TheGrunt Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I'm still curious Grunt. You insinuated that what you were about to post was some great answer to meet all the questions. These seem fairly obvious and rational, as in the 8 main topics that got/get discussed everyday on CNN/ABC/FOX and everywhere else for the last 5 years. So, why are these supersecret objectives so groundbreaking and how did you decide that they were the 8-prong critereia from anyone except the media themselves? I think you already have an answer to your question, and to be honest, it seems like you are just baiting me. On a more important note about the Iraq war, here is an unofficial list of the Al-Qaeda #2's (You know, the guys responsible for 9/11) killed in Iraq: Hamed Jumaa Farid al-Saeedi, aka Abu Humam, aka Abu Rana (9-3-06) * al Qaeda in Iraq’s “second most senior member.” Mansur Suleiman al-Mashhadani (6-20-06) * Zarqawi’s “a right-hand man” Mohammed Hila Hammad Obeidi (4-06-06) * “said to have close ties to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” Abu al-Farouq (2-27-06) * “previously unknown;” “top aide.” Bilal Mahmud Awad Shebah, aka Abu Ubaydah (10/14/05) * “Gatekeeper, Courier, Confidant of Zarqawi.” Sa’ad Ali Firas Muntar al-Dulaimi, aka Abu Abdullah 10/15/05) * “Highly regarded” by top Al Qaeda in Iraq leaders, including the group’s chief, Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Abu Azzam (9/27/05) * ‘The No. 2 official in the al-Qaida in Iraq organization.’ * “The top deputy to Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Mohammed Salah Sutton, aka Abu Zubair (8/14/05) * “A lieutenant of al-Qaida terror boss Abu Musab al Zarqawi.” Abu Abd al-Aziz (7/13/05) * “Zarqawi’s ‘main leader in Baghdad’” Khalid Suleiman Darwish, aka Abu Alghadiya (6/26/05) * A Syrian dentist…was described by Arab media as the ‘number two’ in Iraq’s al Qaeda network and tipped to succeed its leader Abu Musab Al Zarqawi.” Mohammed Khalaf Shakar, aka Abu Talha (6/17/05) * “A top lieutenant of terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Mullah Mahdi, aka Abu Abdul Rahman (6/4/05) * “Suspected deputy of terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” Abu Karrar (5/27/05) * “The Washington Post quoted a Zarqawi lieutenant by the nom-de-guerre of Abu Karrar as saying the Jordanian militant was shot and wounded in fighting with US forces near the western city of Ramadi.” Mullah Kamel al-Assawadi (5/25/05) * “Described as one of al-Zarqawi’s top lieutenants.” Agha Umar (5/25/05) * “A top aide to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” Amar Adnan Muhammad Hamzah al-Zubaydi, aka Abu al-Abbas (5/9/05) * “A high-ranking aide to terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Ghassan Muhammed Amin Husayn al-Rawi (4/26/05) * “A key associate of Iraq’s most wanted militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Hamza Ali Ahmed al-Wdimizyar, aka Abu Majid (beginning of April-05) * “Zarqawi associate” Salman Aref Abulkadir Khwamurad al-Zardowe, aka Abu Sharif (beginning of April-05) * “Zarqawi associate” Taifor Abulsattar Malallah (3/8/05) * “One of the ‘princes’ of Musab al-Zarqawi’s terrorist group.” Talib Mikhlif Arsan Walman al-Dulaymi, aka Abu Qutaybah (2/25/05) * “Iraqi forces have captured a man described as a trusted aide to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Mohammed Najm Ibrahim, aka Mohammed Najm (2/25/05) * “Zarqawi lieutenant” Adel Mujtaba, aka Abu Rim (2/20/05) * “A propaganda chief of al-Qaeda’s frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” Anat Mohammed Hamat al-Kays, aka Abu Alid (1/28/05) * “High-level Zarqawi lieutenant” Sami Mohammed Ali Said Jaaf, aka Abu Omar Kurdi (1/25/05) * “A senior aide to Abu Musab al Zarqawi” * “The ‘most lethal’ top lieutenant of Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq.” Ismael Jeddan (1/23/05) * “The raids also netted a man identified as Ismael Jeddan, an alleged associate of al-Zarqawi.” Ali Hamad Ardani Yasin Isawi (1/20/05) * “top lieutenant” Inad Mohammed Qais (1/20/05) * “The deputy prime minister for national security affairs, Barham Salih, later told a news conference that authorities have arrested a third Zarqawi lieutenant.” Salah Salman Idaaj Matar Luhaybi, aka Abu Sayf (12/31/04) * “Zarqawi’s chief of operations in Baghdad” Fadil Hussain Ahmed al-Kurdi, aka Abu Ubaydah al-Kurdi, aka Ridha (12/30/04) * “A senior member of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s network.” Abdul Aziz Sa’dun Ahmed Hamduni, aka Abu Ahmed (12/22/04) * “Zarqawi-linked leader” Hassan Ibrahim Farhan Zyda (12/14/04) * “An aide to Iraq’s most-wanted man, Jordanian Islamist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” Abu Saeed (11/26/04) * “A lieutenant of Iraq’s most feared terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” Nameless (10/23/04) * The US military has arrested a ’senior leader’ in the network run by Jordanian mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Omar Yusef Juma’a, aka Abu Anas al-Shami (9/25/04) * “A senior aide of the Jordanian al Qaeda mastermind, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” Umar Baziyani (6/4/04) * “A top aide of al-Qaeda suspect Abu Musab al-Zarqawi” * “His capture removes one of Zarqawi’s most valuable officers from his network.” Abu Mohammed Hamza (2/24/04) * “A key lieutenant to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.” Hassan Ghul (2/23/04) * “The letter was found on al-Zarqawi lieutenant Hassan Ghul, a Pakistani captured in Iraq.” * The letter in reference was a “17-page letter to senior al Qaeda leaders written by terror mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who asked for help starting a Muslim civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Athenaes.” Nameless (4/30/03) * “An associate of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been captured in the Baghdad area.” This List is obviously not updated to display the most recent Al-Qaeda killed in Iraq, but if you ask me these appear to be the "terrorists" that many of you don't believe are worth going after in Iraq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Oh SNAP! :eek: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I think you already have an answer to your question, and to be honest, it seems like you are just baiting me. No no...I'm not baiting you. You claimed there were 8 objectives that no one else could name but you, then asked everyone to try to name them and let you know when we failed. Then you enlightened us with 8 objectives that have been pubicly debated and highly exposed for years while claiming that it is a shame that no one knows these and blamed it on the same media who has been reporting them. I'm not baiting you, just trying to understand whatever point it is you are trying to make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 bushy... come on, down play so naive. You lieberals are always saying there is no plan, grunt reminded you there was, he asked you if anyone knew, no one posted it, even though now you say everyone knew those 8 steps. I think you are a BOLD FACED LIAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Did you even read any of them Sparky or do you just not get CNN in Oklahomo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I think you already have an answer to your question, and to be honest, it seems like you are just baiting me. On a more important note about the Iraq war, here is an unofficial list of the Al-Qaeda #2's (You know, the guys responsible for 9/11) killed in Iraq: This List is obviously not updated to display the most recent Al-Qaeda killed in Iraq, but if you ask me these appear to be the "terrorists" that many of you don't believe are worth going after in Iraq. Hate to say this for fear of stirring a hornets nest but...... I think the arguement is that they werent there before we started our LIBERATION. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 they werent there before we started our LIBERATION. Where were they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 bushy... come on, down play so naive. You lieberals are always saying there is no plan, grunt reminded you there was, he asked you if anyone knew, no one posted it, even though now you say everyone knew those 8 steps. I think you are a BOLD FACED LIAR. there is a plan is just secret Where were they? Neptune Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Where were they? Excellent question. The important thing to remember is that they are dead now. Whether or not they were originally hiding in Afghanistan, Iran, or some hole similar to the one Saddam was found hiding in -- it doesn't matter. H8, you obviously already know this, so I'm directing the importance of these facts at the people who only count the US death toll without emphasizing the purpose and reason our brave Soldiers and Marines sacrifice their lives for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGrunt Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I'm not baiting you, just trying to understand whatever point it is you are trying to make. Listen to H8. there is a plan [it] is just secret See. You lieberals are always saying there is no plan, grunt reminded you there was, he asked you if anyone knew, no one posted it, even though now you say everyone knew those 8 steps. I think you are a BOLD FACED LIAR. Bushwacked, I can't clarify this any more than H8 did here. I think you are making some outrageous and unrelated arguments without realizing that I was only making a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Where were they? Dispearsed throughout the region.?.? Were you privy to info that even our own govt wasnt? How can anyone argue that Iraq was a harbor for terrorists before the war when it seems very clear to anyone with half a brain that terrorist activity has been and is on the increase SINCE our arrival! If you didnt subscribe to Saddams thinking pre war you were jailed or worse! Saddam needed to go.?.? Probably. Alqueda in Iraq prewar? Very doubtful! We have destabilized that country plain and simple! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) The military operations [under Operation Iraqi Freedom] against the state of Iraq were designed to remove the Iraqi Regime from power and to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction; Special operations forces were also responsible for attacking a number of specific targets such as airfields, weapons of mass destruction sites, and command and control headquarters. In March of 2003 President Bush had even addressed the American public stating that coalition forces were in the "early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger." The military objectives of Operation Iraqi Freedom consist of first, ending the regime of Saddam Hussein. Second, to identify, isolate and eliminate, Iraq's weapons of mass destruciton. Third, to search for, to capture and to drive out terrorists from the country. Fourth, to collect intelligence related to terrorist networks. Fifth, to collect such intelligence as is related to the global network of illicit weapons of mass destruction. Sixth, to end sanctions and to immediately deliver humanitarian support to the displaced and to many needed citizens. Seventh, to secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, which belong to the Iraqi people. Finally, to help the Iraqi people create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government. I think one of the primary problems of these objectives is NONE addressed exit strategy. Even so, as time has shown, the sixth, seventh and last points were not well thought out. The military did a colossally good job conquering the country. THey then proceeded to do an equally colossally bad job of forcasting local reactions to thier actions. THe military is very good at what they do involving the strategic use of tactics and weapons. It was up to the Executive Branch to handle the social planning and politics of the situation. McDumbass dropped that as well on the military, who were ill-equipped to handle it. I do not criticize the military or thier planning. Bush did not match the brilliant military strategy with equally well thought out and effective social and diplomatic strategy. Chimpy let down both the military AND the American people in a way the deserves impeachment far more than a little BJ in the White house. Edited June 1, 2007 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) Bushwacked, I can't clarify this any more than H8 did here. I think you are making some outrageous and unrelated arguments without realizing that I was only making a point. No, I was asking you to articulate, in your own words, what your point is. Your 8 supersecret objectives that everyone already knows about, of which the merits have been widely discussed and debated for years, copied and pasted from some miscellaneous website don't present anything new and H8's trypical drivel doesn't make whatever you are trying to say any clearer. Edited June 1, 2007 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 terrorist activity has been and is on the increase SINCE our arrival! Uhhmmm, you say that as if it was a bad thing? So before iraq, they were 'dispersed' througout the area, and now, they are concentrated and being killed? Are you sure you are rooting for the good guys here Rosie? NONE addressed exit strategy. What is our exit strategy for korea? Are we in Saudi Arabia still? no. You know why? We don't have to protect them from Saddam anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Uhhmmm, you say that as if it was a bad thing? So before iraq, they were 'dispersed' througout the area, and now, they are concentrated and being killed? Are you sure you are rooting for the good guys here Rosie? Yes I am for the good guys. I was at my daughters HS graduation last night where 3 young men were given a 5 minute standing ovation by over a thousand people because they are off to WAR in the next few months! I am for them and all like them! I hope that there families dont have to suffer the anguish that so many more before them have had to suffer. Iraq wasnt a harbor for terrorists before the war! You and I both know that. H8 you arent a stupid person, you know this isnt going well. None of us knows the answer to the terrorisim problem but I dont think that providing them a theatre so we can try to kill them while they wipe out innocent people is the answer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Are we in Saudi Arabia still? no. You know why? We don't have to protect them from Saddam anymore. We have to protect them from their people still, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Iraq wasnt a harbor for terrorists before the war! No, but iraq was a threat to all her neighbors, had an impoverished citienship, and was being monitored 24/7 by us, while we were being shot at. Unfortunately for them, 9/11 happened. We then took the fight to them, the terrorists and terrorist states and terrorist sympathizers. I for one am happy we started the fight, we have sat back for far too long. This point no one has ever answered me... if we attacked afghanistan, a religious fanatical country, so what. But we attack iraq, with a secular state, someone the lieberals say al queda hated, this is what they are pissed about? Doesn't make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 On a more important note about the Iraq war, here is an unofficial list of the Al-Qaeda #2's (You know, the guys responsible for 9/11) killed in Iraq: You chastize the media for giving you a particular poopshoot, yet you implicitly trust the public relations wing of the defense department to after-the-fact assign rankings and roles to an organization that our own intelligence says operates with very little structure and quite a bit autonomy among its individual cells? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godtomsatan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 No, but iraq was a threat to all her neighbors, had an impoverished citienship, and was being monitored 24/7 by us, while we were being shot at. Who was Iraq a threat to? Iran? Syria? This point no one has ever answered me... if we attacked afghanistan, a religious fanatical country, so what. But we attack iraq, with a secular state, someone the lieberals say al queda hated, this is what they are pissed about? Who is pissed about what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 No, but iraq was a threat to all her neighbors, had an impoverished citienship, and was being monitored 24/7 by us, while we were being shot at. Unfortunately for them, 9/11 happened. We then took the fight to them, the terrorists and terrorist states and terrorist sympathizers. I for one am happy we started the fight, we have sat back for far too long. This point no one has ever answered me... if we attacked afghanistan, a religious fanatical country, so what. But we attack iraq, with a secular state, someone the lieberals say al queda hated, this is what they are pissed about? Doesn't make sense. The Saudis are only looking out for their own best interests. Having us fight Iraq will keep damage to their precious castles and oil infrastructure. If the Saudis wanted to extinguish Saddam they could have but they would have done it in a far more emphatic fasion. Iraq played a key role in that region for everyone but us and the Israelis! We were in Saudi because we begged them for access and as soon as they could force us out they did. We arent there anymore because they didnt want us there anymore! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbimm Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Who was Iraq a threat to? Iran? Syria? Who is pissed about what? This is exactly what I was thinking! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 No, but iraq was a threat to all her neighbors, had an impoverished citienship, and was being monitored 24/7 by us, while we were being shot at. Unfortunately for them, 9/11 happened. We then took the fight to them, the terrorists and terrorist states and terrorist sympathizers. I for one am happy we started the fight, we have sat back for far too long. This point no one has ever answered me... if we attacked afghanistan, a religious fanatical country, so what. But we attack iraq, with a secular state, someone the lieberals say al queda hated, this is what they are pissed about? Doesn't make sense. THe attack on Afghanitstan was a group effort, with the world. Iraq was Chimpy wanting to finish something for his daddy. Afghanistan had recognized, TRUE evidence of Al-Queda having camps and support, PLUS Bin Laden was there. Of course it made sense. Iraq had no evidence of collusion in 9/11, or links to alQueda. We did not have global support and yet our politicians decided to F the world opinion and attack anyway, using thier made up excuses as a purpose. The damage done to Americas reputation was huge. We are well on the way to becoming the Imperialist agressor Al-Queda accused us of being. In fact, it could be argued we HELPED thier cause by invading Iraq. sure don't see a whole lot of suicide bombers flocking to Afghanistan, do we? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted June 1, 2007 Author Share Posted June 1, 2007 Afghanistan had recognized, TRUE evidence of Al-Queda having camps and support, PLUS Bin Laden was there. Of course it made sense. Then why didn't al queda flood afghanistan, thier ally, to fight us? Why are they in iraq, someone you say al queda hated? We were in Saudi because we begged them for access I don't beleive this is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 (edited) Then why didn't al queda flood afghanistan, thier ally, to fight us? Why are they in iraq, someone you say al queda hated? I don't beleive this is true. Because Iraq was invaded by someone they hated more than Saddam. And it is on Arab soil. Edited June 1, 2007 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Who is pissed about what? I'm pissed I didn't buy Halliburton stock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.