residents in our country too.  Does that mean they were working with our government?  No!

Care to describe the nature of the meetings between Saddam and Al Qaeda, Rodney?  The reports put out by the independent 9/11 Commission notes “No Cooperative ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq”!

Statement No. 15:

Bin Laden also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

Chew on that for a while..and get back to me.

I’d actually tend to disagree with that.  But then again I think you merely failed to express yourself clearly (as usual).

Well, im rushing to hammer these out while I am at work.  I meant to say that Al Qaeda was not bombing in Iraq until we invaded the country.  We drew them in.

And not one of you right-wing cowards will admit that.

Demonstrably false.  Saddam and his intelligence agencies had met with al Qaeda prior to the U. S. led invasion of Iraq.  Zawahiri (an active senior member of al Qaeda), who became the head of al Qaeda in Iraq, was resident there before the invasion.

You sir are a completely dishonest propagandist.  Your statement does not contest MY statement that “there was no threat”.  Zawahiri was no threat before our invasion and he was causing no trouble.  Do you or do you not believe we have Al Qaeda operatives in the US today?  If so, then are they co-operating with our government?  By your standards, yes.  Naive!

Except of course that it has worked out that way; tens of thousands of Jihadi have been drawn to Iraq and have died there.

And how many of those Jihadi’s were created by the act of the invasion, before they were killed?  Refer to the CIA report to get an idea.

Also, notice you will never admit there weren’t even a hundred before the invasion, let alone tens of thousands.  You just re-enforce my point.

Get some credibility there Hannitized, and get back to us afterwards.

Oh, I am quite certain it is you who needs some credibility.

“No Cooperative ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq”!

Doesn’t prove your claim that they weren’t there, does it?  Besides, that conclusion has been shown to be faulty, in light of subsequent information.  You’re not only off-topic, you’re flat out wrong.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES??!!!!!!

And there it is Bloggers/commenters/readers around the globe.

r-Gumby has done what no other commenter before him has done here on SA, 16,000 comments! His last 1,000 came in only 30 days! That’s a remarkable 33.33333 comments per day!

What courage, what stamina, what lack of outside life!
The sky is the limit now for the flat butted human comment machine. It shouldn’t be long now before he overshadows our humble host in comment count. That is if r-Gumby’s roid controversy doesn’t distract him from greatness.

Good luck to you r-Gumby you are a real man of genius and I salute you.

Oh, if only Neiman could see you now!

“If a conservative is still a republican after the last 13 years, he is blind to the fact that his party of choice has failed him utterly.” – Realitybasedbob

More right wing spin.
See if you can get one Republican to admit that Al Qaeda was bombing Iraqis BEFORE we invaded.

Sigh, H, H, H.

No one said they have. No one even suggested it here.

Straw man much?

A resident?  Look how clever a Republican can be.  He was present, therefore he was working with the government. 

What was it you just said above?

THERE WAS NO AL QAEDA THREAT UNTIL WE BROUGHT THEM HERE.

If he was a resident it means al Quida was there before we went there and that we did not in fact bring them in. Now you’re trying to have it both ways.

Plus, as you pointed out, they weren’t bombing Iraqis. Given their “famous hatred” of Saddam, it’s curious that none of the AQ members there were attacking. Hmmmm.

You refuse to address his actual point (they were there), and use another straw man “they weren’t working together” (which RG never said).

Statement No. 15:
Chew on that for a while..and get back to me.

That’s self contradictory. It details ties...then says there were no ties. The commission’s conclusion is false on it’s face by the very evidence they cite.

And not one of you right-wing cowards will admit that.

No one is saying they were. No one has ever claimed that. This is a “when did you stop beating your wife” question. Indeed that so many right wingers claim intimate ties between Saddam and AQ (you yourself accuse us of lying about how close they were, and keep saying “IRAQ DIDN"T CAUSE 9/11!"), it would be downright stupid to claim they were fighting. “Saddam and AQ were buddies” and “Iraq was being bombed pre-invasion by AQ” are conflicting statements.

You sir are a completely dishonest propagandist.  Your statement does not contest MY statement that “there was no threat”.  Zawahiri was no threat before our invasion and he was causing no trouble.  Do you or do you not believe we have Al Qaeda operatives in the US today?  If so, then are they co-operating with our government?  By your standards, yes.  Naive!

Ridiculous. Zawahiri was AQ’s 2nd in command. By this logic, OBL never caused us any trouble.

And saying that they were there is not saying they were in collusion with the gov’t of Iraq.

And how many of those Jihadi’s were created by the act of the invasion, before they were killed?  Refer to the CIA report to get an idea.

None. The AQ insurgents are entirely foreigners. The Iranian operatives are Iranian. And the sectarian violence is based on centuries of hatred and could finally go both ways (as opposed to the talking point that there was no sectarian violence...there was plenty, and it was state sanctioned). None of this was caused by us, though our invasion certainly gave the jihadists a target they could reach.

You sir are a completely dishonest propagandist.

You have no business called anyone dishonest. You brought up 4 straw men arguments, attributed many arguments to both Rob and Rodney that neither had made, asked a “when did you stop beating your wife type of question”, ignored facts, and used a source that contridicted itself as “proof”.

You’re not only a dishonest partisan hack yourself...but you REALLY suck at it.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

DO YOU BELIEVE IN MIRACLES??!!!!!!

My God RBB, you’re a douche.

You’ve almost hit a milestone yourself.

Soon to be 1000 comments, and not a single one of them intelligent.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

K: Don’t forget that he is attempting to hijack this thread into his little leftie talking point rant about Iraq, instead of discussing the subject of the thread, which is about the Dem surrender monkeys.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

No one said they have. No one even suggested it here.

The importance of this information goes to establish that republicans fail to disclose that they created a mess that they feel needs to be dealt with in their way.  They ignore there are other ways of dealing with the mess they created.

Further, if Al Qaeda wasn’t bombing Iraqis before we invaded, then you admit by default that they were enticed in by our invasion.  Not only were they enticed in, but many, if not most, were created by the anger that resulted from our unnecessary invasion.

If he was a resident it means al Quida was there before we went there and that we did not in fact bring them in. Now you’re trying to have it both ways.

You are distorting.  I said there was no “THREAT”....besides, I don’t think Zawahiri was ever in Iraq.  Maybe you are confusing him with Zarqawi, like a completely clueless winger?

You refuse to address his actual point (they were there), and use another straw man “they weren’t working together” (which RG never said).

Who was there?  How many?

When did they come and why?

When you answer those questions honestly, you will see that they came there in anticipation of our invasion and they were not there in any significant number.  Certainly not in any meaningful way like they were in our country, planning and completing attacks. 

Does that mean they were working with our government?  Yes or no?  I see you cowards fail to answer that question. 

That’s self contradictory. It details ties...then says there were no ties. The commission’s conclusion is false on it’s face by the very evidence they cite.

Oh brother!  The US had ties with Al Qaeda and Osama prior to 9/11.  You wing-nuts will spin anything.

I knew none of you had the courage or that facts that could refute my challenges. 

You show up with a pocket knife, to a gun fight.  Wimpy!

Ridiculous. Zawahiri was AQ’s 2nd in command. By this logic, OBL never caused us any trouble.

And saying that they were there is not saying they were in collusion with the gov’t of Iraq.

Zawahiri was never in Iraq.  You got your facts wrong and you are spinning.  Osama was working with the Taliban, no AQ member was working with the Iraqi government or was under their protection, like Osama was in AF.

The importance of this information goes to establish that republicans fail to disclose that they created a mess that they feel needs to be dealt with in their way.  They ignore there are other ways of dealing with the mess they created.

No, the importance of this is that you jumped off topic. There are quite a few Republicans who have publically stated “We broke it we bought it” in Iraq. There are no Republicans who don’t say we need to finx the problems in Iraq.

They didn’t create the mess in Iraq. It was always a mess. At worst you can say we replaced one set of problems with another.

What this boils down to is that you made unfounded claims. When called on them, you claimed that we wouldn’t own up to Iraq being a mess, because no one would publically refute comments that had never been made.

Further, if Al Qaeda wasn’t bombing Iraqis before we invaded, then you admit by default that they were enticed in by our invasion.  Not only were they enticed in, but many, if not most, were created by the anger that resulted from our unnecessary invasion.

Non sequitar.
This is no more true than saying that since they were there, that they MUST have been on teh Iraqi dole.
If almost none of AQI are Iraqis then what standard do you have to say “our invasion made them”? These are foreign fighters coming to Iraq to fight the great Satan. Their very actions undermine what you believe their motives are. If they were angry about us ruining Iraq, they sure as hell wouldn’t be blowing up civilians. That’s like protesting a serial killer by sniping a child.

You are distorting.  I said there was no “THREAT”....besides, I don’t think Zawahiri was ever in Iraq.  Maybe you are confusing him with Zarqawi, like a completely clueless winger?

Zawahiri was the number 2 in Al Quida before 9.11. Old guy. Gray Beard. Always making tapes telling us we’re going to die. This guy.

As opposed to Zarqawi, who we killed a year and some months back. The butcher of Baghdad. We dropped a thousand pounds of blow the hell up right on his head. This guy.

Both men had attacked US interests before Bush had even won the Republican primary.

It’s ok to admit you have no clue what you’re talking about now.

When you answer those questions honestly, you will see that they came there in anticipation of our invasion and they were not there in any significant number.  Certainly not in any meaningful way like they were in our country, planning and completing attacks.

Al Quida has had men in Iraq since the original WTC bombing in 93. Granted, Saddam had a revolving door of terrorists coming into and out of his country, so we don’t know which group was which, but he’s had terrorists a plenty since long before Bush took the oath of office.

Does that mean they were working with our government?  Yes or no?  I see you cowards fail to answer that question.

There’s nothing cowardly about assuming your worthless ass knew 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. The answer is a resounding no. Nice to know you’re a truther turd. Even Bill Clinton despises your kind.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

Oh brother!  The US had ties with Al Qaeda and Osama prior to 9/11.  You wing-nuts will spin anything.

I knew none of you had the courage or that facts that could refute my challenges. 

You show up with a pocket knife, to a gun fight.  Wimpy!

Your own evidence shows that there were ties between AQ and Iraq. That’s not spin. It’s simple fact. That no formal working relationship was made doesn’t mean there were no contacts. That’s like saying that, because you didn’t get a job, that you never went in for the interview. You’re not a terribly honest person.

Zawahiri was never in Iraq.  You got your facts wrong and you are spinning.  Osama was working with the Taliban, no AQ member was working with the Iraqi government or was under their protection, like Osama was in AF.

Again, demonstratably false. ‘93 WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef entered the US on an Iraqi passport. Abdul Rahman Yusin retreated from US custody back to Iraq where he was a guest of the state until right before we invaded, in 03.

Zawahiri received money from Saddam years back:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/04/more_terror_connections.asp

Forgetting all of these circumstances, among others, Tom also recalls, as Steve Hayes, myself, and others have for some time, that in 1998, “Ayman al-Zawahiri was in Baghdad ... and collected a check for $300,000 from the Iraqi regime.” I would add, for context, that this was in the same time frame as bin Laden and Zawahiri’s infamous fatwa calling for the murder of Americans — which, if you read it, argues that American actions against Iraq are a big part of the justification. It also came just a few months before al Qaeda bombed the U.S. embassies in east Africa, the Clinton administration bombed a Sudanese phramaceutical factory because intel indicated it was a joint Iraqi/Qaeda chemical weapons venture, and Clinton counter-terror honcho Richard Clarke fretted that “wily old Osama would boogie to Baghdad” — of all places — if the U.S. made things too hot for Qaeda in Afghanistan.

We have meetings, money changing hands. We have Saddam supporting previous AQ terrorists on government salary. The ridiculousness of “no links” is provably false by even the evidence the 9/11 commission presented. There was no evidence that they had become one entity, or that they were fiercely collaborative. But that is hardly “no links”.

You’re a dishonest man, Charlie Brown.

Obama/Biden is not change. It’s more of the same.

You show up with a pocket knife, to a gun fight.  Wimpy!

H,

Considering your record of misrepresentation, mishandling of facts, and mistakes, this just may be your most outrageous bit of self-delusional drivel yet.

You show up with the rhetorical equivalent of a straw and some spitballs, and suddenly you’re Wyatt Earp!? 

Too funny!

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Kenny,

Your responses have been reduced to spin, you are ignoring the main points of the argument and finally, you finish with obfuscation.

I will respond only one more time to you, unless you address the pertinent and important points.  If you don’t and keep spinning, I will not respond to you again.

Give me a few moments to respond to your weak responses and spin.

Our very own Hannitized threatens to stop talking to us:

I will respond only one more time to you, unless you address the pertinent and important points.

The problems being of course that Hannitized‘s pertinent points and clearly made points are both subsets of the null set.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

H: Do you have anything at all to contribute to the subject of this thread?  So far, you have simply spewed off-topic leftie talking points.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Hannitized, Kenny completely shut you down.

You lost man, move on.

Gentlemen,

Is it time for Hannitized to end the war in this thread?  The world wonders…

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

No, the importance of this is that you jumped off topic. There are quite a few Republicans who have publically stated “We broke it we bought it” in Iraq. There are no Republicans who don’t say we need to finx the problems in Iraq.

I am not off topic.  I am not going to defend myself against Robs false accusations.  Instead, I am on target by stating why Democrats actually oppose the war, NOT because we want to loose, but because we see how dangerous and stupid it was.

Regarding your lie or ignorant claim that “no Republicans are not for fixing Iraq”, allow me to prove you for the uninformed person you are. I trust you will not refute your hero “Robert Novack” on the FACT that there are several Republicans who were against the surge!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18718

President Bush and McCain, the front-runner for the next presidential nomination, in pressing for a surge of 30,000 more troops, will have trouble finding support from more than 12 out of 49 Republican senators. “It’s Alice in Wonderland,” Sen. Chuck Hagel, second-ranking Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, told me in describing the proposed surge. “I’m absolutely opposed to sending any more troops to Iraq. It is folly.”

Now, not only does this establish that I am the one who knows what he is talking about, but it also goes to show that YOU DONT. Further, it goes to establish that you will either lie, or spout off before doing any research before you speak.  Either way, it doesn’t look good for you at this stage and I will continue proving you wrong on the issues.

They didn’t create the mess in Iraq. It was always a mess. At worst you can say we replaced one set of problems with another.

They DID create the mess, you yourself just said “There are quite a few Republicans who have publicly (SIC) stated: “We broke it, we bought it"”.  The CIA wrote reports about how invading Iraq created more hatred for the US and turned more people into Jihadis and that we also gave them a training ground to go and learn how to fight us in urban environments and take that training to the world.  Allow me to once again, prove you don’t know what you are talking about.  This is like taking candy from a baby.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7460-2005Jan13.html

according to a report released yesterday by the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank.

Iraq provides terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, the opportunity for enhancing technical skills,” said David B. Low, the national intelligence officer for transnational threats. “There is even, under the best scenario, over time, the likelihood that some of the jihadists who are not killed there will, in a sense, go home, wherever home is, and will therefore disperse to various other countries.”

Chew on that, my friend.

What this boils down to is that you made unfounded claims. When called on them, you claimed that we wouldn’t own up to Iraq being a mess, because no one would publically refute comments that had never been made.

Except for they did and you just proved that I was right, like the enormously dishonest or ignorant Republican you are!!!

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0907/Romney_concedes_Iraq_a_mess_describes_threestep_plan.html

Romney concedes Iraq “a mess,” describes three-step plan

“Ok, well first of all, it is a mess,” Romney quickly admitted.  “So, so when you got a mess, there is no easy, good answer.  Alright.  The easy, good answer is to turn the clock back and do some things differently a long time ago.”

Do you see now Kenny, how you dont know what you are talking about on pretty much everything we gave discussed?  Do you see now why I am the more knowledgeable person on the issues?  Do you see now how my opinions and comments should be respected, because I can back them up with facts, while you go about lying, spinning or spouting ignorance?

I am going to continue to pound you on this.  If you wan’t to concede, I will look forward to a respectful apology.  If not, I will continue pointing out your spin.

Quite frankly, this is too easy.  I am sort of bored and I don’t have the time to play around.  I only am doing this so others can see how to talk to a Republican on the issues.

Hannitized, Kenny completely shut you down.

You lost man, move on.

Ha!  I just pounded the guy on facts.  Refuting every stupid, ignorant point of his with facts and evidence.

Only delusional political hacks would say something that stupid, and believe it.

I am on target by stating why Democrats actually oppose the war, NOT because we want to loose,(sic) but because we see how dangerous and stupid it was.

"Democrats" is plural. The sentence should read:

Because we see how dangerous and stupid they are.

You’re welcome!

For any voter trying to choose between the two candidates for commander in chief, there is no better test than this: When American strategy in a critical theater was up for grabs, John McCain proposed a highly unpopular and risky path, which he accurately predicted could lead to success. Barack Obama proposed a popular and politically safe route that would have led to an unnecessary and debilitating American defeat at the hands of al Qaeda.

Frederick W. Kagan

I have to get ready for a seminar.  I am seriously going to enjoy watching you guys flip and flop around trying to back out of this one.

Please, somebody tell me my facts are not facts and that Kenny, won the war....please. 

That’s is all I need to show the rest of the honest people in the world which of you live in denial, are liars and political hacks who aren’t worth debating.

NOT because we want to loose, but because we see how dangerous and stupid it was.

Even if you are right(and you’re not), that’s no justification for cutting and running from the terrorists in Iraq.  Where do you propose we surrender next?

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Since you cowardly walked away from getting your ass trounced.  I will continue shedding light on your lies and spin.

Non sequitar.
This is no more true than saying that since they were there, that they MUST have been on teh Iraqi dole.

Was that suppoed to be a point?  I don’t think you made yourself clear.  There was no threat in Iraq, to Iraqi’s or the US form Al Qaeda in Iraq prior to our invasion, period.

If almost none of AQI are Iraqis then what standard do you have to say “our invasion made them”?

The CIA report.  Go re-read it!

These are foreign fighters coming to Iraq to fight the great Satan. Their very actions undermine what you believe their motives are. If they were angry about us ruining Iraq, they sure as hell wouldn’t be blowing up civilians. That’s like protesting a serial killer by sniping a child.

They aren’t “worried about us ruining Iraq”, many believed they are fighting the West, “who has launched a war on Islam”.  This is the belief system many have as a result of paying attention to what Osama is saying.  Are you aslo ignorant as to why Saddam say’s he is attacking the US?

Zawahiri was the number 2 in Al Quida before 9.11. Old guy. Gray Beard. Always making tapes telling us we’re going to die. This guy.

As opposed to Zarqawi, who we killed a year and some months back. The butcher of Baghdad. We dropped a thousand pounds of blow the hell up right on his head. This guy.

Dude, Rodney said Zawahiri was in Iraq.  I didnt catch until later that he, and apparently you confused him with Zarqawi.  Are you also going to tell me Zawahiri was in Iraq?

Both of you guys are completely ignorant on the facts.  Pathetic.  This is child’s play man, child’s play.

Al Quida has had men in Iraq since the original WTC bombing in 93. Granted, Saddam had a revolving door of terrorists coming into and out of his country, so we don’t know which group was which, but he’s had terrorists a plenty since long before Bush took the oath of office.

We didnt know which group was which?  What a moronic thing to say.  Do you have any evidence to support these stupid statements?  Of course not! 

What AQ terrorist were in Iraq before 9/11.  Give me names bud, give me evidence, give me anything aside from your worthless, uninformed drivel.