Germany's Intel Officer reveals Osama info
10-07-2004 | 11:01 AM
#1
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Germany's Intel Officer reveals Osama info
Linky: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041007/D85IKNB81.html
He revealed that it is very likely Osama is still alive and still organizing. He also had some interesting things to say about the war in Iraq:
"A breakdown in Iraq would destabilize the Middle East, boost Islamic terrorism worldwide and might allow terrorists to put scientists involved in Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to work for them, the intelligence chief added."
"Hanning suggested that Western nations are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of young disaffected Arabs.
'I detect a still growing, generally anti-Western mood in the Muslim countries,' he said."
Thoughts?
He revealed that it is very likely Osama is still alive and still organizing. He also had some interesting things to say about the war in Iraq:
"A breakdown in Iraq would destabilize the Middle East, boost Islamic terrorism worldwide and might allow terrorists to put scientists involved in Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to work for them, the intelligence chief added."
"Hanning suggested that Western nations are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of young disaffected Arabs.
'I detect a still growing, generally anti-Western mood in the Muslim countries,' he said."
Thoughts?
10-07-2004 | 11:37 AM
#2
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Hanning's thoughts are unoriginal as this is very old news. Likewise, this type of speculation has been brought to the table for the thousandth time...
Osama is alive at hiding on the Pakistani border blah blah blah. Violence in Iraq risks plunging the country into the chaos of a disintegrating "failed state" blah blah blah...
Osama is alive at hiding on the Pakistani border blah blah blah. Violence in Iraq risks plunging the country into the chaos of a disintegrating "failed state" blah blah blah...
10-07-2004 | 11:40 AM
#3
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by dub2w
Linky: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041007/D85IKNB81.html
He revealed that it is very likely Osama is still alive and still organizing. He also had some interesting things to say about the war in Iraq:
"A breakdown in Iraq would destabilize the Middle East, boost Islamic terrorism worldwide and might allow terrorists to put scientists involved in Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to work for them, the intelligence chief added."
"Hanning suggested that Western nations are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of young disaffected Arabs.
'I detect a still growing, generally anti-Western mood in the Muslim countries,' he said."
Thoughts?
He revealed that it is very likely Osama is still alive and still organizing. He also had some interesting things to say about the war in Iraq:
"A breakdown in Iraq would destabilize the Middle East, boost Islamic terrorism worldwide and might allow terrorists to put scientists involved in Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to work for them, the intelligence chief added."
"Hanning suggested that Western nations are losing the battle for the hearts and minds of young disaffected Arabs.
'I detect a still growing, generally anti-Western mood in the Muslim countries,' he said."
Thoughts?
Looks like even he's acknowledging something.
10-07-2004 | 11:43 AM
#4
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
But this is a growing discontentment amidst young Arabs due in large part to our current bungled occupation efforts in Iraq.
I love the spin though from the hawks... "See, the world is safer without Saddam!"
Sure it is... but it sure as heck aint safer with thousands more Muslim Arabs who became jihadists because of our baseless pre-emptive strike on an Arab nation
I love the spin though from the hawks... "See, the world is safer without Saddam!"
Sure it is... but it sure as heck aint safer with thousands more Muslim Arabs who became jihadists because of our baseless pre-emptive strike on an Arab nation
10-07-2004 | 11:44 AM
#5
VIP Member
iTrader: (9)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 3,709
From: Walnut Creek, CA
Car Info: CRZ EX-Navi/6MT & Vue Redline
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Yes, I'm glad you finally found an article where even a German official acknowledges the WMD threat in Iraq. Just what do you think those "scientists involved in Saddam Hussein's weapons programs" were doing there?
Looks like even he's acknowledging something.
Looks like even he's acknowledging something.
Yeah, acknowledging that Bushys little crusade has only put us in more danger.
-Chris
10-07-2004 | 11:46 AM
#6
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Originally Posted by subaruguru
Looks like even he's acknowledging something.
Dang... this is a stretch at best. When will you guys concede that the effort to link Saddam to 911 was simply a veiled attempt to justify a bogus war???
10-07-2004 | 11:55 AM
#7
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by bassplayrr
Yeah, acknowledging that Bushys little crusade has only put us in more danger.
-Chris
-Chris
Originally Posted by dub2w
But this is a growing discontentment amidst young Arabs due in large part to our current bungled occupation efforts in Iraq.
I love the spin though from the hawks... "See, the world is safer without Saddam!"
Sure it is... but it sure as heck aint safer with thousands more Muslim Arabs who became jihadists because of our baseless pre-emptive strike on an Arab nation
I love the spin though from the hawks... "See, the world is safer without Saddam!"
Sure it is... but it sure as heck aint safer with thousands more Muslim Arabs who became jihadists because of our baseless pre-emptive strike on an Arab nation
10-07-2004 | 11:57 AM
#8
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by dub2w
Thank you spin doctor Dick Cheney.
Dang... this is a stretch at best. When will you guys concede that the effort to link Saddam to 911 was simply a veiled attempt to justify a bogus war???
Dang... this is a stretch at best. When will you guys concede that the effort to link Saddam to 911 was simply a veiled attempt to justify a bogus war???
Where did I say anything about 9-11? Maybe Bush did, but I sure didn't hear it. Can you publish the quote where Bush says "Saddam hussein had a direct hand in 9-11"?
Now, what did I spin? did you not see the quote that you yourself posted? If I'm spinning, then tell me what those Scientists knew that we should worry about.
10-07-2004 | 12:04 PM
#9
VIP Member
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 797
From: champaign, IL
Car Info: black pearl sti
It doesn't matter what you do as long as the Jewish state of Israel exsists and is even acknowledged by the U.S. let alone supported, we will have thousands of jihadists and the number will grow everyday. The only way to make them happy is to turn Israel into glass and I don't see that happening.
10-07-2004 | 12:18 PM
#11
250,000-mile Club President
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,770
From: Bizerkeley
Car Info: MBP 02 WRX wagon
Originally Posted by Salty
You mean the same crusade the Senate (including Kerry & Edwards) and Congress voted for? They're all responsible for Iraq, not just Bush.
Actually the resolution they voted for handed over the responsibility for persuing diplomatic resolution as well as using US Armed forces- to the President.
In doing so, technically (and illegally, I might add) they abdicated their responsibility for Iraq.
nice try, but you missed on this point Salty......
10-07-2004 | 12:20 PM
#12
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,256
From: Blue-faced in a red state
Car Info: 04 Silver WRX Wagon
Guru...
of course he had scientists working on weapon's programs. But the point is they had no WMDs, and were light years away from procuring / developing such programs. If we are so worried about this, why have we done nothing with the Saudis or Iranians?
As far as the connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks, let me clarify. Bush and Co never said "Saddam played an active role in the attacks against the US." However, they have said numerous times that he may have been harboring terrorists, that he was most likely supplying money and resources, and that he had a stockpile of WMDs for all of the fun-loving anti-US jihadists.
If you had listened to any of the recent VP debate, Cheney stuck to his guns that ousting Saddam was crucial in fighting the war on terror. And I say, "Where is the proof beyond conjecture?"
Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps following the current administration's motives for this current war has taught me how to obfuscate the issues at hand
of course he had scientists working on weapon's programs. But the point is they had no WMDs, and were light years away from procuring / developing such programs. If we are so worried about this, why have we done nothing with the Saudis or Iranians?
As far as the connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks, let me clarify. Bush and Co never said "Saddam played an active role in the attacks against the US." However, they have said numerous times that he may have been harboring terrorists, that he was most likely supplying money and resources, and that he had a stockpile of WMDs for all of the fun-loving anti-US jihadists.
If you had listened to any of the recent VP debate, Cheney stuck to his guns that ousting Saddam was crucial in fighting the war on terror. And I say, "Where is the proof beyond conjecture?"
Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps following the current administration's motives for this current war has taught me how to obfuscate the issues at hand
10-07-2004 | 12:25 PM
#13
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by psoper
Actually the resolution they voted for handed over the responsibility for persuing diplomatic resolution as well as using US Armed forces- to the President.
In doing so, technically (and illegally, I might add) they abdicated their responsibility for Iraq.
nice try, but you missed on this point Salty......
In doing so, technically (and illegally, I might add) they abdicated their responsibility for Iraq.
nice try, but you missed on this point Salty......
10-07-2004 | 12:26 PM
#14
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 352
Originally Posted by dub2w
Guru...
of course he had scientists working on weapon's programs. But the point is they had no WMDs, and were light years away from procuring / developing such programs. If we are so worried about this, why have we done nothing with the Saudis or Iranians?
As far as the connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks, let me clarify. Bush and Co never said "Saddam played an active role in the attacks against the US." However, they have said numerous times that he may have been harboring terrorists, that he was most likely supplying money and resources, and that he had a stockpile of WMDs for all of the fun-loving anti-US jihadists.
If you had listened to any of the recent VP debate, Cheney stuck to his guns that ousting Saddam was crucial in fighting the war on terror. And I say, "Where is the proof beyond conjecture?"
Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps following the current administration's motives for this current war has taught me how to obfuscate the issues at hand
of course he had scientists working on weapon's programs. But the point is they had no WMDs, and were light years away from procuring / developing such programs. If we are so worried about this, why have we done nothing with the Saudis or Iranians?
As far as the connection between Saddam and the terrorist attacks, let me clarify. Bush and Co never said "Saddam played an active role in the attacks against the US." However, they have said numerous times that he may have been harboring terrorists, that he was most likely supplying money and resources, and that he had a stockpile of WMDs for all of the fun-loving anti-US jihadists.
If you had listened to any of the recent VP debate, Cheney stuck to his guns that ousting Saddam was crucial in fighting the war on terror. And I say, "Where is the proof beyond conjecture?"
Sorry for the confusion. Perhaps following the current administration's motives for this current war has taught me how to obfuscate the issues at hand
And: Did you read the CIA report? Did that say Saddam was "lightyears" away? And if he was lightyears away, then why are those scientists dangerous even in the hands of terrorists (who have less than saddam did)?
10-07-2004 | 12:32 PM
#15
VIP Member
iTrader: (14)
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 8,675
From: Wherever Sucks the Most
Car Info: 2003 WRX, 2008 Camry
Originally Posted by psoper
Actually the resolution they voted for handed over the responsibility for persuing diplomatic resolution as well as using US Armed forces- to the President.
In doing so, technically (and illegally, I might add) they abdicated their responsibility for Iraq.
nice try, but you missed on this point Salty......
In doing so, technically (and illegally, I might add) they abdicated their responsibility for Iraq.
nice try, but you missed on this point Salty......
Trust wasn’t an issue… they knew damn well what they signed and what they were authorizing. They didn't sign their name to a vague resolution that allowed Bush to build another baseball stadium with the Army Corps of engineers.
OT Personal question: Do you get pissed off when your pizza arrives in 31minutes?