DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Countries Al Queda Operated in as of Nov 10, 2001
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 51, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/25/2004 01:11:48 AM · #26
Originally posted by bdobe:
Over and over again, the Bush administration alluded to some nebulous connection between Iraq and Al Queda, even though their own internal intelligence reports stated that there weren't any connections.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
thelsel, I suggest to find a new source for your information (but I will refrain from comments like "asinine" in reference to you). Bush has (yes has) used Al Qaeda as a reason to invade Iraq.


Ok, this is the report the Bush administration released to coincide with W's September 2002 speech at the UN. It documents the US case for war in Iraq. Now, I defy you to find a single mention of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaida or 911. If that was a contributing factor for invading Iraq, why is there absolutely no mention of it here?
 09/25/2004 03:36:03 AM · #27
Im sorry thelsel, did you not see the Bush quotes I posted on page one?
 09/25/2004 04:27:25 AM · #28
Originally posted by ChrisW123:
What is really disturbing is that these [deleted] seem to like Alaska even. I'd have thought that cold climates like Alaska would repeal these people, but it looks like no where on Earth is safe from them?

Looks like the people of the World will need to take things into their own hands to "correct" this trend? :)


You're kidding me!? "[deleted]!"

Looks like you missed the 1954 off-ramp, and some how now find yourself in 2004. Please find the nearest off-ramp, turn around and find your way home in the last century.

Message edited by mk - edited to remove racial slurs.
 09/25/2004 04:55:59 AM · #29
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Over and over again, the Bush administration alluded to some nebulous connection between Iraq and Al Queda, even though their own internal intelligence reports stated that there weren't any connections.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
thelsel, I suggest to find a new source for your information (but I will refrain from comments like "asinine" in reference to you). Bush has (yes has) used Al Qaeda as a reason to invade Iraq.


Ok, this is the report the Bush administration released to coincide with W's September 2002 speech at the UN. It documents the US case for war in Iraq. Now, I defy you to find a single mention of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaida or 911. If that was a contributing factor for invading Iraq, why is there absolutely no mention of it here?


By god you need a lot hand holding.

Al Queda does not appear on the "official record" (that is the document that historians will cite when writing of the 43rd administration) because Bush & Co. knew that a connection between Al Queda and Iraq did not exist. Therefore, if the "official record" of the administration had explicitly linked Al Queda and Iraq/Hussein, future historians would not have looked kindly on the Bush administration. Moreover, Bush & Co. knew that they were making a case to two audiences: the one at home (us) and the international community. Again, Bush & Co. knew that they would not be able to make the case that a "link" existed -- at least not a sufficiently convincing case for the international community to belive.

Of course, the domestic audience is a completely different animal. The Bush administration knew that, given the state of affairs after 9/11, there was no way that the so-called liberal media would play its watch-dog role -- and that in stead it would simply rollover. Let's not forget the "super nationalism" of that time, much of which still lingers. Accordingly, the Bush administration set out to make its case in the court of public opinion and, as MM has documented in his previous post, Bush & Co. implicitly tied Bin Laden/Al Queda/Hussein/Iraq.

Again, look at the public record and the statements of various members of the Bush administration... it's there for all to see. Of course, staunch defenders of the administration will simply continue with their internal dissonance.
 09/25/2004 09:27:57 AM · #30
I wonder if there are limits on Ignore thread?
 09/25/2004 09:38:14 AM · #31

09/25/2004 09:53:24 AM · #32
As not to offend anyone, I have 'censored' the f-word. ;) I wonder how many radio stations have banned this?

American Idiot by Green Day

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation that under the new media.
And can you hear the sound of hysteria?
The subliminal mindf$@k America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
Convincing them to walk you.

Well maybe I'm the f&*khead America.
I'm not a part of a redneck agenda.
Now everybody do the propaganda.
And sing along in the age of paranoia.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
Convincing them to walk you.

Don't wanna be an American idiot.
Don't want a nation controlled by the media.
Information nation of hysteria.
It's going out to idiot America.

Welcome to a new kind of tension.
All across the alien nation.
Everything isn't meant to be okay.
Television dreams of tomorrow.
We're not the ones who're meant to follow.
Convincing them to walk you.

09/25/2004 09:54:49 AM · #33
09/25/2004 12:45:12 PM · #34
Originally posted by ericlimon:


Absolutely brilliant... now one of my favourite shots on the whole of DPC. Where on earth is it in your portfolio though?
 09/25/2004 01:24:54 PM · #35
09/27/2004 03:18:52 AM · #36
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Im sorry thelsel, did you not see the Bush quotes I posted on page one?

I don't deny any of the Presidents statements. I do however disagree with the whole premise of this thread. Although Al Qaida may have been a brief footnote in a long list of reasons to go into Iraq, it was by no means the main reason. And I'd love for you to find me the quote where the President EVER said that Iraq was involved in 911. Yet these two things seem to be the common misconception by people on the left.
 09/27/2004 03:46:01 AM · #37
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Over and over again, the Bush administration alluded to some nebulous connection between Iraq and Al Queda, even though their own internal intelligence reports stated that there weren't any connections.

Originally posted by MadMordegon:
thelsel, I suggest to find a new source for your information (but I will refrain from comments like "asinine" in reference to you). Bush has (yes has) used Al Qaeda as a reason to invade Iraq.


Ok, this is the report the Bush administration released to coincide with W's September 2002 speech at the UN. It documents the US case for war in Iraq. Now, I defy you to find a single mention of Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaida or 911. If that was a contributing factor for invading Iraq, why is there absolutely no mention of it here?


By god you need a lot hand holding.

Al Queda does not appear on the "official record" (that is the document that historians will cite when writing of the 43rd administration) because Bush & Co. knew that a connection between Al Queda and Iraq did not exist. Therefore, if the "official record" of the administration had explicitly linked Al Queda and Iraq/Hussein, future historians would not have looked kindly on the Bush administration. Moreover, Bush & Co. knew that they were making a case to two audiences: the one at home (us) and the international community. Again, Bush & Co. knew that they would not be able to make the case that a "link" existed -- at least not a sufficiently convincing case for the international community to belive.

Of course, the domestic audience is a completely different animal. The Bush administration knew that, given the state of affairs after 9/11, there was no way that the so-called liberal media would play its watch-dog role -- and that in stead it would simply rollover. Let's not forget the "super nationalism" of that time, much of which still lingers. Accordingly, the Bush administration set out to make its case in the court of public opinion and, as MM has documented in his previous post, Bush & Co. implicitly tied Bin Laden/Al Queda/Hussein/Iraq.

Again, look at the public record and the statements of various members of the Bush administration... it's there for all to see. Of course, staunch defenders of the administration will simply continue with their internal dissonance.


My god man what have you been smoking?

First off, anything the President or his administration says or does it part of the "official record". I know you really like your conspiracy theories, but it's not like there's two sets of books here. If anything historians will have access to stuff that won't be declassified for decades. Secondly when has the liberal media simply rolled over for the President? Once trusted news organizations like "See BS News" have completely fabricated stories to sway the elections. And this "super nationalism" you speak of was long gone by the time Iraq entered the picture. Ted Kennedy was already spewing out many treasonous statements by then.
09/27/2004 03:14:39 PM · #38
Thelsel,

No conspiracy theories here; in stead, I present a better, clearer understanding of how mass media and politics work. I've not for once resorted to images of smoked filled rooms, black helicopters or anything that would closely resemble a "conspiracy." However, as many that don't have a clear grasp of the forces that shape policy decisions, you readily invoked the notion of a "conspiracy," simply to easily dismiss the argument that's presented without you having to do any independent thinking on your own.

I'm not just some lonely voice crying wolf in the middle of a vast forest. The March 14, 2003, Christian Science Monitor -- that's before the Iraq invasion --, the magazine concluded the following, much as I commented in my previous post:

"Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago."

[...]

"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.

[...]

"Polling data show that right after Sept. 11, 2001, when Americans were asked open-ended questions about who was behind the attacks, only 3 percent mentioned Iraq or Hussein. But by January of this year, attitudes had been transformed. In a Knight Ridder poll, 44 percent of Americans reported that either "most" or "some" of the Sept. 11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. The answer is zero."

[...]

In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.

"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."

---------------------------------------

//www.csmonitor.com/2003/0314/p02s01-woiq.html
 09/27/2004 03:36:28 PM · #39
09/27/2004 04:12:40 PM · #40
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Typical liberal photo. Another distorted face speaking to the left.
 09/27/2004 04:28:42 PM · #41
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Typical liberal photo. Another distorted face speaking to the left.


but he is screaming from the right...
 09/27/2004 06:38:50 PM · #42
Originally posted by ericlimon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by ericlimon:

Typical liberal photo. Another distorted face speaking to the left.


but he is screaming from the right...


lol nice..
 09/27/2004 09:01:05 PM · #43
09/27/2004 09:04:52 PM · #44

09/27/2004 09:29:17 PM · #45
09/27/2004 09:33:35 PM · #46
Originally posted by ericlimon:


BAahahahahahahahah oh thats friggin hilarious!
 09/27/2004 09:56:21 PM · #47
Originally posted by thelsel:
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
Im sorry thelsel, did you not see the Bush quotes I posted on page one?

I don't deny any of the Presidents statements. I do however disagree with the whole premise of this thread. Although Al Qaida may have been a brief footnote in a long list of reasons to go into Iraq, it was by no means the main reason. And I'd love for you to find me the quote where the President EVER said that Iraq was involved in 911. Yet these two things seem to be the common misconception by people on the left.


***So then what were the reasons that the Bush administration invaded Iraq? Please back up your assertions with quotes from the Bush administration.
 09/27/2004 10:02:14 PM · #48
I could back it up with KERRY quotes !

I am not going to...because you know I could come up with quotes of him supporting the war.

This whole debate is like a dog chasing his tail...it never ends.

09/27/2004 10:10:19 PM · #49
Originally posted by Riggs:
I could back it up with KERRY quotes !

I am not going to...because you know I could come up with quotes of him supporting the war.

This whole debate is like a dog chasing his tail...it never ends.


***I agree it never ends, but I would like to hear what the reasons were in Bush's, Cheney's, Rumsfelds, Wolfowitz's, Powell's or any other Bush team member's own words. Then we can start to come to some kind of conclusion. As far as I know, all Kerry did was vote to allow Bush to declare war on Iraq on Bush's timetable.
 09/27/2004 10:14:53 PM · #50
Originally posted by terje:
bdobe, who cares? Let's go out for some beer and tiddies! :-)


***No wonder the world is in such a bad state.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 07:40:54 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/01/2025 07:40:54 PM EDT.