WRONG, there's not a shred of evidence, nor was there ever that Iraq had anything whatever to do with 9/11, your suggestion that somebody anybody had to be attacked back is why so many people see American as a bunch of gun ho trigger happy, need I say moreShaneMan said:
Whyjsanders said:
I'm not sugesting that all Christians hate, I'm just saying that I can't because I'm not one.selenau837 said:
An eye for an eye, you can go off and find where it is in the book of quotes, in fact that's the one that's used as justification when seeking revenge.ShaneMan said:
Rich said:
Rich said:WRONG, there's not a shred of evidence, nor was there ever that Iraq had anything whatever to do with 9/11, your suggestion that somebody anybody had to be attacked back is why so many people see American as a bunch of gun ho trigger happy, need I say more
Rich said:
Please don't think I'm defending Rich because nothing ould be further from the truth, but just for accuracy's sake... there is no evidence at all of a connection between Iraq and terrorism. Just FYI.ShaneMan said:
I've answered that question many times in the past however I challenge you again, where is the evidence that Iraq harboured terrorists?ShaneMan said:
Oh really, so America is not a Christian country then ?jsanders said:
depends on whether they belong to another faith that supports or even promotes hatred in its doctrineMrsGorilla said:So, by your logic, those who aren't Christians are incapable of hate?
Kraj said:
So we can say then that the vast majority of those southern babtist folk who went to church every Sunday before inflicting their hatred on society were all liars.ShaneMan said:
ShaneMan said:
Rich said:
According to the 9/11 commission and the other sources I've read: Nope. At best, there were some vague implications from various sources but no hard evidence of any of the things you listed. Additionally, Iraq's political relations with most countries involved with terrorists weren't very good. It almost sounds ridiculous to say it, but all evidence points to Iraq being one of the few middle eastern countries without terrorist ties.ShaneMan said:
Well that's more of a stretch. He certainly was a terrible person who continued to do terrible things, just not to anyone other than the Iraqi citizens. Personally, I think that if Bush had said from the beginning that Saddam was a rat bastard that needed to go just on the grounds of human rights, his support base would have been much more consistsant.ShaneMan said:
We didn't necessarily mess up. After all, we did go into Afghanistan first, which at the very least was a justified move. The problem is that Bush (and this is not a Bush-bash, it's just telling it like it is) was highly focused on Iraq even before his Presidency began. My best guess is that the events of 9/11 gave him a powerful way to build support for the Iraq invasion so he used it. I also think he honestly believed Saddam had WMDs and expected to find them when they invaded, which is why he focused his justification so highly on them.ShaneMan said:
.)
