Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Incosian
It's clear to you that the Iraq War is part of the "War on Terror"? Even though it has been established that there was no credible evidence to suggest that Iraq had a connection to the terrorism that beset the country on 9/11?
|
I would like to know where this warped definition of terrorism comes from. Involvment in the 9/11 attack is not a prerequisite to be a terrorist. A regime that uses murder, rape, abduction, genocide etc. is a terrorist regime, even if they aren't direcly affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
Terrorist - a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities.
Just because Saddam wasn't flying a plane or funding the attacks doesn't exclude him and his supporters from being terrorists. He was able to use the means and weapons that these psychopaths employ to take over a whole country. He was a perfect example of what all the little terrorists would like to achieve. Taking him down from his throne was a message to all terrorists that we will not tolerate terrorism no matter how successful they are or how many followers they have.
So taking out Saddam was right in line with a war on terror.