*BREAKING* Al Queda has taken over Tikrit and Samarra. 500,000 Iraqis have fled !

If they had fewer nutjobs, then it wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

We did arm them from the beginning. What ended up happening is that a lot of the arms went to radicals.

Anytime you have a huge insurgency like this, it's hard to keep the weapons out of the hands of people likely even worse than their oppressors.

We've seen it time and time again in both the Middle East and Africa.

We've also seen it in parts of Europe and South America.

 

OBL's motivation had to do with our connection to Saudi Arabia mostly. You could argue our interventionism in the Middle East in general often inspires terrorism, but that would imply we should get involved less.

 

Cute. Pointless waste of time , but cute.


For Al Qaeda, Iraq had everything to do with 9/11.

 

World Islamic Front Statement
23 February 1998
Shaykh Usamah Bin-Muhammad Bin-Ladin

...No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, ...The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, ... the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, ...

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state ....The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, ...

On that basis, and in compliance with Allah's order, we issue the following fatwa to all Muslims:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

 

Yes you are, facts are not in your bag o tricks

- - - Updated - - -

The funny thing is everyone else can tell the story is talking about Iraq buy was not from Iraq. Reading comprehesion is everything

 

Reading comprehension isn't in yours.

No one claimed it was "from Iraq". That's your reading comprehension again. It was from Al Qaeda, like I said.

 

No what you kept posting was "Al Qaeda Iraq" and made claims they were tied to 9-11, neither is the truth. So it seems it is not I that is the one with the issue of comprehension.

 

Ok, I wasn't aware of that part, but what we were talking about earlier was the context of why we invaded Iraq.

Again, since 9/11 had nothing to do with Saddam, and Al Quida had no significant presence in Iraq, there wasn't much point to invading it. If anything, the statements above suggest that, by invading Iraq, we just pissed off more people, thereby encouraging more terrorists.

One thing is for sure. The chaos that grew after removing Saddam was the perfect environment for expanding terrorism in the region.

 

Why doesn't your history lesson include the fact that the United States had nothing to do with all of that colonization of the Middle East? Why doesn't it include the fact that the U.S. did not draw up a single border in the region, ever?

 

Still your inability to comprehend meaning from the written word.

 

Yeeeaaaah thats what we were talking about. Rational discussion probably isnt possible with a man of your character.

 

Even Glen Beck admits liberals were correct when they condemned Bush's treasonous war on Iraq:


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/18/1307783/-Glenn-Beck-Admits-Liberals-You-Were-Right-On-Iraq




As I have said all along: we have no business being there.

 

You must have a short memory.

And the discussion went from there concerning Saddam and 9/11.

You can say that 9/11 was connected to Iraq from the perspective of us fighting them in the 90s, but when you made the statement of "with the price of 9/11", that implied that Saddam's presence led to 9/11.

Now, maybe you meant something different from that, but that's how I interpreted it.

You've shown that apparently our interventionism with Iraq inspired terrorism, but I was simply saying that Saddam's rule over Iraq didn't contribute to terrorism against the West or empowering Al Quida.

 

Silly boy Iraq had Nothing to do with why OBL planned the 9-11 attack it was our presence in SA, his homeland and the holy of holys in their religion, he stated this more than once and said he wanted all westerners out, in particular the US. Several people have already stated this here, yet you seem to think different, you choice. Personally I do not care WHY, just as I would not care WHY someone would try and attack me or my family, the WHY means nothing, the reply to their actions is all that matters and the reply should always be sudden and final.

 

Actually what you have posted so far is more of a reflection on your character than anyone elses here, seems like you are here to argue with anyone that dares question your claim, so be it, you confusion is your issue not mine. Enjoy

 

Doesn't matter what you believe, silly girl. Al Qaedas beliefs are the only thing relevant here.

 

Still going in circles I see, have fun.

 

Actually, right here in the same spot I was yesterday.

Youre running in circles only makes it appear to you that I have gone in a circle

 

History doesn't agree with you. I'm going to trust what the people who were actually there at the time say.

 

ISIS is NOT Al-Qaida, they are saddam era ex-baathists



border of Peshmerga, ISIS and Maliki, gets updated every minute...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Iraq_war_detailed_map

 

This is the only real solution for Iraq, as KRG is already semi independent with its own army, oil pipelines and Govt'al institutions like President, Parl and PM.... even their own separate border with Iraq....

 

Saddam didn't tolerate Al Qaeda but he did manage to protect the 50 Christian churches in Baghdad.

 

In 1919. The Royal Air Force asked Churchill for permission to use chemical weapons "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment." Churchill, secretary of state at the war office at the time, promptly consented. "I am strongly in favor of using poisoned gas against uncivilized tribes," he explained. Bomber Harris, an up-and-coming air force officer in 1919, concurred: "They [the Arabs and Kurds] now know what real bombing means, in casualties and damage."

They most certainly did bomb civilians with impunity.