For everyone who said Iraq was not a threat... - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Irishsean · 10-08-2004, 03:00 PM

http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/...7_20041008.htm

Education officials in six states including Michigan were put on notice last month that a computer disc found in Iraq over the summer contained photos, floor plans and other information about schools in their districts, two U.S. government officials said.

So no WMDs were found, but look at all the stuff thats been found that showed their was definite intent to cause harm to the US. Doesn't this make a difference? I mean, school plans for gods sake, we go out of our way not to bomb hospitals, schools, or mosques, even when we know they are holed up in them, and yet they think our schools are ok targets. WTF?

I'm even more pissed because I have friends whose kids go to one of the schools whose plans were found...

Orpheus · 10-08-2004, 03:06 PM

Irishsean,

I think you've been duped. Several reports have already contradicted these findings as false; this is just another despicable act by the administration.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

kutulu · 10-08-2004, 03:10 PM

Typical Bush fear mongering. Here is the truth:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/08/sch...raq/index.html

Quote:

A Homeland Security official said the disks also included a Department of Education guide on how to plan for a crisis in schools. There is no indication anyone was on the ground casing the schools, a senior government official said.

The Homeland Security official said the material was associated with a specific individual in Iraq, and it could not be established that this man had any ties to terrorism. He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said.

Still, the FBI is examining the materials carefully. While officials say there has been no specific threat related to the recovered material, they say they are taking the matter seriously out of an abundance of caution.

Irishsean · 10-08-2004, 03:14 PM

Look, both sides are gonna say whatever they need it to come out as, Democrats are gonna say its fake, republicans are gonna say its true. As for my part, I have people I really care about going to those schools and I think it should be taken seriously.

Orpheus · 10-08-2004, 03:18 PM

"He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said."

Okay- probably safe to establish he's not a terrorist. If paranoia suits your taste, then have at it.

Irishsean · 10-08-2004, 03:37 PM

Can you really be too paranoid when kids are involved?

noctypair · 10-08-2004, 04:08 PM

You can be too paranoid. Period. Seriously, we have become a nation beset by the politics of fear. This administration encourages it. We have allowed our freedoms to be reduced and destroyed in the name of protecting them. Because of fear and paranoia.

Not a good thing

trickyy · 10-08-2004, 04:20 PM

we must stop saddam from destroying traverse city junior high.

you know, floor plans can be useful, especially when your country is in rubble. i don't know if republicans are really going to say this is legit. they'd have to fill in the blanks with some wild story of a renegade architect on the other side of the world.

OpieCunningham · 10-08-2004, 04:25 PM

Just remember: it's only a legitimate threat if they found a farmers alamanac!

... anyone seen my emergency supply of duct tape?

Konichiwaneko · 10-08-2004, 11:58 PM

For some reason I feel safer because we are war then if we let that cancer that was iraq fester. I'm happy nothing happen to those schools, if anything was even going to happen. I'm just happy that we don't have to have people die to start acting.

Randomly · 10-09-2004, 02:59 AM

For christ sakes... Let me bold the important part.

He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said.

He was an Iraqi citizen much like you are an American citizen. He had plans and outlines of US schools so that he and his group could build Iraqi schools using them as a model.

He didn't want to blow them up. He wanted to build schools in Iraq that looked like them or used similiar teaching methods.

stevo · 10-09-2004, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noctypair

You can be too paranoid. Period. Seriously, we have become a nation beset by the politics of fear. This administration encourages it. We have allowed our freedoms to be reduced and destroyed in the name of protecting them. Because of fear and paranoia.

Not a good thing

Please tell me how YOUR freedoms have been reduced. What can't you do now that you used to do? Plan terrorist attacks? What?

Irishsean · 10-09-2004, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randomly

For christ sakes... Let me bold the important part.

He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said.

He was an Iraqi citizen much like you are an American citizen. He had plans and outlines of US schools so that he and his group could build Iraqi schools using them as a model.

He didn't want to blow them up. He wanted to build schools in Iraq that looked like them or used similiar teaching methods.

Do you personally know this for a fact? Or are you just regurgitating facts from a biased news source like the rest of us?

maypo · 10-09-2004, 07:30 AM

My sons are in one of the school systems that was in these files. My wife went to a meeting at the school last night, they had no real information. Looks like more fear-mongering to me, wait out the rumor mill and see

host · 10-09-2004, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

For some reason I feel safer because we are war then if we let that cancer that was iraq fester. I'm happy nothing happen to those schools, if anything was even going to happen. I'm just happy that we don't have to have people die to start acting.

1066 lives of other family's young adult, U.S. military volunteers is one cost of
Bush's folly and deception. I hope that you can reconsider the wording of your
last post. You enable a president who resists admitting a huge mistake by
rushing our country into war in Iraq. Would it take the loss of one of your own
family members for you to hold Bush accountable for his actions. Do you favor
government with a secret agenda, and no penchant for ever admitting a
mistake. Please tell us why you think we are in Iraq........?

Dragonlich · 10-09-2004, 09:35 AM

Although I'm generally in favor of the war on Iraq, in this case I must point out that discs found *after* the removal of Saddam from office do not prove that Iraq was a danger *before* that removal. It might prove that terror groups in Iraq have plans to attack US schools, but that's about as far as I'd go.

Saddam was still a bastard, though.

mjw · 10-09-2004, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

1066 lives of other family's young adult, U.S. military volunteers is one cost of
Bush's folly and deception. I hope that you can reconsider the wording of your
last post. You enable a president who resists admitting a huge mistake by
rushing our country into war in Iraq. Would it take the loss of one of your own
family members for you to hold Bush accountable for his actions. Do you favor
government with a secret agenda, and no penchant for ever admitting a
mistake. Please tell us why you think we are in Iraq........?

Again with calling the war in Iraq a mistake. The real mistake would have been to let that man (Saddam) continue on doing what he did. How many mass graves need to be uncovered? How many horror stories need to be told by the Iraq people of the autrocities they suffed under his hand, until people realize that if nothing else, it was right to get Saddam out of power? Skewed reasoning for entering the war aside, is what we're trying to do (and what we have managed to do) wrong?

powerclown · 10-09-2004, 07:30 PM

I also don't think this war is unnecessary. I think its quite necessary. Furthermore, the US didn't start this conflict. So, we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us, lose the initiative and lose more lives. A poor strategy.

The US Armed Forces is a voluntary service; if you don't want to put your ass on the line and serve your country in a war setting you have the option not to. Still, Warriors live to fight.

mjw · 10-09-2004, 08:24 PM

Amen powerclown. It's very unfortunate that those 1066 had to die. But they did, and they're heroes. They had the bravery not many people do.

pan6467 · 10-09-2004, 10:13 PM

So if all of a sudden they find a man in Iraq ONE MAN with a disk of shopping malls and they bring it public are you going to say "Oh holy shit they are going to blow up malls now?"

Trust me if OBL and Al Quida can get your child's school's floorplans online or in public records at the county courthouse. If these people were going to hit schools they'd have started by now.

Where does the insanity and paranoia end? This administration wants power so bad they will do whatever and say whatever it takes to keep that power and instill fear so noone questions them (and if anyone does, by God they aren't God fearing Christian Patriotic Americans.... Those who question US well let's just say that OBL and Co. appreciates them very much, we'll make sure they don't question anymore if you re-elect us). And if they are shown to be liars, they will come back and say they never said that original thing, that really the information was bad BUT they still had a damn good reason to fuck with you and scare the shit out of you so that you would keep them in power.

They did it with Iraq...... WMD's...what WMD's? we never claimed that..... 9/11 connections.... What 9/11 connections, we never said that....... Imminent threat.... The Dems. are twisting our words, we never claimed imminent, we said could be...... humanitarian Saddam was evil, killed millions..... well there are some mass graves and he was very evil and the torture chambers and all... sure when George Sr. was CIA director he sold Saddam all this crap but but..... Imminent threat..... WMD's... ummmm disks of schools.....

pan6467 · 10-09-2004, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I also don't think this war is unnecessary. I think its quite necessary. Furthermore, the US didn't start this conflict. So, we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us, lose the initiative and lose more lives. A poor strategy.

The US Armed Forces is a voluntary service; if you don't want to put your ass on the line and serve your country in a war setting you have the option not to. Still, Warriors live to fight.

HOW did we not start this war?

Did Iraq ever attack us?

How is this war necessary?

Did Saddam have Nukes, WMD's, imminent threat, funding OBL, how was he a danger to us?

What are we proving? OOOO yeah Khadafi, whom we blew the hell out of and wasn't much of a factor gave us his weapons. While Iran and N. Korea have been speeding up their production and we haven't done anything to stop them.

So when we invade Iran now (and we will) THEY WILL nuke our ass.

Makes sense to me.

Pick on Saddam who has nothing and we can pretty much claim a win in a week over while we let Iran, N. Korea and OBL build their forces and get prepared so that when we have to confront them.... we get our asses handed back to us.

pan6467 · 10-09-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjw

Again with calling the war in Iraq a mistake. The real mistake would have been to let that man (Saddam) continue on doing what he did. How many mass graves need to be uncovered? How many horror stories need to be told by the Iraq people of the autrocities they suffed under his hand, until people realize that if nothing else, it was right to get Saddam out of power? Skewed reasoning for entering the war aside, is what we're trying to do (and what we have managed to do) wrong?

So all those African warlords committing genocide and killing whole tribes of people is ok?

Saddam was evil and didn't deserve his country moreso than these African Warlords (even though we put him in power and helped him stay there.)

N. Korea has mass graves and lots of attrocities but they are ok and we can look the other way, but Saddam needed to go.

We, GOP'ers never believed in getting involved in the Bosnia-Serbia genocide because it was a Clinton distraction and a UN affair. Their genocide had nothing to do with this country... nope no sirree Bob.

The people the Saud family kill deserve it. The people the Isreal government kill deserve it... none of them are near as evil as Saddam.

Oh, so he controlled some oil, big deal (and except for our great friends and allies Isreal and Saudi Arabia none of those other countries have anything financially beneficial to us), he was evil.

Besides, the genocide in Africa is just saving us money anyway, because eventually we'd have to send AIDS medicines over to help them.

Dragonlich · 10-09-2004, 11:50 PM

Pan6467: You're putting up a straw man argument. Nobody said anything about African warlords being nice, or any of the other "arguments" you use.

Konichiwaneko · 10-10-2004, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

1066 lives of other family's young adult, U.S. military volunteers is one cost of
Bush's folly and deception. I hope that you can reconsider the wording of your
last post. You enable a president who resists admitting a huge mistake by
rushing our country into war in Iraq. Would it take the loss of one of your own
family members for you to hold Bush accountable for his actions. Do you favor
government with a secret agenda, and no penchant for ever admitting a
mistake. Please tell us why you think we are in Iraq........?

My father was involved in a cival war. Where he had to kill his own people.
I would rather fight for freedom from an enemy, then kill me own blood so I can live longer. Don't give me rethoric about having my own family die to realize the extent of war, My family is already drowned in blood.

Why do I think we are in iraq.

Oil is the main reason. Yes oil is money, but none of us are innocent. Oil fuels western economy. I'm not saying the US wants the oil fields but I'm more saying the world economy is more stable without the strangle hold of a Hussien. Good deeds are done on the price of blood and toil that crude petroleum involves.

Safety. It is Bush's job to make sure we the United States is protected. Us being in Iraq yes makes me feel like tommorow, next year, next decade would be a better day. Once again no one is innocent. We can't be a nation of tree huggers singing koombyya while our people are getting slaughtered. Diplomacy, mostly against what seems like a zealot group of people who think death is just, is meant more for people who can see on the same ideals and equality. It's difficult to enforce when our enemy now seems to believe equality is eradication.

Little Boys Obsession - I think part of the war is Little Bush's obsession with finishing what his Father started.

Now here is my opinion on the Government.

They should know things that we shouldn't. I feel if we knew 100% of what the government knows, the web of our civilization would crumble faster then we could believe. People as of now are greedy, selfish, and all sorts of unappealing. To gather a group of people to create a civilization and society, is to basically coral them, drug them, entertain them, and hope they don't revolt. Why should we care if Osama is dead? Isn't it just enough that we haven't had another Airplane fly into one of our buildings killing our people? What's with this obsession with definates. How the war isn't a success without the head of our enemy? How a war isn't just because we haven't found a WMD? Isn't it enough to know that we were stupid, we got hit, and now we are doing our damned best to make sure we don't make that mistake again?

I don't like bush, but he is my commander in cheif. The United States, with all its negatives, I believe is a bastion of hope.

In the end it's perspective. You say a 1000+ people who died for no meaning, I see 1000+ people who were my countrymen, and that is meaning enough to enjoy the freedoms we obviously have.

On a final note, I think if Kerry comes into office, he will realize when he's briefed about the war that He won't be able to do much. That the situation is deeper than any of us can even comprehend.

powerclown · 10-10-2004, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

Oil fuels western economy.

Oil fuels the entire world. Everyone needs it. As far as Im concerned, better its taken out of the hands of a madman who used it to build himself palaces, line the pockets of his business partners in the UN, arm himself to the teeth to attack his neighbors, all the while letting his people suffer in abject poverty and his country fall into comprehensive ruin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Konichiwaneko

On a final note, I think if Kerry comes into office, he will realize when he's briefed about the war that He won't be able to do much. That the situation is deeper than any of us can even comprehend.

Completely agree. He might not be Bush, but he's still an American. And we all know how the enemy feels about them.

Bodyhammer86 · 10-10-2004, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

N. Korea has mass graves and lots of attrocities but they are ok and we can look the other way, but Saddam needed to go.

Here are the reasons we didn't attack North Korea:

Quote:

Iraq supposedly had biological and chemical weapons. North Korea, on the other hand has nukes, which are the only true weapons of mass destruction. You can't shower off the effects of a 50 kiloton blast or save someone who's body mass was turned into plasma by sticking a needle in their arm. Nor did Hussien have 10,000 artillery pieces sitting parked on the border of anyone waiting to turn them into a parking lot. Furthermore, North Korea has over a million active duty troops in their country's army right now. Saddam had an 387,000 man army and it took roughly 250,000 troops to oust him from power. It would take between 600,000 and 700,000 troops to oust Kim assuming that his army is no better than Hussein's. Even if we did have that many troops to spare, we don't have a country to stage an invasion from. South Korea isn't letting us, China obviously won't let us, and Russa won't either. Not to mention that Kim could potentially kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of South Korean and Japanese civilians. After reviewing all of that, it becomes very obvious why we have not done anything to Kim.

maypo · 10-10-2004, 07:19 AM

Quote:

originally posted by powerclown:
Oil fuels the entire world. Everyone needs it. As far as Im concerned, better its taken out of the hands of a madman who used it to build himself palaces, line the pockets of his business partners in the UN, arm himself to the teeth to attack his neighbors, all the while letting his people suffer in abject poverty and his country fall into comprehensive ruin.

You are aware the oil is running down? Reserves are estimated to last approx. 100 years perhaps far less with the boom in China. When this happens inevitably we will seek new sources of power, solar hydrogen etc. which, if the president and vice president didn't have their head up their ass we would be doing right now, instead of

Quote:

arm(ing) himself to the teeth to attack his neighbors originally posted by the powerclown

This quote refers more to the US than any other country I can see right now.

pan6467 · 10-10-2004, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragonlich

Pan6467: You're putting up a straw man argument. Nobody said anything about African warlords being nice, or any of the other "arguments" you use.

Not a strawman. Just curious as to why we didn't attack those "evil" leaders who are as bad or worse than Saddam.

We claim we attacked Saddam for his genocide and torture chambers and to liberate and democratize and yet, we don't do anything to others just as bad, do we?

Just curious why Saddam who had been under sanctions and really couldn't do anything to anyone was worse than these other dictators we turn blind eyes to.

pan6467 · 10-10-2004, 08:00 AM

Bodyhammer,

Good and understandable reason not to invade N. KOrea, but what of the GOP who did not want anything to do with Bosnia-Serbia, or Africa or Iran (which if we were going to fight a war in the M/E Iran should have been first). Instead we chose a country we knew was totally weak, had no WMD's and allowed Iran to arm themselves and prepare.

Thank you, Bodyhammer for presenting the facts in a very non partisan understandable way.

Just pointing this out.

We ar not the world's police. When Clinton wanted to help end Bosnia and Mogadishu and do so with UN approval, the GOP wouldn't allow him. Congress wouldn't help him help those people at all. NOW, we are expected to believe that we attacked Saddam because he was evil and a personal vendetta, rather than for the truth. We are to believe these men and women and Iraqis have died for a righteous government? One who sends them to die for a presidential vendetta and oil?

I support our troops but this war is wrong. The best way to support the troops is to say this war is wrong and we need to find a way to stop it so that no more innocents have to die.

The world isn't looking at us and admiring what we are. The world is no longer saying we are a great nation. The world is scared of what we will do next. If we are to ever even try to have world peace we cannot be looked upon as a bully and have other fear us. It breeds contempt, contempt breeds hatred, hatred breeds war.

host · 10-10-2004, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjw

Again with calling the war in Iraq a mistake. The real mistake would have been to let that man (Saddam) continue on doing what he did. How many mass graves need to be uncovered? How many horror stories need to be told by the Iraq people of the autrocities they suffed under his hand, until people realize that if nothing else, it was right to get Saddam out of power? Skewed reasoning for entering the war aside, is what we're trying to do (and what we have managed to do) wrong?

You sound like you are simply repeating one of Bush's canned speeches......
The following isn't directed toward you, mjw. You won't be swayed by any
argument other than Bush/Cheney-2004:

Quote:

June 26, 2003
Sweet Land of Liberty
Mass Graves and Burned Meat in Bush's New Iraq

By CHRIS FLOYD

They were digging mass graves in Iraq last week.

No, not the mass graves that George W. Bush now reflexively invokes to justify his murder of up to 10,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and the needless deaths of more than 200 American soldiers in the aggressive war he launched on the basis of proven lies and outright fabrications. Those mass graves, containing victims of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, were dug years ago, back when powerful American officials like Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz were pursuing "closer ties" to the Saddam regime at the signed, insistent order of another president named George Bush.

They were also being dug all over Iraq when Donald Rumsfeld was eagerly pressing Saddamite flesh as Ronald Reagan's special envoy, restoring diplomatic ties with the CIA-supported killer. Oh, to have been a fly on that wall as Rumsfeld squinted tenderly into Saddam's beady eyes and pledged to lavish the burly beloved with American money to build his war machine, American technology to fuel his internal repression, American honor to secure him credit and diplomatic backing abroad, and American military intelligence for his poison gassing of Iranian troops and missile attacks on Iranian civilians. How many thousands of innocent lives were sacrificed in that moment of explosive power-guy passion! It must have been one steamy love scene, a real bodice-ripper.

We're now told that those mass graves are bad mass graves, although they were perfectly acceptable at the time. (Then again, fashions do change, don't they? Remember when presidential deceit was an impeachable offense? When military aggression was a war crime? Ah, those silly fads of yesteryear.) But the new mass graves being dug in Iraq today--for the innocent collaterals killed during the American military sweeps last week--are good mass graves, you see, because the aged farmers, retarded teenagers, young fathers and fleeing women now being shoveled into fetid desert pits were killed by the bombs and bullets of liberation!

Yes, we know that Bush's viceroy in Iraq, the preppy-monikered L. Paul Bremer III, has recently forbidden the liberated Iraqi people from using their liberty to verbally oppose the occupation of their land by a foreign power. He then arbitrarily canceled elections in Najaf which would have been the first free local vote in Iraq for decades--not restricted to a list of "acceptable" candidates chosen by the occupiers, as in "elections" elsewhere around the country, but a ballot open to all parties. Not only did Bremer quash the vote, he sent American troops to "storm the offices of an obscure local party" and arrest the nascent democrats for--you guessed it--opposing the occupation of their land by a foreign power, the New York Times reports.

Now, canceling elections and stifling dissent by force of arms might seem a counterintuitive expression of political freedom, but it chimes perfectly with the Bush Regime's masterful use of Zen paradox in statecraft. After all, this is the same crew that introduced the American people to such mind-bending concepts as "loser-take-all democracy," "charity for the rich," and "prosperity through bankruptcy." Do the noble Iraqis deserve any less?

Besides, "liberation without liberty" reflects the Dear Leader's own unique philosophy of governance, expressed so eloquently before his judicially-assisted apotheosis in 2000 when, piqued by a satirical website that dared to cast aspersions on his looming greatness, he cried, "There ought to be limits to freedom!" In this, at least, he is a man of his word.

And yes, it's true that Bushist Party bosses in Baghdad have announced plans to start "privatizing" the county's assets--which, as you doubtless recall, are being "held in trust for the Iraqi people"--before said Iraqi people can form a government and make their own decisions about it, AFP reports. But is that so wrong? "Privatization is the right direction for 21st century Iraq," declared Tim Carney, the Bush satrap "advising" the Iraqi ministry of metals and minerals. Indeed, hath not the Leader himself proclaimed, in the official National Security Policy of the United States, that unbridled crony capitalism is "the single sustainable model of national success?" Since there is no real choice, why bother to let the locals decide? [Memo to the Leader: a possible strategy for 2004?]

And so the villagers of Al Hir, where an entire family was raked to death by machine-gun fire while they cowered in their wheatfield--a "mistake," the Pentagon said--joined hundreds of other survivors in burying their collateral dead last week, the New York Times reports. Some of the corpses were ravaged beyond recognition; others were charred "like burned meat," Knight-Ridder reports. How many civilians were killed--sorry, liberated from this mortal coil--during the full-bore assault? A Pentagon spokesman put it all in the proper perspective: such trifles, he said, are "just not significant information."

Equally insignificant, apparently, are the American soldiers who keep dying, week after week, in a war whose triumphant "end" was announced nearly two months ago by the Dear Leader during his million-dollar photo-op on an aircraft carrier. This week, stung by mounting evidence--including pre-war reports from the Pentagon's own intelligence service--that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war and thus no casus belli, Bush struck back. The president, whose family fortune was built in part on profits from the Auschwitz death camp, denounced his critics as "historical revisionists," Reuters reports. Wisely ignoring the WMD issue altogether, Bush offered up his last remaining line of defense: "This is for certain: Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States."

Oh, really? Who then is killing Americans by the dozens in Iraq? The Dear Leader's own spokesmen tell us it is Bathist "die-hards," who are likely being paid if not directly supervised by the still-alive, still-free dictator himself. Saddam, it seems, enjoys considerably more liberty than the liberated Iraqi people. And he is a much greater threat to Americans now--as a free agent, with nothing to lose, operating in secret--than he ever was as the struggling head of a crippled country crawling with UN inspectors, Kurdish armies and Allied warplanes controlling his skies. From 1991 to 2003, not a single American death can be tied to Saddam Hussein; but in the seven weeks since Bush declared "mission accomplished," his partisans have killed more than 40 Americans.

But for Bush, the loss of a little cannon fodder here and there obviously represents "no threat" to real Americans: you know, the pious hypocrites who profit from lies and murder, the well-guarded cowards who gorge themselves on the "burned meat" in Iraq's mass graves--past, present and future.

Chris Floyd is a columnist for the Moscow Times and a regular contributor to CounterPunch. He can be reached at: cfloyd72@hotmail.com
<a href="http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06262003.html">http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd06262003.html</a>

Rekna · 10-10-2004, 09:07 AM

Yes you can be to paranoid.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,134961,00.html

Quote:

WASHINGTON — Federal officials said Friday there is no terrorist connection to a computer disk found in Iraq that contained information about schools in six states.

The disk was made by an unidentified Iraqi man who was doing research and had no connections to Al Qaeda or the Iraqi insurgents battling U.S. forces, according to the FBI.

The man did have links to the Baath Party (search) that ruled Iraq under Saddam Hussein, but that's true of many former government officials and community leaders.

Some material on the disk appeared to be randomly downloaded from a publicly accessible Education Department (search) Web site and included such things as manuals on workplace safety, crisis management studies, student codes of conduct and building security diagrams.

It also contained an Education Department report on school crisis planning that was published in May 2003.

"It's not about schools, it's about policy," said FBI Agent William Evanina, spokesman for the FBI field office in Newark, N.J. "There's no terrorism threat to these schools."

The school districts are in California, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey and Oregon. The FBI contacted local officials in the communities last month and told them about the disk and what it contained.

Although there was no indication of a terror threat, the FBI decided to contact local officials out of an abundance of caution.

Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said the FBI told officials there that there was "no direct information" that schools in his state are "under any kind of threat."

He said that school building floor plans and other sensitive materials about schools are not available via the Internet in Florida.

"We have talked to the superintendents to make sure that what they have been doing they continue to do - to make safety first and foremost for the kids of our state," Bush said.

In addition to Fort Myers, Fla., the other districts included on the disk are San Diego, and La Puente, Calif., in the Los Angeles area; Birch Run, Mich.; Salem, Ore.; Jones County, Ga.; Franklinville and Rumson, both in N.J.

Wayne Wright, superintendent of the Birch Run Area Schools (search), said he was contacted two weeks ago by FBI agents.

"They said they get thousands of pieces of information coming out of Iraq every day, and this was just one of the pieces," Wright said.

The San Diego school system sought to reassure parents through a letter sent to homes Friday.

"It is very important that you know there is no specific threat to our schools and students here in San Diego," the letter said.

Though the FBI contacts with local officials occurred shortly after the attack by Chechen rebels on a school in Russia that killed more than 330 people, officials say the two events are not connected.

The FBI and Homeland Security Department (search) this week also sent to state and local officials a lengthy analysis of the Russian attacks with a long list of school security recommendations.

sob · 10-10-2004, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trickyy

we must stop saddam from destroying traverse city junior high.

you know, floor plans can be useful, especially when your country is in rubble. i don't know if republicans are really going to say this is legit. they'd have to fill in the blanks with some wild story of a renegade architect on the other side of the world.

And let me guess--you'll be the first one to blame Bush if something happens to a school here.
You're right-- it's impossible. Nothing like that has ever happened anywhere else. Especially Russia.

Or at any government buildings in Oklahoma.

mjw · 10-10-2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You sound like you are simply repeating one of Bush's canned speeches......
The following isn't directed toward you, mjw. You won't be swayed by any
argument other than Bush/Cheney-2004:

And you my friend sound like you're simply regurgitating liberal propaganda.....and the following isn't directed toward you.......

Unlike most people, I'm not basing my judgments on the war in Iraq on random news articles, press releases, or anything of the such. My opinion of what is going on over there is based 100% on my conversations with my friends and family that are over there, and have been over there for pretty much the entire time.

Now you can spout these articles at me all you want, and I will read them and consider what they have to say(because of the fact that I don't consider myself a fanatic, and like to take into consideration both sides of the story), but they're not going to carry as much weight in my mind as the opinions of the people that are there right now.

Dragonlich · 10-10-2004, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Not a strawman. Just curious as to why we didn't attack those "evil" leaders who are as bad or worse than Saddam.

We claim we attacked Saddam for his genocide and torture chambers and to liberate and democratize and yet, we don't do anything to others just as bad, do we?

Just curious why Saddam who had been under sanctions and really couldn't do anything to anyone was worse than these other dictators we turn blind eyes to.

Yes it's a straw man. We're discussing Iraq, Saddam Hussain, and why someone thinks Iraq was a threat.

MJW gave some details about Saddam's attrocities, and you reply: "So all those African warlords committing genocide and killing whole tribes of people is ok?" --- that's a straw man argument; nobody said anything about African warlords, but you make it sound as if MJW said their genocide wasn't important, or even okay. You may not have meant that, but then you should have put it in different words.

I fully understand what your line of reasoning is, and I agree that attacking Iraq, but not Sudan, is quite unfair and illogical. However, I'd like to point out that the situations are simply different - Sudan (for example) hasn't violated UN resolutions for the past decade, hasn't invaded it's neighbors recently, hasn't used WMDs recently (apart from a very hush-hush report about Syrian troops using them as a test!); Furthermore, US troops aren't in the area, US warplanes aren't patrolling no-fly zones (and being shot at), and Sudan's leaders haven't tried to assassinate a former US president... the list can go on and on, by the way.

While we're on the subject, I'd like to draw your attention to the incredible, almost deafening silence from the Arab/Muslim world about the murder of some 50,000 Sudanese (African) Muslims by Arab militias in the past 18 months. Compare this to the uproar every time Israel does anything to the Palestinians, or the anger over poor innocent civilians killed in Iraq by the US forces... I'd say the whole middle-east is made up of hypocrites.

host · 10-10-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown

I also don't think this war is unnecessary. I think its quite necessary. Furthermore, the US didn't start this conflict. So, we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us, lose the initiative and lose more lives. A poor strategy.

The US Armed Forces is a voluntary service; if you don't want to put your ass on the line and serve your country in a war setting you have the option not to. Still, Warriors live to fight.

Aside from 1069 American dead, other troops wounded and maimed, the
$120 billion spent (borrowed) the damge inflicted to U.S. military readiness,
and the misuse of reserve and national guard forces, and the backdoor draft
that will make future recruitment of new volunteers more difficult, to name only
the impact on this misuse of U.S. forces in the "war on terror", is the continued deception of nearly half the electorate by Bush and Cheney.

Powerclown still argues <i>"we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us"</i>, when the truth is that Iraq had nothing to do
with 9/11 or the war against the people who the president claimed attacked
this country. How can you "take it to them", when there would have been no
conflict with those who kill our troops in Iraq today, if we had not invaded
Iraq under false, and ever changing pretenses ?

Quote:

Insurgents Are Mostly Iraqis, U.S. Military Says

Tue Sep 28, 7:55 AM ET

Add to My Yahoo! Top Stories - Los Angeles Times

By Mark Mazzetti Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON — The insistence by interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and many U.S. officials that foreign fighters are streaming into Iraq (news - web sites) to battle American troops runs counter to the U.S. military's own assessment that the Iraqi insurgency remains primarily a home-grown problem.

In a U.S. visit last week, Allawi spoke of foreign insurgents "flooding" his country, and both President Bush (news - web sites) and his Democratic challenger, Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry (news, bio, voting record), have cited these fighters as a major security problem.

But according to top U.S. military officers in Iraq, the threat posed by foreign fighters is far less significant than American and Iraqi politicians portray. Instead, commanders said, loyalists of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime — who have swelled their ranks in recent months as ordinary Iraqis bristle at the U.S. military presence in Iraq — represent the far greater threat to the country's fragile 3-month-old government.

Foreign militants such as Jordanian-born Abu Musab Zarqawi are believed responsible for carrying out videotaped beheadings, suicide car bombings and other high-profile attacks. But U.S. military officials said Iraqi officials tended to exaggerate the number of foreign fighters in Iraq to obscure the fact that large numbers of their countrymen have taken up arms against U.S. troops and the American-backed interim Iraqi government.

"They say these guys are flowing across [the border] and fomenting all this violence. We don't think so," said a senior military official in Baghdad. "What's the main threat? It's internal."

In interviews during his U.S. visit last week, Allawi spoke ominously of foreign jihadists "coming in the hundreds to Iraq." In one interview, he estimated that foreign fighters constituted 30% of insurgent forces.

Allawi's comments echoed a theme in Bush's recent campaign speeches: that foreign fighters streaming into the country are proof that the war in Iraq is inextricably linked to the global war on terrorism.

Kerry has made a similar case, with a different emphasis. In remarks on the stump last week, he said that the "terrorists pouring across the border" were proof that the Bush administration had turned Iraq into a magnet for foreign fighters hoping to kill Americans.

Yet top military officers challenge all these statements. In a TV interview Sunday, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, estimated that the number of foreign fighters in Iraq was below 1,000.

"While the foreign fighters in Iraq are definitely a problem that have to be dealt with, I still think that the primary problem that we're dealing with is former regime elements of the ex-Baath Party that are fighting against the government and trying to do anything possible to upend the election process," he said. Iraqi elections are scheduled for January.

U.S. officials acknowledge that Iraq's porous border — especially its boundary with Syria — allows arms and money to be smuggled in with relative ease. But they say the traffic from Syria is largely Iraqi Baathists who escaped after the U.S.-led invasion and couriers bringing in money from former members of Hussein's government.

At the behest of the interim government, U.S. forces last month cracked down on traffic along the 375-mile Syrian border. During Operation Phantom Linebacker, U.S. troops picked up small numbers of foreign fighters attempting to cross into Iraq, officials say.

Yet the bulk of the traffic they detected was the kind that has existed for hundreds of years: smugglers and Syrian tribesmen with close ties to sheiks on Iraq's side of the border.

Top military officers said there was little evidence that the dynamics in Iraq were similar to those in Afghanistan (news - web sites) in the 1980s, when thousands of Arabs waged war alongside Afghans to drive out the Soviet Union.

Instead, U.S. military officials said the core of the insurgency in Iraq was — and always had been — Hussein's fiercest loyalists, who melted into Iraq's urban landscape when the war began in March 2003. During the succeeding months, they say, the insurgents' ranks have been bolstered by Iraqis who grew disillusioned with the U.S. failure to deliver basic services, jobs and reconstruction projects.

It is this expanding group, they say, that has given the insurgency its deadly power and which represents the biggest challenge to an Iraqi government trying to establish legitimacy countrywide.

"People try to turn this into the mujahedin, jihad war. It's not that," said one U.S. intelligence official. "How many foreign fighters have been captured and processed? Very few." <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/latimests/20040928/ts_latimes/insurgentsaremostlyiraqisusmilitarysays">http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/latimests/20040928/ts_latimes/insurgentsaremostlyiraqisusmilitarysays</a>

Quote:

Most Fallujah insurgents are Iraqis: US
Apr 26 07:50
AFP

Most insurgents battling the US-led coalition in Iraq are Iraqis, not foreigners, according to a US marine intelligence officer at the forefront of the battle to control the hottest part of the Sunni triangle.

"The vast majority of the insurgents in Iraq are local and not foreign fighters," said Captain Ben Connable, the intelligence deputy for the US 1st Marine Division, in charge of the western al-Anbar province.

Al-Anbar, a scorched desert province of more than 1 million people, encompasses the flashpoint town of Fallujah which has been under a US marine siege for three weeks.

It boasts a high concentration of ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's military and intelligence service veterans. Its long borders with Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia serve as gateways for foreign fighters.

A burgeoning population of criminals dabbles in weapons-running, drug trafficking and car smuggling in a province notorious for smuggling, Connable said.

But all three groups collaborate and wrap themselves in the cloak of mujahideen or Islamic holy warriors, he added.

"There are very few actual mujahideen and jihadists. There is a tendency to wrap yourself in a flag, so to speak, and use it as a cover for operations," Connable said.

The cells are usually run by a military or intelligence veteran, with access to funding from abroad, including neighbouring Syria, he added. "The former regime elements have connections with other countries."

A cadre of professional fighters led by Jordanian-born Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the alleged mastermind of al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, work alongside the Iraqis, the US intelligence officer said.

But most foreign fighters are thought to be raw recruits with nothing more to offer than zeal and a willingness to die. "They're cannon fodder," he added.

Marine officers have speculated that the combatants firmly ensconced in besieged Fallujah are now only foot soldiers, both foreign and Iraqi, while the masterminds of the insurgency have skipped town.

The Zarqawi network often recruits the disaffected unemployed youths in Anbar with the promise of jihad (holy war).

"What they try to do is get local and disaffected youth and pound their heads with jihad. They are roving the street (looking) for your classic 16- to 24-year-old," the intelligence officer said.

"They themselves rarely get shot or killed. They take these kids and run them out into firefights. It's a cynical approach," said Colonel Buck Connor of the US Army's 1st Infantry Division, in charge of the Anbar town of Ramadi.

Zarqawi also can smuggle in fighters, weapons and cash to the various constituencies in the ramshackle insurgency, Connor said.

"What we are seeing is a melding of former regime elements, Ba'athists, Fedayeen, and crime syndicates," he said.

"Zarqawi uses these groups. He arranges money for heavy weaponry, smuggles people. He arranges financing... It's more like a loose spider web."

Criminals, many of them freed under a general amnesty by Saddam in October 2002, sometimes encompass the bulk of a cell. The running of drugs, weapons and other smuggling also help finance attacks, according to Connable.

He believes the unskilled foreigner with a zeal for 'holy war', combined with Iraqi criminals, are the greatest short-term threat in Iraq, while the former Saddam security professionals pose a danger in the long-run.

But he said some elements of Saddam's security services could still be redeemed.

US overseer Paul Bremer announced plans last week to recruit former high-ranking military officers for Iraq's security services.

Still, the insurgency defies categorisation.

Cells vary in size and multiply, with old structures dying off and rapidly giving birth to new ones.

"The guy is an insurgent one day and the next he is not," Connor said.

US military officials are confident they will eventually drain out the insurgency, but know that even a victory in Fallujah won't spell the end of violence.

"There are no overnight solutions," Connor said.

But for many Iraqis, Fallujah has become a symbol of the insurgency directed against the US-led coalition since the start of the occupation a year ago.

"The Americans are deluding themselves if they think they can subdue Iraqis by force or through bribery. When an Iraqi is humiliated, he rebels," said Mohammad Hamadani, a Sunni nationalist from Fallujah. <a href="http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/26/1082831466486.html">http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/26/1082831466486.html</a>

Bush feeds his propaganda to his faithful base; they parrot his empty.
macho, "bring it on", rhetoric, while American troops continue to die in
an unnecessary war that Bush intiated. If our troops were killing foreign
fighters in Iraq in any numbers, why would our government not offer proof
of this by inviting journalists and international monitors from the Red Crescent, Red Cross, and the U.N. to view the bodies and the evidence, and
even make a validating point by inviting the Red Crescent to identify the
bodies and repatriot themn to their country of origin. Instead, we hear Bush's
bluster about taking the fight to them instead of fighting them here, echoed
by those who need no truth from Bush to continue to believe his every word!

host · 10-10-2004, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mjw

And you my friend sound like you're simply regurgitating liberal propaganda.....and the following isn't directed toward you.......

Unlike most people, I'm not basing my judgments on the war in Iraq on random news articles, press releases, or anything of the such. My opinion of what is going on over there is based 100% on my conversations with my friends and family that are over there, and have been over there for pretty much the entire time.

Now you can spout these articles at me all you want, and I will read them and consider what they have to say(because of the fact that I don't consider myself a fanatic, and like to take into consideration both sides of the story), but they're not going to carry as much weight in my mind as the opinions of the people that are there right now.

Lemme see.....I'm "regurgitating liberal propaganda" by providing points of
argument, backed by links to opinions of others that contain verifiable, dates,
names, and places, and you are providing vague references to unverifiable
sources. What is the responsibility of your sources in Iraq ? If they are
military, how about a name, rank, and mission history. How many people and
what areas of Iraq have they been in, and when, and for what length of time.
If this is the right war, where are the bodies of the foreign terrorists that our
troops have killed or captured? Now that the reasons for invading Irag in the
first place have been exposed as empty and baseless, what reason could there be for the U.S. to conceal the physical evidence that our troops are
fighting non-Iraqi terrorists and winning ?
Here's some more "liberal propaganda":

Quote:

<a href="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm">http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm</a>
Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:

* A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.

* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

* U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

* The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

sob · 10-10-2004, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Aside from 1069 American dead, other troops wounded and maimed, the
$120 billion spent (borrowed) the damge inflicted to U.S. military readiness,
and the misuse of reserve and national guard forces, and the backdoor draft
that will make future recruitment of new volunteers more difficult, to name only the impact on this misuse of U.S. forces in the "war on terror", is the continued deception of nearly half the electorate by Bush and Cheney.

Details on the "deception?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Powerclown still argues <i>"we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us"</i>, when the truth is that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 or the war against the people who the president claimed attacked this country. How can you "take it to them", when there would have been no conflict with those who kill our troops in Iraq today, if we had not invaded Iraq under false, and ever changing pretenses ?

Perhaps you should post a quote of one of these "false pretenses."

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Bush feeds his propaganda to his faithful base; they parrot his empty.
macho, "bring it on", rhetoric, while American troops continue to die in
an unnecessary war that Bush intiated. If our troops were killing foreign
fighters in Iraq in any numbers, why would our government not offer proof
of this by inviting journalists and international monitors from the Red Crescent, Red Cross, and the U.N. to view the bodies and the evidence, and
even make a validating point by inviting the Red Crescent to identify the
bodies and repatriot themn to their country of origin. Instead, we hear Bush's
bluster about taking the fight to them instead of fighting them here, echoed
by those who need no truth from Bush to continue to believe his every word!

Yeah, it's not like any American soldiers or civilians had been attacked in the last 20 years or so, or any of our pilots were being shot at in no-fly zones.

OFKU0 · 10-10-2004, 10:46 AM

I 've heard Bush state time and time again that the war in Iraq will eventually bring peace,democracy and stability to the mideast. In other words, a safer world for Israel, Americas nearest and dearest ally. Oh yeah,..and the money and oil thingy too I guess.

powerclown · 10-10-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maypo

You are aware the oil is running down? Reserves are estimated to last approx. 100 years perhaps far less with the boom in China. When this happens inevitably we will seek new sources of power, solar hydrogen etc. which, if the president and vice president didn't have their head up their ass we would be doing right now, instead of This quote refers more to the US than any other country I can see right now.

Well, then for the next 100 years or however long oil continues to be an important resource for all, no more Saddam Husseins in charge of the world's oil supplies please. As far as weapons, I sleep better at night knowing that the world's most powerful military conducts itself to a level of professionalism, and has respect for the rule of law that the US Armed Forces abide by. It is the most civilized, benevolent and neurotic World Power in the history of mankind.

matthew330 · 10-10-2004, 02:53 PM

"Did Iraq ever attack us?"....for 10 years, while we were trying to enforce UN sanctions, the answer would be "yes" damn near daily.

10-08-2004, 03:00 PM	#1 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	For everyone who said Iraq was not a threat... http://www.freep.com/news/statewire/...7_20041008.htm Education officials in six states including Michigan were put on notice last month that a computer disc found in Iraq over the summer contained photos, floor plans and other information about schools in their districts, two U.S. government officials said. So no WMDs were found, but look at all the stuff thats been found that showed their was definite intent to cause harm to the US. Doesn't this make a difference? I mean, school plans for gods sake, we go out of our way not to bomb hospitals, schools, or mosques, even when we know they are holed up in them, and yet they think our schools are ok targets. WTF? I'm even more pissed because I have friends whose kids go to one of the schools whose plans were found...

10-08-2004, 03:37 PM	#6 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	Can you really be too paranoid when kids are involved? __________________ There are no absolute rules of conduct, either in peace or war. Everything depends on circumstances. Leon Trotsky

10-08-2004, 11:58 PM	#10 (permalink)
Konichiwaneko The Dreaded Pixel Nazi Location: Inside my camera	For some reason I feel safer because we are war then if we let that cancer that was iraq fester. I'm happy nothing happen to those schools, if anything was even going to happen. I'm just happy that we don't have to have people die to start acting. __________________ Hesitate. Pull me in. Breath on breath. Skin on skin. Loving deep. Falling fast. All right here. Let this last. Here with our lips locked tight. Baby the time is right for us... to forget about us.

10-09-2004, 08:24 PM	#19 (permalink)
mjw Upright	Amen powerclown. It's very unfortunate that those 1066 had to die. But they did, and they're heroes. They had the bravery not many people do. __________________ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

10-09-2004, 10:13 PM	#20 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	So if all of a sudden they find a man in Iraq ONE MAN with a disk of shopping malls and they bring it public are you going to say "Oh holy shit they are going to blow up malls now?" Trust me if OBL and Al Quida can get your child's school's floorplans online or in public records at the county courthouse. If these people were going to hit schools they'd have started by now. Where does the insanity and paranoia end? This administration wants power so bad they will do whatever and say whatever it takes to keep that power and instill fear so noone questions them (and if anyone does, by God they aren't God fearing Christian Patriotic Americans.... Those who question US well let's just say that OBL and Co. appreciates them very much, we'll make sure they don't question anymore if you re-elect us). And if they are shown to be liars, they will come back and say they never said that original thing, that really the information was bad BUT they still had a damn good reason to fuck with you and scare the shit out of you so that you would keep them in power. They did it with Iraq...... WMD's...what WMD's? we never claimed that..... 9/11 connections.... What 9/11 connections, we never said that....... Imminent threat.... The Dems. are twisting our words, we never claimed imminent, we said could be...... humanitarian Saddam was evil, killed millions..... well there are some mass graves and he was very evil and the torture chambers and all... sure when George Sr. was CIA director he sold Saddam all this crap but but..... Imminent threat..... WMD's... ummmm disks of schools..... __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-09-2004 at 10:18 PM..

10-08-2004, 03:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
Orpheus Upright Location: Los Angeles, CA	Irishsean, I think you've been duped. Several reports have already contradicted these findings as false; this is just another despicable act by the administration. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/

10-08-2004, 03:14 PM	#4 (permalink)
Irishsean edited for content Location: Austin, TX	Look, both sides are gonna say whatever they need it to come out as, Democrats are gonna say its fake, republicans are gonna say its true. As for my part, I have people I really care about going to those schools and I think it should be taken seriously.

10-08-2004, 03:18 PM	#5 (permalink)
Orpheus Upright Location: Los Angeles, CA	"He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said." Okay- probably safe to establish he's not a terrorist. If paranoia suits your taste, then have at it.

10-08-2004, 04:08 PM	#7 (permalink)
noctypair Upright	You can be too paranoid. Period. Seriously, we have become a nation beset by the politics of fear. This administration encourages it. We have allowed our freedoms to be reduced and destroyed in the name of protecting them. Because of fear and paranoia. Not a good thing

10-08-2004, 04:20 PM	#8 (permalink)
trickyy ►	we must stop saddam from destroying traverse city junior high. you know, floor plans can be useful, especially when your country is in rubble. i don't know if republicans are really going to say this is legit. they'd have to fill in the blanks with some wild story of a renegade architect on the other side of the world.

10-08-2004, 04:25 PM	#9 (permalink)
OpieCunningham Loser	Just remember: it's only a legitimate threat if they found a farmers alamanac! ... anyone seen my emergency supply of duct tape?

10-09-2004, 02:59 AM	#11 (permalink)
Randomly Upright	For christ sakes... Let me bold the important part. He did have a connection to civic groups doing planning for schools in Iraq, the official said. He was an Iraqi citizen much like you are an American citizen. He had plans and outlines of US schools so that he and his group could build Iraqi schools using them as a model. He didn't want to blow them up. He wanted to build schools in Iraq that looked like them or used similiar teaching methods.

10-09-2004, 07:30 AM	#14 (permalink)
maypo Tilted	My sons are in one of the school systems that was in these files. My wife went to a meeting at the school last night, they had no real information. Looks like more fear-mongering to me, wait out the rumor mill and see

10-09-2004, 09:35 AM	#16 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Although I'm generally in favor of the war on Iraq, in this case I must point out that discs found after the removal of Saddam from office do not prove that Iraq was a danger before that removal. It might prove that terror groups in Iraq have plans to attack US schools, but that's about as far as I'd go. Saddam was still a bastard, though.

10-09-2004, 07:30 PM	#18 (permalink)
powerclown Junkie Location: Detroit, MI	I also don't think this war is unnecessary. I think its quite necessary. Furthermore, the US didn't start this conflict. So, we take it to them and fight it now, or we wait until they bring it to us, lose the initiative and lose more lives. A poor strategy. The US Armed Forces is a voluntary service; if you don't want to put your ass on the line and serve your country in a war setting you have the option not to. Still, Warriors live to fight.

10-09-2004, 11:50 PM	#23 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	Pan6467: You're putting up a straw man argument. Nobody said anything about African warlords being nice, or any of the other "arguments" you use.

10-10-2004, 08:00 AM	#29 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	Bodyhammer, Good and understandable reason not to invade N. KOrea, but what of the GOP who did not want anything to do with Bosnia-Serbia, or Africa or Iran (which if we were going to fight a war in the M/E Iran should have been first). Instead we chose a country we knew was totally weak, had no WMD's and allowed Iran to arm themselves and prepare. Thank you, Bodyhammer for presenting the facts in a very non partisan understandable way. Just pointing this out. We ar not the world's police. When Clinton wanted to help end Bosnia and Mogadishu and do so with UN approval, the GOP wouldn't allow him. Congress wouldn't help him help those people at all. NOW, we are expected to believe that we attacked Saddam because he was evil and a personal vendetta, rather than for the truth. We are to believe these men and women and Iraqis have died for a righteous government? One who sends them to die for a presidential vendetta and oil? I support our troops but this war is wrong. The best way to support the troops is to say this war is wrong and we need to find a way to stop it so that no more innocents have to die. The world isn't looking at us and admiring what we are. The world is no longer saying we are a great nation. The world is scared of what we will do next. If we are to ever even try to have world peace we cannot be looked upon as a bully and have other fear us. It breeds contempt, contempt breeds hatred, hatred breeds war. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

10-10-2004, 10:46 AM	#38 (permalink)
OFKU0 Junk	I 've heard Bush state time and time again that the war in Iraq will eventually bring peace,democracy and stability to the mideast. In other words, a safer world for Israel, Americas nearest and dearest ally. Oh yeah,..and the money and oil thingy too I guess. __________________ " In Canada, you can tell the most blatant lie in a calm voice, and people will believe you over someone who's a little passionate about the truth." David Warren, Western Standard.

10-10-2004, 02:53 PM	#40 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"Did Iraq ever attack us?"....for 10 years, while we were trying to enforce UN sanctions, the answer would be "yes" damn near daily.