What the......!!

[whodey319]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 04:44 PM'][i]That's cute.... Whodey319 reached his breaking point  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/3.gif[/img]

[img]http://www.watan.com/img/1/girl-crying.jpg[/img]

Well don't worry cause I still love you like Christ would  [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img] [/i]
[right][post="106870"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]
no breaking point here, your just a dick. You just try to back up all your ascenine points with other people writings and attempts at funny pictures. Are you mad because a priest didnt pick you out to have a little fun when you were 13 so because of that there is no god.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 04:48 PM'][i][b]Dynamite is not a WMD 

Fuck every nation in the world has dynamite, it is needed for construction for fucks sake.  Every nation in the world has shit loads of dynamite.  the state of Ohio I am sure possesses far more than 368 tons worth.... Bush was criticized because now the insurgents have that dynamite and will continue to kill Americans who he put there in harms way.........

Oh I forgot "fight and piss them off over there, so we don't have to fight them here" [/b][/i]
[right][post="106872"][/post][/right][/quote]

Who the fuck said dynimite it was high yield fucking explosive. get those fucking blinders off ur face before u go sticking words in my mouth. And you remember how big a deal it was before the election now u wont say shit about. U dont have shit on it man. [b]Cause U KNOW UR FUCKING WRONG[/b]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]Are you mad because a priest didnt pick you out to have a little fun when you were 13 so because of that there is no god.[/quote]

I have heard it all now [img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/30.gif[/img]

[b]BJ:[/b] [i]"Priests shouldn't molest kids"[/i]

[b]WhoDey319:[/b] [i]"not all of them do"[/i]

[b]BJ:[/b] [i]"yeah but the church now has a policy allowing them play with one dick and get away with it"[/i]

[b]WhoDey319:[/b] [i]"you are just mad because they didn't play with yours, Go Jesus"[/i]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote]Who the fuck said dynimite it was high yield fucking explosive.[/quote]

[i]Change out explosives for dynamite same concept.... all nations have explosives... how the hell do you think they build a road through a mountain [/i]


[i]if we are going to invade every brown people nation with explosives we have a lot of work to do [/i]

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='BlackJesus' date='Jun 24 2005, 04:55 PM'][i]Change out explosives for dynamite same concept.... all nations have explosives... how the hell do you think they build a road through a mountain [/i]
[i]if we are going to invade every brown people nation with explosives we have a lot of work to do [/i]
[right][post="106879"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

U dont get it do you BJ?? i wasnt the one calling it WMD... The news did that for me

every newspaper in america had a story simmerliar




W loses WMD!!!!!!!! <<<< fucking headlines man..... so talk to the media not me...

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='bengalrick' date='Jun 24 2005, 02:57 PM']absolutely... and if that is what you think of him, more power to you... i can't think of anyone that tries to imply he's a genius...

but at least, this can prove that it wasn't only bush that thought he had the weapons... if you can think back to before 9/11 or soon after, i bet you actually thought he had them too... i sure as hell did... we were in a weird period of time after 9/11, and any threat was intensified a thousand times... of course, this was the reason it was sold to the people... there were many more reasons to go to war, but that was the main reason... i don't think he lied, i think it was either 1) bad intellegence 2) the weapons were moved... i will not believe he lied until that is proven, [b]b/c no president wants to go to war... who wants the burden of death on your shoulders, if the only thing you get out of it, is a good name (by half of the population), a horrible name (the other half   ), free people that don't/didn't vote for you, and make the security better, even though they are thousands of miles away... he didn't want to make that decision imo, but after 9/11, we had to take care of business...[/b][right][post="106847"][/post][/right][/quote]

The former top anti-terrorism advisor to the president Richard Clark had this to say regarding what he experienced in dealing with the current administration after 9/11.
[quote]In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one.

The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes.

The administration maintains that it cannot find any evidence that the conversation about an Iraq-9/11 tie-in ever took place.

Clarke also tells CBS News Correspondent Lesley Stahl that White House officials were tepid in their response when he urged them months before Sept. 11 to meet to discuss what he saw as a severe threat from al Qaeda.

"Frankly," he said, "I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know."

Clarke went on to say, "I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."

The No. 2 man on the president's National Security Council, Stephen Hadley, vehemently disagrees. He says Mr. Bush has taken the fight to the terrorists, and is making the U.S. homeland safer.

Clarke says that [b]as early as the day after the attacks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pushing for retaliatory strikes on Iraq, even though al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan[/b][/quote]

Bush had war on his mind the moment he stepped into office..If the VP happens to be the ex-CEO of the company who got the majority of the contracts for providing logistics to the armed forces, that's not a coincedence and it's also a damn good reason to go to war. This administration could care less about the soldiers fighting this war, Rumsfeld told them to fight to the war with the weapons they have, they've cut soldiers pay while paying Halliburton employees 2x times as much to do the same job, etc...Imo, the soldiers have gotten the rawest deal, they have to put their lives at risk for the greed of others.

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='Jun 24 2005, 04:09 PM']U dont get it do you BJ?? i wasnt the one calling it WMD... The news did that for me

every newspaper in america had a story simmerliar
W loses WMD!!!!!!!! <<<< fucking headlines man..... so talk to the media not me...
[right][post="106887"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

As I recall, no one was describing the missing explosives as WMD, just as dangerous and powerful. The criticism surrounded the lack of security at weapons dumps.

[BengalsCat]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' date='Jun 24 2005, 05:16 PM']As I recall, no one was describing the missing explosives as WMD, just as dangerous and powerful. The criticism surrounded the lack of security at weapons dumps.
[right][post="106892"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

I remember them being called WMD in my paper here in FL. and i believe NYT ran it under that headline to..

[url="http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12191&Cr=iraq&Cr1=nuclear"]http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...raq&Cr1=nuclear[/url]


What about that shit to.. he had stuff to make nuclear weapons.. but no wmd????

Also

.N. manipulation?

Last Monday, the New York Times carried a front-page story that could change the outcome of the 2004 elections.According to the Times, a cache of powerful explosives used to "make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons" was missing from an installation where Saddam Hussein had conducted nuclear-weapons research, a facility that "was supposed to be under American military control."The story was soon all over the television news. Melissa Fleming, the

Couldnt get rest of article but u get the point. These explosives can be used in missle war heads and to detinate nuclear material which he had as listed above

[Guest bengalrick]

[url="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36844"]click here[/url]

[quote][b]U.S. intel: WMD went to Syria last year[/b]
Evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 30, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily brings readers exclusive, up-to-the-minute global intelligence news and analysis from Geostrategy-Direct, a new online newsletter edited by veteran journalist Robert Morton and featuring the "Backgrounder" column compiled by Bill Gertz. Geostrategy-Direct is a subscription-based service produced by the publishers of WorldTribune.com, a free news service frequently linked by the editors of WorldNetDaily.

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

[b]The U.S. intelligence community has found evidence Syria received Iraqi missiles and WMD in late 2002 and early 2003, U.S. officials said, according to Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service. [/b]

[b]The evidence includes satellite photographs of Iraqi convoys believed to be bringing missiles and WMD into Syria as well as assertions from Iraqi officials that ousted leader Saddam Hussein ordered such a transfer.[/b]

[b]Still, the agencies fail to agree that sufficient evidence has been obtained to press the issue with the Syrian regime of President Bashar Assad. [/b]

Importantly, CIA Director George Tenet shares this view, officials said.

As a result, the Bush administration and senior members of Congress have reached different conclusions over whether Syria obtained Iraqi WMD. [b]The administration has determined the intelligence evidence remains insufficient, while senior staffers and members of Congress said the evidence is enough to press Syria to open its facilities to inspection.[/b]

"I think that there is some concern that shipments of WMD went to Syria," Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said.

David Kay, who resigned last week from the CIA-sponsored Iraq Survey Group, went further. Kay said Iraqi officials told his investigators that WMD was sent to Syria before the war in Iraq.

[b]"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," Kay told the London Daily Telegraph. "But we know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved." [/b]

In his State of the Union address on Jan. 20, President George W. Bush did not identify Syria as a U.S. adversary or a country having missiles and WMD programs. The president did cite Iran and North Korea, both of which have supplied systems to Damascus.

In December, Bush signed into law the Syria Accountability Act. The law calls for a virtual trade embargo on Syria for its occupation of Lebanon, WMD program and harboring of terrorist groups.

But Vice President Dick Cheney said Iraq had assembled WMD on portable platforms, a development that would have enabled the transfer of assets to other parts in or outside the country. In an interview with National Public Radio, Cheney did not cite Syria as receiving weapons from Saddam.

[b]"We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point, which we believe were in fact part of a [WMD] program," Cheney said. "I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction." [/b]

So far, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of State Colin Powell have rejected the prospect that Iraqi biological and chemical weapons or missiles were sent to Syria. They echoed U.S. assessments that Saddam would not have trusted Assad with Iraq's missile and WMD assets.

[b]"I have seen no hard evidence to suggest that is the case, that suddenly there were no weapons found in Iraq because they were all in Syria," Powell said. "I don't know why the Syrians would do that, frankly, why it would be in their interest. They didn't have that kind of relationship with Iraq." [/b] (powell was the only descenting person on this matter...)



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


Subscribe to Geostrategy-Direct.[/quote]

that is only one example...

[url="http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/25/iraq.explosives/"]click here[/url]

[quote]Some 380 tons of explosives powerful enough to detonate nuclear warheads are missing from a former Iraqi military facility that was supposed to be under American control, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency says.[/quote]

and how about this very important find:

[url="http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.nuclear/index.html"]click here[/url]

[quote]The senior adviser to Iraq's Interior Ministry blamed U.S. forces Tuesday for not securing facilities where the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency [b]says equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons has vanished[/b].[/quote]


[quote]"The kind of equipment we're talking about ... is the sort of thing that has a multitude of industrial applications," Gwozdecky said. "We were satisfied when we were in Iraq that it was not being used for a nuclear weapons program.

"In the wrong hands, it could be turned to use in a nuclear weapons program," he said. "Until we establish that this material is in responsible hands, we have to treat it as a serious proliferation concern."[/quote]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='BengalsCat' date='Jun 24 2005, 04:29 PM']Couldnt get rest of article but u get the point. These explosives can be used in missle war heads and to detinate nuclear material which he had as listed above
[right][post="106898"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post][/right][/quote]

That is a good point. What I remember thinking, at the time, was two separate points. First, that the NYT was doing some pre-election shenanigans, and second, that our troops were going to be getting a lot more IUDs in their path.

Even so, the way this admin manipulated the press, which some folks have argued was along the lines of psy ops against the American people, is shameful, and the fact that this admin continues to condone manipulative tactics of this sort will be a black mark against this admin, and our citizens--for being so gullible.

Here is the really dangerous part. BBacker posted Clinton's remarks about the Iraqi government and to a certain extent this demonstrates a continuity of policy orientation. It was a policy driven by realpolitick and the nasty principles of folks like Bzrezinski, et al. You can trace this stuff all the way back to Kennan, Dulles, and the original ColdWarriors. What BBacker leaves out, if he considered it at all, is the crucial context underlying the idea of regime change, and that is the statement of doctrine about pre-emption. Yes, I know, these sorts of pronouncements are not-sexy, but they represent the bedrock on which policy formulation is made. The movement to a doctrine of pre-emption not in comformance with accepted norms of international law is a big step. Huge, in fact.

Consider the place of the Monroe Doctrine in our history. Everyone has heard of it, few people know that it was a mere few paragraphs in an address by Monroe, and that the comments were authored by John Quincy Adams, then Sec State. The statement of principle, therein, has been highly influential over the last 175 years.

The Bush Doctrine was the same kind of pronouncement. The Patriot Act is legislation of the same kind: it overthrows previous axiomatic principles which this country stood for for so long.

That is what concerns some people. The dirty secret of this admin is that they are radical revolutionaries, and the revolution they want to impose upon us is a step down, as a matter of principle, from what this country stands for. Recent attacks on the judiciary and the Senate prove this, and furthermore, demonstrate an intent to be radical and revolutionary. Some of these people know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it.

But it isn't our president. He's a puppet precisely because he is incapable of understanding the deeper implications of his exercise of power.

I urge people to actually listen to the radio address that caused BengalSis to start this thread. Once again, it is clear to anyone who knows a little about how the mind works, that our president is not aware of the implications of many of the ideas he presents.

Does that make him a bad man? No, not necessarily. Does that make him a dangerous man? Absolutely, given the job he has.

Now, the boneheads here will have a fit and think that what I am saying is politically motivated, instead of being motivated by a genuine concern for the Republic. Some of you, whom I disagree with, have similar motivations and are honest in their good intentions for this nation. We'd better be able to speak to each other in the future, because events are going to get worse before they get better.

[Ben]

hehehe... just saw this...


[img]http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW05-26-04.gif[/img]

[Guest BlackJesus]

[u]Is Iraq becoming 'Terrorism U'?
MSNBC analyst Kohlmann joins 'Countdown' to discuss the insurgency
June 23, 2005
Alison Stewart[/u]


Usually, when one wants to learn a new skill, to hone it to perfection, you have to know where to go. Steven Spielberg wannabes flock to film schools.
Would-be Wolfgang Pucks head to the CIA -- the Culinary Institute of America.

Now, another CIA, as in the Central Intelligence Agency, is saying that terrorists in training are taking over Iraq.

Wednesday's third story on MSNBC-TV's 'Countdown' looked at the new "TU" or "Terrorist University." Classified intelligence reports say post-Saddam Iraq is serving as a real-life laboratory for the next generation of jihad, a curriculum so complete that it may be an even more effective training ground than Afghanistan was for al-Qaida. Car bombings are becoming so commonplace that today there were four alone in and around Baghdad on Wednesday and a record 700 bombings against U.S. forces in just the last month.

This form of urban combat may leap across the borders and even across the globe when these students graduate and decide to leave Iraq. Analysts at the CIA are calling it the "class of '05 problem." At the same time, the insurgency itself is getting more sophisticated, changing tactics and making them even more deadly with each new attack.

Evan Kohlmann, an MSNBC analyst and founder of Globalterroralert.com, joined Alison Stewart on Wednesday's 'Countdown' to discuss the issue. To read an excerpt of their conversation, continue to the text below. To watch the video clip, click on the link above.

ALISON STEWART: Evan, let's talk a little about this report, the CIA's assessment that Iraq could turn into an even bigger training ground for terrorists than Afghanistan ever was. Now, explain why that would be.

EVAN KOHLMANN: Well, it's actually interesting. Previously, al-Qaida has always sought a base of operations close to the heart of the Middle East. However, they've been exiled to far-reaching parts of the Muslim world, like Afghanistan, like Chechnya, like Bosnia, where they've been forced to fight frontline wars against really mid-level opponents, people that don't use the technology of
U.S. military.

Inside of Iraq, we see a much different war. Instead of a frontline battlefield, we see an urban-style gorilla war that really pits these guys in exactly the kind of conflict they want to be in, a conflict that's based out of suicide car bombings, sniper attacks, assassinations, roadside bombs, the kind of conflict that breeds terrorists, that teach the exact skills that terrorists need to have. And these are the skills that are becoming commonplace now for those that are in Iraq, both Iraqi and foreign fighters.

STEWART: So you talk about these folks showing their skills in Iraq. Are they likely to export the skills, and where?

KOHLMANN: Yes. Unfortunately, yes. And I think the answers are not going to surprise you. They're the same answers we've been seeing for years now. Out of 300 foreign fighters I polled inside of Iraq, I found that over 55 percent were Saudi Arabian nationals, who to a tee said that they were going to Iraq in the same spirit as the 9/11 hijackers, who they called heroes. These guys inevitably will return to their countries of origin.

Now, the problem is, we're not just talking about Saudis, we're not just talking about Syrians and Jordanians, we're also talking about increasing numbers of Europeans. At least five Frenchmen and five Italians have been killed so far in the fighting in Iraq, and there are many more that are supposedly going there right now. Now, when these individuals come back to their countries of origin, places like Spain, Italy, France and the United Kingdom, inevitably, they will go on to carry out terrorist acts or participate in terrorist conspiracies.


STEWART: Well, how do we know that these new insurgents are, in fact, new insurgents and not the ones that have been around for years but held at bay by Hussein's brutal regime?

KOHLMANN: It's actually interesting. We see a mix of different elements here. We have some individuals that are veterans of a jihad safari, who have fought before with al-Qaida in places like Tajikistan, Bosnia, Chechnya, and now they've gone beyond those places. They've arrived in Iraq for perhaps their final chapter of jihad.

But we also have younger people, people that have never had an experience like this before, who are bred on stories of the Soviet-Afghan jihad and the legacies of the Arab Afghan fighters, these stories of sacrifice and martyrdom. And now they see this as this -- their opportunity, the opportunity for their generation to go out and fight in a jihad, to fight against the infidels. And what better an opportunity do you have here than one that's an urban warfare battle pitted directly against the United States, seen as really the great Satan here?

STEWART: Let me play devil's advocate here. Could this possibly, in any way, work to our advantage? One thing, when I've talked to Roger Cressey or any of our other analysts, they say, 'al-Qaida's a movement. It's the idea of it, it's not a place.' So it's not a warfare that we're used to. You go to someplace and you fight. Now, with the insurgents within Iraq, we're going to someplace and we fight.

KOHLMANN: You know, I'd like to think that was the case, but unfortunately, I think it's wishful thinking. Instability breeds conflict, which in turn breeds terrorism. And that's what we see here. As long as these guys have an opportunity to come together, to fight as one unit, to really have that shared blood, sweat and tears that leads them to be a unified military unit, that's when these guys become terrorists. We've seen it before. This is no mystery. We've seen it before, specific examples, in places like Bosnia and Chechnya and Afghanistan.

As recently as two months after some of these individuals have left their conflicts-in this case, Iraq-they go on to participate in suicide bombings and terrorist attacks on their own home soil. And certainly, as we've seen here, at least one individual tied to the Madrid 3/11 bombings has already gone and blown himself up in Iraq last month. So I think this is a trend that's going to continue.

STEWART: And I have to get your take on this. Vice President Dick Cheney recently said the insurgency is in its last throes. Your response?

KOHLMANN: Again, wishful thinking. I would hope that would be the case, too. But unfortunately, if you've seen what's happened the last couple months, we've had major arrests of various insurgent leaders, lieutenants of Abu Musab al Zarqawi most recently. We saw the arrest of Abu Talha up in Mosul. Yet this has done almost nothing to stem the wave of suicide bombings. In fact, the number of suicide bombings has actually increased. The number of attacks has increased. The level of instability in Iraq has increased. So I'm not sure where they're getting this information from. From my perspective, I can hardly imagine this conflict ending any time soon.

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

Sounds like the seed of democracy are growing just great..

Saddam and the terrorist who we are fighting in Iraq now were enemies, don't the masses understand that. Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 and had NO LINKS to Al-Quada, they were at opposite ends of the spectrum. By ousting Saddam we made it that much easier for the real terrorist to come into Iraq and start trouble. I know Cheney lied and said they're was a connection, but has proven to be a lie many times over. The only connection was a link between one of Saddam officals and a Al-Quada operative, that proves nothing against Saddam though. The only good thing about Saddam being in power was he kept islamic terrorist groups like Al-Quada out of Iraq. We did them a huge favor by not properly securing the borders after we toppled Saddam. This another reason why Bush should be impeached, imo..To go to war without the proper strategies in place is just plain stupid and puts soldiers lives at risk unneccessarily, war is not something you rush into.

If we think the terrorist are just going to put down their weapons and go home, then we have the wrong idea. Lets examine each sides motivation for fighting: The US says we are in Iraq to fight the war on terror, or they had WMD's , and to bring democracy to a country no one in the US cares .2 cents about. Fine. The terrorist are motivated by invasions of their region by forgein forces who kill innocent cilivians, defame the book they base their religion and lives on, and also take control of the most valuable natural resource in the region, oil. So in summary our soldiers are there because Bush ordered them, the terrorist are there because they believe they are fighting for Islam. Do you think if you asked the average soldier in 2000 before all of this mess if they wanted to go to Iraq and risk their lives to bring freedom to the Iraqi people that they would have been lining up by the thousands? I don't, the average American 20 year old could give a flying fuck if Iraq is free, they just want some nice trim...
[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons//3.gif[/img]

Also, why doesn't Bush put pressure on the Saudi Arabia, that is were 15 of 19 9/11 hijackers come from and the majority of the people fighting AGAINST us in Iraq. All of the reason Bush gave to invade Iraq, apply to Saudi Arabia as well, we should go to root of the problem, imo..Bush is so damn friendly with the Saudi royal family that will never happen, but the royal family is playing both sides of the fence. The house of Saud loves Western culture, but they are surrounded by muslims who view the west as evil. They can't openly support the US because they will be viewed as selling out the other countries in the region, but they can't turn against us because we got them hooked on American culture and everything that comes with it.

[Guest bengaljet]

Interesting reading. The part nobody mentions is that there maybe a shift in support. Sen. Hagel(Neb-R) + Sen. Lyndsey Graham(N. Carolina-R) have made comments not complimentary to the war. Graham is the 1 I saw on TV and this is not what I expected from him. Graham has ALWAYS been a hardline Republican(an attack dog during Clinton yrs) and didn't sound like it in the interview. He said N Carolina is a R stronghold but the balance for the support of the war has shifted.
Another problem for W may be some R Congressmen may not be supporting the war in the near future. No one named names-see what happens in the NEAR future.
Polls have stated a shift of the public support for the war and W's job rating. Discount them if you want,but when Republicans are starting to have ?? this deep into the war- could be an indication of a lessening of support.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[i]"I refuse to believe it, the war is going great, freedom is on the march, Aggggghhhhhhh"[/i]
















[img]http://img18.echo.cx/img18/523/21bi.gif[/img]