Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Diesel Fuel Costs Hurting Shiney Wheels
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 314869" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>Haven't had a chance to read it completely but something did grab my attention that makes an excellent point at what I've believed all along. </p><p> </p><p>On page 15 under Executive summary, first paragraph, it sez:</p><p></p><p> </p><p>Now I want to also include something from President Bush's Office to not only back up the fact that Saddam was involved with global terror groups but even supports fully the assertion that Saddam was backing Pan Arab terrorist. </p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html</a></p><p> </p><p>BTW: The above is found within a larger document entitled Iraq, Denial and Deception which was put out by the WH. Here's the opening page with Table of Contents which links to those chapters.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html" target="_blank">http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html</a></p><p> </p><p>Let's take the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization first. Who or what are they. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm" target="_blank">http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>Now why would you think Saddam would be hooked up with these guys? Internal Iraq security over who? Maybe a large Shia population that has roots not in "ARAB" Iraq but rather "PERSIAN" Iran.</p><p> </p><p>Here's more on them from the Council on Foreign Relations</p><p><a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/#2" target="_blank">http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/#2</a></p><p> </p><p>Being from Iran meaning Persian roots I guess we can rule out Pan Arab so this would most likely be a Pan-Islamic movement. I think we can both agree that these guys were just "useful idiots" for Saddam or at least that's MO. Being Saddam was Sunni Arab I can't see Saddam throwing in at the end of the day with a bunch of Shia Iranians.</p><p> </p><p>Next is the PLO. What's to say that isn't already known. Sunni Arab for the most part and if you study Pan Arabism it's clear IMO that the PLO's purpose in truth is to force out Isreal so a Pan-Arab State from the North in Syria down to Egypt and then across the the Arabian Pennisula and around Iraq and Jordan. You know the area promised to Abraham in Genesis that the Arabs believe their direct heir Ismael was really given.</p><p> </p><p>Next we have the Abu Nidal Organization which is an offshoot of the PLO. I'll defer again to the Council on Foreign Relations on this matter.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p><a href="http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/" target="_blank">http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/</a></p><p> </p><p>What is the Baath party? <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party</a></p><p> </p><p>Look, no argument that Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism but it was for his own purposes, not unto some religious cause or crusade. This is why he and Al Queda or Bin Laden don't fit because Saddam's motive was secular and Al Queda and Laden were purely religious and neither side could effectively use the other for it's own gain. Sure they may gain when the other acted independently but it wasn't something that would form a relationship because at the end of the day if they won, they'd be out trying to kil one another because the motives were so different.</p><p> </p><p>Saddam suported the Pan Arabism of the Baath party meaning a reuniting of all the Arab lands as one but with a bit of a twist. Instead of being ruled from Arabia as Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, the late Sharif of Mecca envisioned when he dreamed of departing from the Ottoman Empire. Saddam envisoned rebuilding ancient Babylon and ruling from there.</p><p> </p><p><a href="http://architecture.about.com/cs/countriescultures/a/saddamspalace.htm" target="_blank">http://architecture.about.com/cs/countriescultures/a/saddamspalace.htm</a></p><p> </p><p>This is also why the powers of Saudia Arabia feared Saddam as well as Bin Laden when Iraq invaded Kuwait as they saw themselves next in Saddam's drive of his new Babylon.</p><p> </p><p>So taking the Que from the President himself, I'm completely cool with his assessment of Saddam's terrorism links as he listed in the above linked document. It would at least for now seem that the President's assesment and the one you linked confirm one another just from what I read in the executive summary. I will read more as time allows and if I see otherwise to my thinking I'll consider those points. </p><p> </p><p>Saddam was a nutjob, no arguement but he was all about himself and his own power. Al Queda and Bin Laden are about a pure Arabian Pennisula and if that is achieved they would retire to that area never to be heard from again content with their own heaven on earth. Bin Laden was silent until we entered the Arabian pennisula in 1990' to defend the Saudia dynasty from Saddam's Pan Arab Babylon. </p><p> </p><p>Pan Arabism is an interesting study in itself and the history from Sayyid Hussein bin Ali to today is very worthwhile IMO.</p><p> </p><p>Well time to go clean up some storm damage as we had a hell of a night last night. Downtown Atlanta is trashed. I'm just glad we didn't lose power at work because I always have to stay until it comes back on no matter what or how late. I've threatened for years to buy a hot stick from the power company because I know the exact jacks that blow out and I'd just walk down the street and latch em back in. The power company guys don't grin when I say that!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/happy-very.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":happy-very:" title="Happy Very :happy-very:" data-shortname=":happy-very:" /></p><p> </p><p>Thanks again for the link there AV.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 314869, member: 2189"] Haven't had a chance to read it completely but something did grab my attention that makes an excellent point at what I've believed all along. On page 15 under Executive summary, first paragraph, it sez: Now I want to also include something from President Bush's Office to not only back up the fact that Saddam was involved with global terror groups but even supports fully the assertion that Saddam was backing Pan Arab terrorist. [URL]http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/decade/sect5.html[/URL] BTW: The above is found within a larger document entitled Iraq, Denial and Deception which was put out by the WH. Here's the opening page with Table of Contents which links to those chapters. [URL]http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912.html[/URL] Let's take the Mujahedin-e-Khalq Organization first. Who or what are they. [URL]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm[/URL] Now why would you think Saddam would be hooked up with these guys? Internal Iraq security over who? Maybe a large Shia population that has roots not in "ARAB" Iraq but rather "PERSIAN" Iran. Here's more on them from the Council on Foreign Relations [URL]http://www.cfr.org/publication/9158/#2[/URL] Being from Iran meaning Persian roots I guess we can rule out Pan Arab so this would most likely be a Pan-Islamic movement. I think we can both agree that these guys were just "useful idiots" for Saddam or at least that's MO. Being Saddam was Sunni Arab I can't see Saddam throwing in at the end of the day with a bunch of Shia Iranians. Next is the PLO. What's to say that isn't already known. Sunni Arab for the most part and if you study Pan Arabism it's clear IMO that the PLO's purpose in truth is to force out Isreal so a Pan-Arab State from the North in Syria down to Egypt and then across the the Arabian Pennisula and around Iraq and Jordan. You know the area promised to Abraham in Genesis that the Arabs believe their direct heir Ismael was really given. Next we have the Abu Nidal Organization which is an offshoot of the PLO. I'll defer again to the Council on Foreign Relations on this matter. [URL]http://www.cfr.org/publication/9153/[/URL] What is the Baath party? [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baath_Party[/URL] Look, no argument that Saddam wasn't involved in terrorism but it was for his own purposes, not unto some religious cause or crusade. This is why he and Al Queda or Bin Laden don't fit because Saddam's motive was secular and Al Queda and Laden were purely religious and neither side could effectively use the other for it's own gain. Sure they may gain when the other acted independently but it wasn't something that would form a relationship because at the end of the day if they won, they'd be out trying to kil one another because the motives were so different. Saddam suported the Pan Arabism of the Baath party meaning a reuniting of all the Arab lands as one but with a bit of a twist. Instead of being ruled from Arabia as Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, the late Sharif of Mecca envisioned when he dreamed of departing from the Ottoman Empire. Saddam envisoned rebuilding ancient Babylon and ruling from there. [URL]http://architecture.about.com/cs/countriescultures/a/saddamspalace.htm[/URL] This is also why the powers of Saudia Arabia feared Saddam as well as Bin Laden when Iraq invaded Kuwait as they saw themselves next in Saddam's drive of his new Babylon. So taking the Que from the President himself, I'm completely cool with his assessment of Saddam's terrorism links as he listed in the above linked document. It would at least for now seem that the President's assesment and the one you linked confirm one another just from what I read in the executive summary. I will read more as time allows and if I see otherwise to my thinking I'll consider those points. Saddam was a nutjob, no arguement but he was all about himself and his own power. Al Queda and Bin Laden are about a pure Arabian Pennisula and if that is achieved they would retire to that area never to be heard from again content with their own heaven on earth. Bin Laden was silent until we entered the Arabian pennisula in 1990' to defend the Saudia dynasty from Saddam's Pan Arab Babylon. Pan Arabism is an interesting study in itself and the history from Sayyid Hussein bin Ali to today is very worthwhile IMO. Well time to go clean up some storm damage as we had a hell of a night last night. Downtown Atlanta is trashed. I'm just glad we didn't lose power at work because I always have to stay until it comes back on no matter what or how late. I've threatened for years to buy a hot stick from the power company because I know the exact jacks that blow out and I'd just walk down the street and latch em back in. The power company guys don't grin when I say that! :happy-very: Thanks again for the link there AV. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Diesel Fuel Costs Hurting Shiney Wheels
Top