New Tape: Al Qaeda No. 2 Wants 200,000-300,000 U.S. Dead in Iraq, Mocks Recent U.S. Legislation for Troop Withdrawal...

[Francisco Montana]

New Tape: Al Qaeda No. 2 Wants 200,000-300,000 U.S. Dead in Iraq, Mocks Recent U.S. Legislation for Troop Withdrawal...

By BRIAN ROSS
May 5, 2007

In a new video posted today on the Internet, al Qaeda's number two man, Ayman al Zawahiri, mocks the bill passed by Congress setting a timetable for the pullout of U.S. troops in Iraq.

"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap," Zawahiri says in answer to a question posed to him an interviewer.

Continuing in the same tone, Zawahiri says, "We ask Allah that they only get out of it after losing 200,000 to 300,000 killed, in order that we give the spillers of blood in Washington and Europe an unforgettable lesson."

Based on the references to the bill, the tape, produced by al Qaeda's propaganda arm, as-Sahab, appears to have been made after Congress passed the legislation last week but before President Bush vetoed in on Thursday.

Full Article


The key, to me, is in bold. He mocked the Defeat & Retreat legislation crafted by the Dems in Congress (before Bush vetoed it.) Never in my life have I ever heard of anyone anywhere giving their enemies a timeline of when they will surrender and withdraw.

[PacSubCom]

That's the spririt! "Come back here! We're not finished with you!"

Al Quaida is not an enemy btw. China and 20 million soldiers, that would be an "enemy", or the red army of Russia with tons of nukes. Al Quaida is an inconsequential nuisance. The trillion dollar military hardly notices them, nor does it care that they know the plans.

[Ahiga]

So they want 200,000 to 300,000 dead of our soldiers in Iraq.

I think that may be a clue as to how long they are determined to stay there, and I don't think any nation or people save those like these people are willing to stay long enough for such a body count to rise to those numbers. In terms of attrition, those who are willing to blow themselves up probably will be the ones to succeed over those who value life and living.

I imagine that's just like someone claiming the Persian Army is a million strong - a generalization meant to show they want to kill a lot of us, but the fact that he claims
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap" makes me ask a question that I think is more important than wanting to leave. If they want to get us out of said trap, then how will the Republicans keep us from falling prey to said trap by staying there?

[danzig]

So they want 200,000 to 300,000 dead of our soldiers in Iraq.

I think that may be a clue as to how long they are determined to stay there, and I don't think any nation or people save those like these people are willing to stay long enough for such a body count to rise to those numbers. In terms of attrition, those who are willing to blow themselves up probably will be the ones to succeed over those who value life and living.

Or we could just see it for what it was imo and that is pure propaganda. I mean come the ratio of dead soldiers to civilizans/insugents as it stands is so out of whack that Iraq would be reduced to a population of 0 in order to achieve 300,000 dead US soldiers! This isnt about determination to stay there, this is about propaganda as are most of these tapes.

"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap" makes me ask a question that I think is more important than wanting to leave. If they want to get us out of said trap, then how will the Republicans keep us from falling prey to said trap by staying there?

They arent idiots, they know the way US politics work and are using it to their advantage. It sets up two things here, if the US leaves then he can say they were cowards and fled because we were going to kill 300,000 and if they stay it gives more time to grind away despite absolutely zero chance of even achieving a fraction of what he claims they want. Its an attempt to play US politics against one another and the best solution is a big FU to him and to ignore these main subject of these tapes.

[Ahiga]

Or we could just see it for what it was imo and that is pure propaganda. I mean come the ratio of dead soldiers to civilizans/insugents as it stands is so out of whack that Iraq would be reduced to a population of 0 in order to achieve 300,000 dead US soldiers! This isnt about determination to stay there, this is about propaganda as are most of these tapes.

Well naturally it is propaganda. But could you argue against them having more determination than us? Can you, even, when theirs is the side where determination is shown by literally blowing it's participants up? I think it'd be ignorant to say we'll be able to show up these insurgents in determination to stick it through, because they've been doing so in regards to Israel for over a century. Would any nation be willing to fight a battle halfway across the world for that amount of time, if not longer?

And you might say it's only until we get the Iraqis on their feet, and I hope we can do so and we are seeing such fruits ripen with the Sunni Shieks and native Iraqi's fighting Al Qaeda, but because of the imbedded nature of the insurgency, we might be able to basically remove Al Qaeda from Iraq, but I don't think we are ever going to get rid of Al Sadr or the Sectarian conflict. If that's what we measure by staying, and not Al Qaeda's presence, then we may have to stay there for decades more. And I cannot think of any nation who would not buckle from underneath such stress, or decide that it's not worth it to stay and be bled dry financially and physically by an insurgency like that.

I don't advocate simply leaving, but if we think we can simply show up the insurgency by seeing who blinks first, we're going to postpone the inevitable.

[Francisco Montana]

If we withdraw then we are only playing into Al Qaeda's hands. They would love nothing more than for us to leave so that they can create another safe haven for training and organizing. Then we will have to sit back on our hands and wait for, as you say it, the inevidable. Another massive strike on one of our cities. It's been said already, we have two choices. Fight Al Qaeda over there or over here in our streets. Personally, I would rather they fight over their against our Armed Forces than over here against our civilian population.

[Winter]

If we withdraw then we are only playing into Al Qaeda's hands. They would love nothing more than for us to leave so that they can create another safe haven for training and organizing. Then we will have to sit back on our hands and wait for, as you say it, the inevidable. Another massive strike on one of our cities. It's been said already, we have two choices. Fight Al Qaeda over there or over here in our streets. Personally, I would rather they fight over their against our Armed Forces than over here against our civilian population.

I don't post a lot but I feel I have to respond to this. What makes you think Al Qaeda isn't trying to get into America now? They are, and being in Iraq will not stop them from coming to America. Iraq is wasting our resources and our lives, and it is clear that is another one of Al Quaeda's goals, if you read what that no. 2 terrorist guy said. Pulling out is not playing into their hands, staying there is.

[OTZ]

If we withdraw then we are only playing into Al Qaeda's hands. They would love nothing more than for us to leave so that they can create another safe haven for training and organizing. .

That's a bold statement, and one that's full of a few assumptions that may not even be plausible. Probably the most important assumption: Al Qaeda will have enough support, in terms of money, materiel, and public, to create a similar environment that existed in Taleban-run Afghantisan, after the US leaves. Just think of what is going to be required to do this!?! Al Qaeda at this point has a very weak hold on it's current position in Iraq - and it ain't the Americans that are keeping them in check. There is very little support for foreign occupiers in Iraq - Muslim or otherwise. I strongly doubt that a US wtihdrawal from Iraq will allow Al Qaeda to "go forth and prosper." It's quite ludicrous, given the immense trouble they have in generating popular support for their current activities. Heck, even some of the most extreme Iraqi-led Islamists don't get along with Al-Qaeda. One might suggest that without American occuppiers, the Islamic Army in Iraq will be able to shift it's attention to the other foreigners...

[hsimoorb]

The key, to me, is in bold. He mocked the Defeat & Retreat legislation crafted by the Dems in Congress (before Bush vetoed it.) Never in my life have I ever heard of anyone anywhere giving their enemies a timeline of when they will surrender and withdraw.

Could you provide any credible scource for where the legislation calls for surrender?

[Francisco Montana]

Could you provide any credible scource for where the legislation calls for surrender?

By definition, to leave before the job is done and leave the battlefield to your enemy before you have defeated them is surrender.

How else would you define "tucking your tail between your legs and running away from the enemy"? :hmmm:

[OTZ]

By definition, to leave before the job is done and leave the battlefield to your enemy before you have defeated them is surrender.

How else would you define "tucking your tail between your legs and running away from the enemy"? :hmmm:

Wouldn't that depend entirely on the "job" the Americans are there to do? What were their original goals? Have they been achieved? Is defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq a primary objective, or is establishing a "stable" Iraqi government their goal? I think dealing with the insurgency (in whichever form) is something the US feels the Iraqi government should be handling themselves. Since this is not a traditional conflict in any way, traditional measurements of "victory" or "defeat" should not be applied.

[Darth Wong]

By definition, to leave before the job is done and leave the battlefield to your enemy before you have defeated them is surrender.

I'm sure General Lee was thinking the same thing at Gettysburg, hence his decision to order Pickett's charge.

[danzig]

Could you provide any credible scource for where the legislation calls for surrender?

The same way as Vietnam was, it is the only valid comparison between Iraq and Vietnam that can be made in my view. Its all about perception, if you dont achieve your goals then you were defeated and if you leave well you are in essences surrendering. Vietnam despite being so poorly run and hamstrung by idiotic suits in Washington was probably still winnable especially after Tet which despite the PR effect it had was a disaster for North Vietnam but the will dried up and probably rightfully so, you can only expect people to tolerate idiotic leadership for so long. Iraq is less winnable thanks to the screw ups by the Bush admin because you have the ethnic/religious conflict going on. The problem of course is winning in Iraq is far more important then winning in Vietnam was but again the will is no longer there making it moot. So when the US pulls out (and we will despite the fact I think it is a horrible mistake given we created the mess) it will be viewed as surrender. Without proper leadership that can actually figure out a way to make it better its really our only option so we'll have to eat our pride and leave.

What were their original goals? Have they been achieved? Is defeating Al Qaeda in Iraq a primary objective, or is establishing a "stable" Iraqi government their goal? I think dealing with the insurgency (in whichever form) is something the US feels the Iraqi government should be handling themselves. Since this is not a traditional conflict in any way, traditional measurements of "victory" or "defeat" should not be applied.

Technically our goals were achieved, removal of Saddam but that doesnt fly in the world of international politics and really nor should it as it hilights the short sighted views of the Bush admin. People laugh at Bush's mission accomplished carrier landing despite the fact it was accurate, the US achieved its primary goal of removal of the Iraqi government. Of course when no WMD were found some Einstein in the White House decided to change what the goals were, a stable, democratic and free Iraq then changed it again to fighting terrorist there rather then here. Hell in two idiotic blunders the Bush admin snapped defeat from the jaws of a victory in that it DID achieve its initial goals.

[Alatar]

So they want 200,000 to 300,000 dead of our soldiers in Iraq.

I think that may be a clue as to how long they are determined to stay there, and I don't think any nation or people save those like these people are willing to stay long enough for such a body count to rise to those numbers. In terms of attrition, those who are willing to blow themselves up probably will be the ones to succeed over those who value life and living.

I imagine that's just like someone claiming the Persian Army is a million strong - a generalization meant to show they want to kill a lot of us, but the fact that he claims
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap" makes me ask a question that I think is more important than wanting to leave. If they want to get us out of said trap, then how will the Republicans keep us from falling prey to said trap by staying there?

Now I'm pretty damn liberal but retreating will admit defeat and will be very bad, for once I agreed with bush.

One Nuke on Baghad though and it's all over. Man sometimes I wish we still had no morals.

[LSJ]

Al-Qaeda wants that many Americans dead, but they have no hope of achieving it. Unless they could unify they could not do such a thing. They certainly will not be able to unify because they keep killing each other because the other group's beliefs differ ever so slightly from their own.

The one thing I am certain is that fighting them over in Iraq is not making America safer, but it is helping Iraq and that is important. Al-Qaeda uses small mostly unconnected groups of people to carry out attacks. Killing the leaders and destroying their training camps does not make them less able to send a man over to America and blow something up with household materials bought legally in the US. Or fly a plane into a building. Leaving Iraq would only save a few dozen soldier's lives, but cost many more Iraqi lives, and appear as weakness, encouraging other groups to attack. Its better for more people if the troops stay there.

[VoodooTengo]

Alatar: Nuking Baghadad would not solve anything and would only increase our problems. Only 18% of Muslims live in the middle east, and if we attacked Iraq with nukes muslims worldwide, weather sunni or shia would temporairly be unified like we were after 9/11, and then we would suddenly find ourselves with absolutely no friends, and most of asia, africa and europe our for our blood (not that Europe has a majority of muslims, but the percentage is large enough that their governments would be agaisnt us to aviod large scale riots etc.)

DarkProphet: I think you are confusing Al-Qaeda for Islam at large. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization, as are most muslims in the world except in Iraq and Iran where Shia are the overwhelming majority, they also have differnces which make them incompatible, it is not unlike Catholics and Protestants. Leaving Iraq would save thousands of soldiers lives, not dozens assuming our committment is indefinite, and our troops being there are not stopping the violence, no number of troops can stop a suicide bomb fomr going off, nor can they be everywhere at once. A swift victory for one side is the best thing we can hope for in Iraq, so they will be unifed, they would be unified agaisnt us but thats better than them killing each other because then they could maintain order when we leave.

[Francisco Montana]

In vietnam i do not believe we won the battle of the Ir Drang Valley or the battle of Lang Vei

Casualties for la Drang Valley: 3,561 North Vietnamese estimated killed versus 305 American dead

Lang Vei: Losses among the 500 CIDG Montagnard defenders were 200 killed in action. Losses among the 24 U.S. defenders were ten killed in action and 11 wounded.

Although the North Vietnamese succeeded in overunning the camp, they lost seven tanks and an unknown number of troops in the attack.

I would also like to note that shortly thereafter the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry recaptured the Special Forces camp at Lang Vei uncovering large stockpiles of supplies and ammunition.

In conclusion, my statement wasn't that the United States and South Vietnamese won every battle (although the ratio is astonding in-and-of-itself). No, my statement was that the United States decimated the enemy in every single battle fought during the Vietnam War. That statement is, in fact, irrefutable.


Back on topic: I'll get to the other stuff later as I have a five year old and a one year old to entertain and they are seriously losing patience with their Daddy.

[crazyj]

edit: first need to say how funny it is he wants to kill 200-300k U.S. soldiers....at the rate they're currently at, there won't be very many jihadists left on the planet by the time they achieve those goals....now if they came clean and said they were trying to kill 300k Iraqi civilians, why I might believe they have a fighting chance.

So they want 200,000 to 300,000 dead of our soldiers in Iraq.

I think that may be a clue as to how long they are determined to stay there, and I don't think any nation or people save those like these people are willing to stay long enough for such a body count to rise to those numbers. In terms of attrition, those who are willing to blow themselves up probably will be the ones to succeed over those who value life and living.

I imagine that's just like someone claiming the Persian Army is a million strong - a generalization meant to show they want to kill a lot of us, but the fact that he claims
"This bill will deprive us of the opportunity to destroy the American forces which we have caught in a historic trap" makes me ask a question that I think is more important than wanting to leave. If they want to get us out of said trap, then how will the Republicans keep us from falling prey to said trap by staying there?

Hasn't it occurred to anyone that they are simply trying to ENCOURAGE our withdrawal via such statements? By acting as if they are seriously disappointed we would withdraw, thereby making more pussies in this country freak out and say "look, we are caught in a historic trap"? Because in reality al-Q's objectives are met when we withdraw. Then they can take over the Iraqi government, their real (and potentially achievable goal). They don't want just some endless war there. They want to win that battle, and then use the resources and weapons of a nation state to carry the war to other corners.

Funny how you don't question his statement at all, just assume it is a given, and that he is correct by saying its a trap, and therefore how, oh how, can we avoid the trap other than by withdrawing....methinks you just fell into his real trap....

Your side says "lets stay until the job is done" and the democrats are looking to do just that, put forward a set of benchmarks that once achieved would give us the ability to withdraw with a clear conscience.

Meeting some goals and thereby having enough debate wiggle room to say "we met our goals (which were invented because they were achievable, allowing us to say>), lets leave" is hardly the same as actually seeing this thing through in a proper way.

We don't need random benchmarks to give us a clear conscience. Our conscience should already be clear. It just gives Dem an excuse to pull out.

And yea, we shoulda imprisoned Abe Lincoln too.....and FDR of course....and Tom Jefferson....

[VoodooTengo]

Gruffles: If you use the term engagement instead of battle than you are still wrong because there are instances of SF teams or listening posts out on deep patrol getting ambushed and obliterated. One of my dads friends was a platoon commander in Vietnam, he lost a whole squad once who were out on patrol, they got ambushed never had a chance. Though this is a stupid argument (the whole vietnam one). You still havent adressed the other points i brought up in my post which you said you would.

Crazyj: Al-Qadea could never take over Iraq, because the majority of Iraq are Shia while Al Q is a sunni organization, so Iraq and Iran would never stand for them to be incharge. Do you think that if Al Qadea took over Iraq we wouldnt have B52's above Baghdad in two hours and bomb the **** out of every government building and installation in the country? They arent our enemies in Iraq anyway which is something people forget, our real enemies there are Iran supported insurgents, and groups like the Mahadi Army. The insurgency in Iraq is a grass roots (or whatever kind of desert plants there are) sort of movement, and it is not a broader front in the war on terror. Despite what Al Q says Iraq is not their war, they are much more successful and active in Afghanistan. In reality if we left Iran would step in either restore order as an islamic republic would make iraqis happier, or they would destory the sunnis.

Your notion that Americans who want to pull out are pussies is stupid. I want to pull out but not because im afraid to have us bloodied (though id rather we werent but everyone has to die somehow) but because it hampers our abilites abroad and our ability to respond to the next terrorist attack (on top of the fact that it is a stupid unjustified war). Next time we are in a situation where we need to invade or intervene like we did in Afghanistan what troops are we going to do that with? If there is a nuclear or dirty bomb attack where are we going to get the personel to effectivly respond to that, so we dont get another much more disasterous hurricane katrina aftermath? On top of that think about how much more effective our counter terror measues would be with even a fraction of the money we are wasting there.

Their real issue in planning the war was not that they put to much faith in Iraqi's but that they believed that nationalism is mans natural state. A tribal and religious mentality is a much more natural way to think and act, and if you have been repressed and abused by every national power you are going to live under you will not have much faith in any sort of national government and have no desire to have one.

I cant believe that anyone thinks Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (Not that anyone here said anything about that but just in general). Saddam was a lot like the soviets, he really didnt pose any real threat to us because his sole purpose was to consolidate and maintain power. The soviets would never have nuked us because of MAD. Saddam would never have used chem weps on us even if he had them because of our response and he would not have supported 9/11 because of the response we gave. He also wasnt a muslim he drank, did drugs slept with prostitutes and was overall brutual. He acted like he was because it was what he had to do to exist in he region. The fact that al-zaqari was in his country really doesnt prove anything, its impossible to know who is in your country, it would be like saying that America was at fault for 9/11 because the terrorists were here.

Edit: Crazy J i think they used reverse psychology on you and you fell into their real trap...

[crazyj]

Crazyj: Al-Qadea could never take over Iraq, because the majority of Iraq are Shia while Al Q is a sunni organization,

Uh huh...and its not like Iraq was ever run by a primarily Sunni organization, dominating the Shia and Kurds through force of arms before right?

They arent our enemies in Iraq anyway which is something people forget, our real enemies there are Iran supported insurgents, and groups like the Mahadi Army. The insurgency in Iraq is a grass roots (or whatever kind of desert plants there are) sort of movement, and it is not a broader front in the war on terror.

Curious...al-Q in Iraq isn't our real enemy...ok, forgetting that fallacy, you are right in that the Mahdi Army is our enemy...except you are forgetting that they are only one of several enemies we have in Iraq...

The insurgency is not "grass roots" except in the cases of retaliation killings for collateral damage. Its a mix of ex-Baathists (mostly Sunnis) who want their privileges back (funded by Syria and others in many cases), sometimes aligned with Sunni-Al Q and other foreign fighters (other times they fight each other), in addition to Shia militias (funded by Iran) and covert Iranian military/terrorist forces.

And yes, it is a primary front in the WoT precisely because that is where most of our several enemies have gathered, are fighting us, can be killed and most importantly where they have the most to gain if we lose.

Despite what Al Q says Iraq is not their war, they are much more successful and active in Afghanistan. In reality if we left Iran would step in either restore order as an islamic republic would make iraqis happier, or they would destory the sunnis.

Not true. We just can't go into Pakistan to get the terrorists who launch raids into Afghanistan, so I guess in that sense they are "more successful" at staying alive only because they have a safe haven behind them.

BTW, Iran has been trying to "step in and restore order" (lol, your words) since day 1 in Iraq. Of course, it is curious that their method would be to help instigate a civil war first, send out death squads, and actively kill U.S. troops....but hey, once all that is done and they've helped make us leave, how nice of them to "restore order."

Your notion that Americans who want to pull out are pussies is stupid.

You are right, they aren't worth being equated with something so valuable. They are just dumb and naive.

I want to pull out but not because im afraid to have us bloodied (though id rather we werent but everyone has to die somehow) but because it hampers our abilites abroad and our ability to respond to the next terrorist attack (on top of the fact that it is a stupid unjustified war).

Lots here, but first of all, in what way does it hamper our ability to respond to the next terrorist attack? Hmm??? Like when Canada attacks us, and we go "OMG, we need 12 divisions in Canada stat!!!" It does exactly the opposite. Take a look around the world...look at the countries most likely to attack us...and tell me Iraq isn't closer to them (for basing purposes) than California and N. Carolina.....not to mention our troops there FORCE the Sauds to fight the Wahabis in their own country, in addition to the countries that gave up their WMDS (Qaddafi) or whose decision to fight by our side (Yemen, Dijbouti, Jordan, and so on) was reinforced by what happened in Iraq.

As for it being unjustified, please go check out all 23 resolutions for war with Iraq, and then complain to the 99% of Congressman who voted for war on the basis of those TWENTY THREE resolutions.

Next time we are in a situation where we need to invade or intervene like we did in Afghanistan what troops are we going to do that with? If there is a nuclear or dirty bomb attack where are we going to get the personel to effectivly respond to that, so we dont get another much more disasterous hurricane katrina aftermath? On top of that think about how much more effective our counter terror measues would be with even a fraction of the money we are wasting there.

Again, what next time? The present is now my friend. Stupid to sit back and plan for a different war when we are already in one....Besides, which countries are you referring to? Pakistan? We're already next door. Iran? Ditto. Saudi Arabia? Broken record here.

As for cleanup, its not like the entirety of our forces are ever simulanteously deployed buddy. Hence why you saw the 82nd airborne, one of the elites, cleaning up Katrina.......you are also forgetting about the police and firefighters and other ERT guys who are always in CONUS....besides I didn't know our servicepeople were around only to clean up after enemy attacks...god forbid they take the fight to the enemy and help prevent them....

As for spending money on countermeasures, 9/11 proved we have no countermeasures other than to go on the offensive. Our country CANNOT be properly defended against, in the case of small terrorist cell actions. Simply cannot happen, no matter how much money we spend. All we can do is force countries where terrorists come from to crack down on them there, before they get here, in addition to controlling access to WMDs, and by killing as many of those who drive 1,000s of miles to places like Iraq and Afgh. as we can.

Their real issue in planning the war was not that they put to much faith in Iraqi's but that they believed that nationalism is mans natural state. A tribal and religious mentality is a much more natural way to think and act, and if you have been repressed and abused by every national power you are going to live under you will not have much faith in any sort of national government and have no desire to have one.

Funny, because many of the tribes and affiliations in Iraq have come on board with us. See: Al-anbar province, ex. Tal Afar, cross link with "sheikhs reject al-Q in favor of US".

Besides, this paragraph of yours makes no sense. So they shoulda planned to break Iraq up into 1,000 mini-kingdoms? Because that is the only thing you are implying here, as a way to have somehow planned better.

I cant believe that anyone thinks Iraq had anything to do with 9/11 (Not that anyone here said anything about that but just in general).

I can't believe people keep pretending other people believe that, when it has no place in a debate where it so far hasn't come up......

HOWEVER, please check into how Saddam gave safe haven to one of the plotters of WTC 1, knowing full well he had been complicit in the attack on us. Then sift through the millions of other potentially damning documents coming out of Iraq and say that it wasn't conceivable, immediately post 9/11 before all the facts were in, for some Americans to think there may have been a connection.

Saddam was a lot like the soviets, he really didnt pose any real threat to us

Hilarious. Yes, the similarity between Saddam and the USSR was that they didn't pose any real threat to us.....forget about the other dozens of actual similarities, yours is the product of wishful thinking and intellectual neglect.

Are you forgetting that Saddam shot at our jets in the no fly zones almost daily? Including GWB's first in office? Tell the pilots juking to avoid SAM missiles that he posed no threat to "us". Tell that to GHWB, who was targetted for assassination.

Go ahead and ignore Saddam's quest for WMDs, and his links to terrorist groups with no qualms about detonating those WMDs in American and taking the blame for them.

The soviets would never have nuked us because of MAD. Saddam would never have used chem weps on us even if he had them because of our response and he would not have supported 9/11 because of the response we gave.

I don't think you realize how close we came to getting nuked by the Soviets, on several occasions. Besides, now you are just speculating (in a manner that suits your argument) as to what Saddam might have done.

Like has been said, its not Saddam per se that woulda hit us, but proxy groups using his weapons, giving him deniability.

And a wrecked U.S. certainly helps him maintain power, free from interference, no?

He also wasnt a muslim he drank, did drugs slept with prostitutes and was overall brutual. He acted like he was because it was what he had to do to exist in he region. The fact that al-zaqari was in his country really doesnt prove anything, its impossible to know who is in your country, it would be like saying that America was at fault for 9/11 because the terrorists were here.

Funny, I didn't know those actions were required to "survive in the region." But so happy you brought up Zarqawi. He WAS a Muslim, yet he drank, did drugs, slept with prostitutes, and was overall brutal......hmmmm.....

Interestingly, considering that Saddam wasn't a Muslim, why did he add the Kuranic verses to the Iraqi flag in the mid 90s? Why did he take to dressing in traditional Islamic garb at the same time? Not only to make it easier to maintain control, but because he saw which way the wind was blowing, and who his future allies might be in a greater struggle against a common enemy....

I mean, sure Zarqawi being in Iraq doesn't prove anything....sure, no big deal that after getting wounded in Afghanistan he goes to Iraq to recover, spends several lazy months recovering and is fitted with a high end prosthetic leg (reportedly in a hospital run by Uday Hussein)........

Edit: Crazy J i think they used reverse psychology on you and you fell into their real trap...

First, come up with your own take on the "trap thing" don't just imitate my last post. Second, considering that I was for the war, and for its current continuation, they are hardly using reverse psychology on me. Look up the definition of that please. I'd have to be in favor of leaving until they made their statement for it to be reverse psychology. I'm calling their bluff. Big difference.