Al Qaeda Linked To Terrorists In Thailand

[bkkcharlie]

OK, time to get banned again, everychat and forum that i have asked this question i have been banned from,so well here goes.

Despite that the American people by a solid majority still support Bush’s Middle-East/terrorist policies. Anybody who says or tries to suggest that a ring wing dominated media is intentionally keeping the American people duped simply does not know what he/she is talking about.

posted by tosh.....

hmmm bush invaded a non aggressive country for allegedly having weapons of mass destruction. where are these weapons??

the 9 11 terrorists were mainly saudies

y didnt he invade saudi??

but u r american and believe tv etc

but lets look at the facts, ok so saddam wouldnt answer some questions of bush about weapons, would bush tell saddam about his nuclear program.

[fat_bald_farang]

oh tooshman - so defensive such an appologist!

fatty

[lamphun]

BBC NEWS TODAY 12th JANUARY

A top official sacked from the US Government has accused President Bush of planning for an invasion of Iraq within days of coming to office.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill said Mr Bush was looking for an excuse to oust Saddam Hussein.

As a member of the president's National Security team he said he never saw any evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Translation - Saddam tried to kill his dad (during a visit to Kuwait) so George junior used the resources of the United States to get the bad guy.

[tooshman]

Bkkcharlie: “hmmm bush invaded a non aggressive country for allegedly having weapons of mass destruction. where are these weapons??”

Non-Aggressive????? Are you really that foolish? I'm sure the people of Kuwait and Iran might have a different opinion of Iraq's "non-aggressive" nature under Saddam. By the way, didn’t both the Kurds and Iran have weapons of mass destruction directly used on them by Saddam? And I thought only fat bald farang was misinformed.

Fat bald farang: “oh tooshman - so defensive such an appologist!”

I make no apology for anybody. I merely pointed out the misinformation you are attempting to put out when you claim that the media in the US is right wing. How about proving your claim?

[bkkcharlie]

Over 10 years ago iraq invaded kuwait,over 100 years ago white men invaded the usa and started killing the indians.....erm wot time span shall we use for forgiveness and to be able to say they r a non aggressive country,,,main question is erm wot were they called...ahhhhh yes weapons of mass destruction,now where r they,cos they were the reason for the usa for there invasion into a soveriegn country.

[SoCal]

Let me help those who cannot see clearly:

1) Iraq was in violation of 18 (?) resolutions to clear up his weapons of mass destruction program.

2) Everyone on the security council shared the same view as the USA towards Iraq's past, current, and future development of their weapons program. This included France, England, Russia, and even the Syrians.

3) Clinton was just as convinced of the weapons program, wanted to go to war with Iraq, and was defeated by the republicans in his effort, ergo he bombed Iraq. He handed over a file to Bush as to the threat of Iraq, when Bush took office.

4) Sadam and his sons were evil, brutal people that subjugated a population for 40 years.

If there is a debate here, then it is not if GWB made up weapons of mass destruction, or as a result of 9/11, only if war or diplomacy was the proper path to take. Diplomacy was the prefered route of the terrorist state Syria, and France, Germany and Russia, Iraq's biggest trading partners and debtors. These countries banned together to use the U.N. to block the USA from any action.

So you see, any dialogue should probably not be about GWB, weapons of mass destruction, timeline, etc., but whether diplomacy could have resolved the situation, whether the U.N. is an effective body or the tool of sovereign nations, and if it is worthwhile that this man is out of power.

Let's be perfectly clear on my views:

1) I do not support George Bush, but will not field the bullsh*t you sling at my country, and my president. You want to hate me, pm me and I will give you my address with an invitation to come try and kick my a**.

2) This is not about oil. The oil is being controled by a state run (Iraqi) program, and being sold on the world market. My country sacrificed billions of dollars, and many lives, so don't trivialize this loss with such an assnine remark. *Thanks to those who lost with us.

3) I believe that diplomacy was the correct path. That said, I blame those who did not support us (just as much as my leaders) that made this an impossibility. *Sadam himself believed that the war would not happen, or last a very short time until his boddies saved his a**.

4) I have no doubt GWB had it in for Sadam since day one, and any excuse was justification in his eye. Sadam was a thorn in his old man's side, not to mention Sadam trying to hire killers to do away with Sr. under the Clinton administration. *No doubt GWB wanted an excuse, the better question is why Sadam and the rest of the world for that matter gave it to him.

5) Now that this horrible mess is made, can't we learn anything and work together for a better Middle East, and a better world, or just fling childish insults at each other, and declare my guy is more stupid or sinister than your guy?

I would assume some of you are not chronic alcholics, raised in a madras, or bellow an IQ of 100. So why do you say such stupid things, that are completely devoid of reality?

There are many problems with this world, and unfortunately our nations and our leaders have an agenda that does not seek to make the world a better place. So, are you going to use your mind to figure out the truth of things, and your voice to offer any effort in improving things, or grab a chang and volley a Sophmoric comment?

Best of luck to those of you who suffer with delusions.

[tooshman]

bkkcharlie,

I don't know what "white men invading" the USA over a hundred years ago has to do with Saddam's recent history of aggression and the world's need to deal with it. Those particular white men you are referring to are long since dead and Saddam and his thugs are not. The connection you are attempting to make appears to me to be a rather poor attempt by you to somehow lesson Saddam's aggressive (which you seem to deny) and barbaric behavior. I'm sure that most Iraqi people would say that Saddam's aggressive nature has never stopped and would consider your “wot time span shall we use for forgiveness” argument extremely naive. Right up until his removal he was murdering and oppressing his own people and that is a fact. Thugs from his former regime still are murdering Iraqi’s. His aggressive ambitions against his neighboring countries never stopped IMO and were only kept in place with the threat of force. I have little doubt the people of Kuwait understand that far better than you.

It is obvious to me that an intelligent and informed debate/discussion with you is not possible and I won't waste anymore of my time on you. By the way, white men came to America closer to 400 years ago. 100 years ago (1904) the Indian/White armed conflicts were largely over. Your grasp of the facts is very poor as well as fat bald farang.

[Supersurch]

Oh boy! Here we go again. Thank goodness we're in front of computers rather than in front of each other.

Suggestioin to all the fellow yanks, blokes, chaps, and others: please continue with your discussion, but when you sense a debate to become out of control, think of beer, women, and/or both.

-Thank you.

[Georgie-Porgie]

Sorry, but Thaiquila keeps listing wacky web-sites as "evidence" of war mongering war pigs, vast right-wing conspiracies, stolen elections, sex with Thai prostitutes, etc., etc. I can't reply to whole web-sites, so from now on, this will be my reply, with MY wacky website:

www.foxnews.com

(Good idea Thaiquila. This is so much easier than actually having to think about what your opposition says, and come up with a reply).

[dr_Pat_Pong]

OK, time to get banned again, everychat and forum that i have asked this question i have been banned from,so well here goes.

Well you are still here...but it does seem that you are pissing off a lot of members

[fat_bald_farang]

it seems nobody can challenge the bush admin without someone going mental and spewing forth some misguided patriotic gush.

the fact is the war is illegal. and the evidence that was presented to the world was stolen from a phd paper on the internet and exagerated to make people affraid, so as to justify an attack.

the war is based on lies. margret thatcher played a similar stunt with the falklands war and it got her re-elected. she created that war and she got our boys killed.

bush is pulling the same stunt - the war is designed to keep him in office.

and i'm very sad at all the people that have been killed on all sides of this farce.

so do prols now read the 'quality'newspapers? i think not. just to simply say oh some of our papers are a bit independant or left sympathetic is no good if only the elite read them. same in the uk.

and i hope i'm pissing people off - why are they pissed off? because they can't stand to hear the truth.

[fat_bald_farang]

oh and i'm not anti american either before you start to flame me. i just hate to see people like bush who are purely self serving, getting people killed because he wants to stay in office.

if i was an american i think the most patriotic thing i could do would be to lobby to pull out of iraq and bring your boys home and let the un sort out the mess.

[Khun ?]

oh and i'm not anti american either before you start to flame me. i just hate to see people like bush who are purely self serving, getting people killed because he wants to stay in office.

if i was an american i think the most patriotic thing i could do would be to lobby to pull out of iraq and bring your boys home and let the un sort out the mess.

Where is all the U.N. troops to thwart Terroist supporting nations? The military for hire U.N. (who the americans pay the biggest share) are not effective unless lead by an equal force of the opposition. When the U.N. quits pulling their pud they can catch up with us in Saddams hole of luxury and Osama Been hidding's cave. Let the U.N. stick with civil affairs and let the real world leaders take care of rogue dictators, religious cult leaders and terrorist in a fashion they understand.

This slap them on the hand and send them to the corner mentality does not work.

The next Johnny Bad ass that shows up will know for the crime he will pay the time. Let the U.N. handle the civil wars and let the real leaders handle the world

threatening idots. Sending Saddam back to his palace does nothing but support

his kingdom of Saddam. If Saddam would of been removed years ago the terrorist

would not of been excited to think it is a david and goliath fairy tale. A few years back Osama was handed to Clinton and he refused to take him because of no charges against him. That is after Osama had been ran out of every place he had been to. Saddams surrender without removal of his regime is the worst world decision of the century. I do not need any islamist or christian telling me how to live. Freedom has a high price and I enjoy parking my arse on a plane going to

a peaceful vacation without worry. I ask Islamist and Christians nothing but to leave me in peace as I will them where ever they choose to be. I will even get the proper visa doing so.

[bkkcharlie]

tooshman Posted: Mon 2004-01-12, 23:08:05

Newbie

Group: Members

Posts: 4

Member No.: 6,571

Joined: 2004-01-02

Bkkcharlie: “hmmm bush invaded a non aggressive country for allegedly having weapons of mass destruction. where are these weapons??”

Non-Aggressive????? Are you really that foolish? I'm sure the people of Kuwait and Iran might have a different opinion of Iraq's "non-aggressive" nature under Saddam. By the way, didn’t both the Kurds and Iran have weapons of mass destruction directly used on them by Saddam? And I thought only fat bald farang was misinformed.

by your reckoning then bush should invade thailand southern provinces and sort out the terrorists there then..

the usa are not the worlds police force, although they are acting as though they are. AND WHERE THE ###### ARE THOSE WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION???

that was there main justification for going to war..

as for iraqs aggression to other soveriegn nations that was more than 10 years ago.

should the usa have invaded ireland because of the terrorists there,ie the ira??nope cos it aint there country.

the usa declared war. they didnt send in a peace keeping force they just bombed all the infrastruture and now usa taxcpayers are paying to rebuild there country,at least initially.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

He's something else..............

[Georgie-Porgie]

He kind of reminds me of someone else....

[singa-traz]

2) This is not about oil. The oil is being controled by a state run (Iraqi) program, and being sold on the world market. My country sacrificed billions of dollars, and many lives, so don't trivialize this loss with such an assnine remark. *Thanks to those who lost with us.

...

I would assume some of you are not chronic alcholics, raised in a madras, or bellow an IQ of 100. So why do you say such stupid things, that are completely devoid of reality?

...

Best of luck to those of you who suffer with delusions.

replace "sacrified" with "invested" ...

"This is not about oil." ... sure ! and Condoleezza Rice was previously working for Disneyland !

...

They lied about the WMD.

They lied about Iraq and AQ link.

They lied about what they really knew before 911 (preparation).

Without 911, invading Iraq would not have been possible ...

Well, you draw the rest of the conclusion yourself ! ...

[tooshman]

Some of you people need to get to medicated. You are no doubt foaming at the mouth with your anti-American rhetoric and hate. The Socialist/Commie types sure have gotten touchy since we defeated them in the cold war.

[SoCal]

Singa,

You are wrong my friend. Bush would have went to war without 9/11. All he needed was an excuse, and while 9/11 did not hurt the situation, the excuse was provided by the U.N. refusal to stand together and take action, and Sadams testing of the system once again.

WMD- This was more or less due to Blair, who needed the excuse. Bush tried to back him, and got his hand slapped for that, but that does not delute the fact that the U.N., France, Germany, Russia, Syria, and the whole of security council believed he had WMD, it was only a question of how to deal with it. *Grow up, and quit spewing the philosophy you read on a box of cracker jacks.

Oil- I cannot think of a bigger lie. This little (mis?) adventure cost the American people 100 billion. The oil is controlled by an Iraqi state agency, and sold on the open market. Believe me, if it was about oil, I would probably support the war.

Be honest, or go sit in the corner.

[singa-traz]

9/11: I thought the rethoric used to support the invasion of Iraq, was that it is part of the "War on Terror" ... without 9/11, difficult to get the same support ...

WMD: Sure, they also believed Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Nigeria ... and they made an honest mistake (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/12/sprj.irq.wmdspeech/) ...

Oil: The oil is controlled by an Iraqi state agency ... they don't need to steal Iraqi oil, they just need to control the flow of it ... so that they can control OPEC ... why do you think the relation with Libya are warming up ... Why do you think Russians are dying in Chechnya ? (Do a google search with "Chechnya pipeline")

Oil or Controlling Oil Supply is at the root of these conflicts and many others.

I imagine that it is easier to prepare soldiers to die to get rid of a dictator ... than to support strategic decision like reducing the role of OPEC.

I recommend you some reading:

- OPEC Member List

- Oil Dependency a Major Concern, Energy's Abraham Says, June 20, 2002

SoCal, you should stop on those blue pills, that Morpheus gave you ... or is that your medication ?

[SoCal]

Singa,

I had so much hope for you. Further, I have been so fair, when it has been possible to spout equally Sophmoric rebuttals "blue pill, and all."

If you told me Bush wanted it to be about the oil, maybe you would have a point, but the fact is that we are not controlling the oil much to the left's concern and probably the Bush administration as well.

Listen buddy, we are not controlling it, my price per gallon is not down, and oil stocks are not up. Even if we did control it, not sure it was worth the 100 billion dollar investment.

If we wanted oil that bad, why didn't we go in to Venezuella last year? What to much knowledge for you?

Go put your thinking cap on, and come back with something more intelligent.

[singa-traz]

If you told me Bush wanted it to be about the oil, maybe you would have a point, but the fact is that we are not controlling the oil much to the left's concern and probably the Bush administration as well.

Listen buddy, we are not controlling it, my price per gallon is not down, and oil stocks are not up. Even if we did control it, not sure it was worth the 100 billion dollar investment.

If we wanted oil that bad, why didn't we go in to Venezuella last year? What to much knowledge for you?

1: Venezuela does not have dictator like Saddam

2: Iraq is the 2nd oil reserve in the world ... and closer to the 1st one ...

3: Any WMD in Venezuela to justify the trip ?

What about those rumours, the US was supporting the plotters in the last tentative coup ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/1985670.stm

Sure, only rumours ...

[SoCal]

Singa,

Iraq Oil- For all your talking, we still don't control it.

Venezuella- The opposition claims that he wasn't rightly ellected. if we can make up WMD, why can't we make up something for them, if oil is our only concern?

PS- Have no doubt we supported them. What's your point? Chirac, Yeltsin, and Schroder supported a maniac like Sadam.

You see my friend, it's not about the US at all. It is about states. 90% of the worlds wealth is held by 10% of the population. Shouldn't this demand more of your consideration? FYI, before you start railing, the 10% are not only Americans.

Have a good night.

SoCal

[singa-traz]

Iraq Oil- For all your talking, we still don't control it.

Venezuella- The opposition claims that he wasn't rightly ellected. if we can make up WMD, why can't we make up something for them, if oil is our only concern?

PS- Have no doubt we supported them. What's your point? Chirac, Yeltsin, and Schroder supported a maniac like Sadam.

...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1929498.stm

Venezuela is the fourth largest producer in the world.

In the days before the overthrow of President Chavez, the US State department was urging caution, saying Washington would not support a military coup or the unconstitutional overthrow of the Venezuelan leader.

But after his removal, the White House reaction appeared remarkably different - with officials clearly pleased at the result.

Far from condemning the ouster of a democratically-elected president, US officials blamed the crisis on President Chavez himself - accusing him of ordering supporters to open fire on anti-government demonstrators.

Dangerous precedent

They called for new elections and even congratulated the Venezuelan military for restraint, saying Mr Chavez's overthrow did not constitute a coup because he had resigned.

It seems that Washington jumped the gun. Now back in power, President Chavez says he never resigned - despite pressure from his captors.

Certainly in past decades his ousting would have been described by most as a classic pro-US military coup, even if it did not involve tanks rumbling through the streets.

... 4th largest producer of oil ...

Rumors that the US was more than just supporting the opposition:

Search and Read

But again, not for oil, right ...

It would be difficult for the US to justify sending troops to Venezuela, , to remove Mr Chavez who was democraticaly elected ... so trying to help ousting him was probably the best available option.

And what was my point ... again: Oil / US intervention

Which was related to ... why the US invasion of Iraq to oust Saddam ... and no intervention in Rwanda when 800,000 people get killed ! And I mentioned before ... NOBODY MOVED for Rwanda (in case, you think it's another anti-american statement ...).

You see my friend, it's not about the US at all. It is about states. 90% of the worlds wealth is held by 10% of the population. Shouldn't this demand more of your consideration? FYI, before you start railing, the 10% are not only Americans. 

Sorry, for this one ... what are you trying to say ?

[tooshman]

SoCal - The I hate America Socialist/Communist types like singa-traz are not interested in the truth. They are far more interested in their anti-American rhetoric and hate. Ever since the United States defeated their Socialist/Communist "worker's paradise" in the former Soviet Union they have gone apoplectic with their hate and resentment of America. Perhaps America should not have made the Herculean efforts it did throughout the 20th century to keep Europe free. After all, using singa-traz’s twisted logic there had to be some evil and capitalistic financial/economic reason for it. Most likely the North Sea oil. They knew even during WWI. The fool is crazy with hate for America and it shows in his rhetoric.

[singa-traz]

Where do you see hate in my rethoric against America?

Because I have different views than you on what is happening?

Easy to label me as a Socialist/Communist ... I can still remember having to declare if I was a communist in my immigration card ... in the land of freedom ! ... they don't ask anymore, right? ... now, they fingerprint you !

So what's next ? Accuse me of supporting terrorism?

So please, challenge my opinions, not my style.

It's not because I condemn the tentative to overthrow Chavez via military coup that I'm Socialist/Communist ... or that I think he is a good president.

In my posts, you can find simple facts and suggestion of articles to read ...

And what have been provided by ... let's call this, the "Bush-Gang" ... www.foxnews.com (a cute joke ... with someone with a certain sense of humor).

So, tooshman ... tell me the thruth ... Condoleezza Rice, was she or was she not previously working for Disneyland?

...

We started this topic on Al-Qaeda and the link with Thailand, and the Thai General to mention in the CNN article, that most of the terrorists in this region where previously trained in Afghanistan, to fight the Soviet ... where Bin Laden was involved right ?

Are you disputing those facts ?

I added some spices, and a link to article from "Le Figaro" ... for your information, not really a Socialist/Communist newspaper ... which alleged that Bin Laden, which at that time I think was already in the top 10 list of people to catch on this planet, going to Dubai to get fix in an hospital, ... and the local CIA guy to pay him a visit ... a few weeks before 911.

You can dispute the "Figaro" claims ... but you can't dispute the fact that the CIA and Bin Laden had some kind of link.

I did not put it here, I'm sure you can use google for this, the business link between Bush and the Binladin family.

... we continue then with a few others posts ... not really important ...

What get me started, is the statement from SoCal ... that Invading Iraq is not about Oil ... but then it's about what? ... (Go and Print the topics, to re-read my posts).

So, where is the hate in my rethoric? tell me, where?

...

Talking about what happened in the South of Thailand ... for sure, after this, the Army Budget for this region is not going to be cut ... Bonus, Pension, etc ...

PS:

And yes, I prefer Allendee to Pinochet ... even, if I have to admit I do not know much about Allendee ... but maybe because I've meet people who had to leave Chile because of Pinochet !

[tooshman]

You make my case for me. I can almost see the anti-American foam coming from your mouth.