YASPT - Yet another Sarah Palin thread - tells troops Iraq caused Sept 11 attack

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: JD50
Al Qaeda is currently in Iraq.

/thread

Oh for the love of God!

Al Qaida in Iraq is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad).

It is NOT the same Al-Qaida led by Osama Bin Ladin which is responsible for the attacks of 9-11.

You honestly did not know that?


:roll: WTFBBQ?

Good point, I'm sure that there is not one member of the original Al Qaeda in Iraq....:roll:

There may be one or two in Canada or Great Britain as well, when do we invade?



The point is, the people responsible for the attacks of 9/11 are in Afghanistan and Pakistan...NOT Iraq.

I cannot believe you are too ignorant to realize that.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: JD50
Al Qaeda is currently in Iraq.

/thread

Oh for the love of God!

Al Qaida in Iraq is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad).

It is NOT the same Al-Qaida led by Osama Bin Ladin which is responsible for the attacks of 9-11.

You honestly did not know that?


:roll: WTFBBQ?

Good point, I'm sure that there is not one member of the original Al Qaeda in Iraq....:roll:

There may be one or two in Canada or Great Britain as well, when do we invade?



The point is, the people responsible for the attacks of 9/11 are in Afghanistan and Pakistan...NOT Iraq.

I cannot believe you are too ignorant to realize that.

Yes, they are in Iraq. Just for the record, are you saying that you honestly believe that there are absolutely no members (former or current) of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Iraq, and that they have never been there? Are you also saying that these organizations do not communicate with each other? Are you seriously this naive?

 

[senseamp]

This is Cheney-Bush 08 ticket.

 

[TechBoyJK]

Originally posted by: senseamp
This is Cheney-Bush 08 ticket.

no not really

i think its mccain-palin? at least thats what i read...

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: JD50






Yes, they are in Iraq. Just for the record, are you saying that you honestly believe that there are absolutely no members (former or current) of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Iraq, and that they have never been there?

Nope, not saying that.





Are you also saying that these organizations do not communicate with each other? Are you seriously this naive?

Nope, never said that, either.




The fact is, the group responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 are holed up in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Furthermore, it is painfully obvious that Governor Palin was implying that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.


Buh-bye!

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: JD50
Al Qaeda is currently in Iraq.

/thread

Oh for the love of God!

Al Qaida in Iraq is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad).

It is NOT the same Al-Qaida led by Osama Bin Ladin which is responsible for the attacks of 9-11.

You honestly did not know that?


:roll: WTFBBQ?

Funny that you don't continue the copy/paste from wikipedia to include the sentence directly after the bolded. I'll include it here for you:

Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[5]

What is painfully obvious is your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: JD50


Yes, they are in Iraq. Just for the record, are you saying that you honestly believe that there are absolutely no members (former or current) of Bin Laden's Al Qaeda in Iraq, and that they have never been there?

Nope, not saying that.


Are you also saying that these organizations do not communicate with each other? Are you seriously this naive?

Nope, never said that, either.

The fact is, the group responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001 are holed up in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Furthermore, it is painfully obvious that Governor Palin was implying that Iraq was responsible for the attacks of September 11, 2001.


Buh-bye!

Great, so we're in agreement that some of "the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans" are currently in Iraq, and our troops are fighting them there.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: JD50
Al Qaeda is currently in Iraq.

/thread

Oh for the love of God!

Al Qaida in Iraq is a direct successor of al-Zarqawi's previous organization, Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Group of Monotheism and Jihad).

It is NOT the same Al-Qaida led by Osama Bin Ladin which is responsible for the attacks of 9-11.

You honestly did not know that?


:roll: WTFBBQ?

Funny that you don't continue the copy/paste from wikipedia to include the sentence directly after the bolded. I'll include it here for you:

Beginning with its official statement declaring allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network in October 2004, the group identifies itself as Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR) ("Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers").[5]

What is painfully obvious is your intellectual dishonesty.

LOL, busted!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan
Now they distort her words and twist them into a strawman...this is getting really pathetic. WTF is wrong with you people?

WTF is wrong with you people and your feigned outrage?

Lipstick + pig
Bitter
First time really proud of her country
Teaching sex-ed to K-schoolers

All bullshit comments taken out of context and twisted into strawmen. I almost forgot the best one... The 'whitey' tape. Friggin' thing doesn't even exist. And you guys were outraged about the Paulin baby story? Stop it.

You must be confusing me with someone else...I never feigned outrage regarding any of the topics on your list. You make this shit up without batting an eye...you're so full of it dude...get a clue.

 

[ayabe]

AQ in Iraq was declared officially defeated months ago.

Aside from that, WE ALL KNOW, that we've really been fighting militias who don't give two shits about AQ or AQ in Iraq.

This is 2008, not 2004, let's start being a little more honest about Iraq. Those same AQ types that are in Iraq, that supposedly are linked to 9/11, are in fact now employed by us as paid assassins to take out Shiite malcontents.

Freedom is on the march.

 

[dainthomas]

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: QED
This seems to be a common theme for attacking Palin: take something she said, make implications, show that those implications are false, and then conclude that proves Palin was either lying or misinformed.

Nowhere does she say that Iraq was behind 9/11, but her comments were construed BY THE REPORTERS to mean just that, setting up an easy strawman for them to knock down.

telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans



You're right, QED, she's obviously not talking about the same Iraq to which they are being deployed; she's talking about some other country called Iraq which "planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

Yes, you are absolutely right-- there aren't any people in Iraq who have been part of group responsible for 4,000+ American soldier deaths.

:roll:

So why didn't she say we're fighting people responsible for killing soldiers? No, she said "defend the innocent". However justified and righteous their actions might be, soldiers are not "innocent" since they also kill people.

The phrase (while not explicitly saying) clearly implies defending "innocent" civilians. On our own soil. Like where the WTC was. Until those guys in Iraq planned their deaths. There is a reason her statement was worded EXACTLY how it was.

These games have been going on for years. They will go as far as linguistically possible to IMPLY that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 without just coming out and saying it. That way they have deniability when they're called out on it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: dainthomas

Originally posted by: QED

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: QED
This seems to be a common theme for attacking Palin: take something she said, make implications, show that those implications are false, and then conclude that proves Palin was either lying or misinformed.

Nowhere does she say that Iraq was behind 9/11, but her comments were construed BY THE REPORTERS to mean just that, setting up an easy strawman for them to knock down.

telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans



You're right, QED, she's obviously not talking about the same Iraq to which they are being deployed; she's talking about some other country called Iraq which "planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

Yes, you are absolutely right-- there aren't any people in Iraq who have been part of group responsible for 4,000+ American soldier deaths.

:roll

So why didn't she say we're fighting people responsible for killing soldiers? No, she said "defend the innocent". However justified and righteous their actions might be, soldiers are not "innocent" since they also kill people.

The phrase (while not explicitly saying) clearly implies defending "innocent" civilians. On our own soil. Like where the WTC was. Until those guys in Iraq planned their deaths. There is a reason her statement was worded EXACTLY how it was.

These games have been going on for years. They will go as far as linguistically possible to IMPLY that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 without just coming out and saying it. That way they have deniability when they're called out on it.

While I disagree with what QED said, it's also been shown in this thread that Palin was correct in her statement, AQ and those supporting AQ are in Iraq. Notice how sierrita tried to cherry pick a statement from wikipedia and then disappeared when called on it.

But I agree with you, I do think that she was referring to 9/11, not attacks on our soldiers.

 

[jonks]

The articles misleading title and thus this thread are fail. Al Qaeda is now in Iraq and that's who our soldiers are still fighting. Palin didn't say Iraq is responsible for 9/11, that was an incorrect inference imputed to her by the article. Additionally, those we are fighting, even if they didn't plan/carry out 9/11, certainly rejoiced at the event, and that is the second half of her sentence.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: insurgent

Originally posted by: Genx87
Where did she say Iraq was behind 9-11? At least not in the link you provided she didnt say that.

"Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

Technically, it's correct. Al Qaeda is in Iraq and we are fighting them in Iraq. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11.

forgive me if I'm wrong, but is not the Al Qaeda in Iraq only related to the Al Qaeda which carried out the 9/11 attack in name.. That is, they took the name after the fact like some kind of marketing tactic to give their own movement some sort of terrorist street cred.


edit: Oh, 2nd page.. already covered.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: jonks
The articles misleading title and thus this thread are fail. Al Qaeda is now in Iraq and that's who our soldiers are still fighting. Palin didn't say Iraq is responsible for 9/11, that was an incorrect inference imputed to her by the article. Additionally, those we are fighting, even if they didn't plan/carry out 9/11, certainly rejoiced at the event, and that is the second half of her sentence.

STOP and LEARN.

(CBS/AP) Many U.S. military commanders in Iraq believe they have dealt a large enough blow to al Qaeda in Iraq to declare victory over the group, according to a report in the Washington Post.

Text

Those that are dead are dead, the rest of them are working for us as assassins as part of the Sunni Awakening.

So stop the spin.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Dari

Originally posted by: insurgent

"Gov. Sarah Palin linked the war in Iraq with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, telling an Iraq-bound brigade of soldiers that included her son that they would "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

Technically, it's correct. Al Qaeda is in Iraq and we are fighting them in Iraq. Al Qaeda is responsible for 9/11.

Technically, it's INcorrect. The original Al Qaeda was not in Iraq Sept. 11, 2001, and "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," Al Zarqawi's opportunistic terrorist franchise of the name, did not exist, then.

Further analysis:

Palin, Iraq and 9/11

By Colin Kahl

Yesterday, on the seventh anniversary of Sept. 11, Alaska Gov. and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin gave a speech to an Alaska brigade that includes her son and is about to head off to Iraq. Palin told the troops they were going to "defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans."

A story in The Post this morning declares: "Palin Links Iraq to Sept. 11 in Talk to Troops in Alaska." The blurb on the washingtonpost.com homepage reads: "GOP's VP nominee expresses a view now discarded by White House."

But did she? Linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Sept. 11 is a view discarded by Bush. But Palin didn't do that (at least not explicitly).

Bill Kristol over at the Weekly Standard has pounced on The Post's interpretation as profoundly unfair, arguing, "Palin is evidently saying that American soldiers are going to Iraq to defend innocent Iraqis from al Qaeda in Iraq, a group that is related to al Qaeda, which did plan and carry out the Sept. 11 attacks." Well, that too is not what Palin said. She was not evoking the transitive property of responsibility for 9/11. She said the troops were going off to fight "the enemies who planned and carried out" the attacks, not "enemies with links to the group that planned and carried out" the attacks.

Whatever al-Qaeda in Iraq's current links to al-Qaeda Central, they were not the ones who carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Al-Qaeda in Iraq did not exist on Sept. 11, 2001. The group formed in 2004 after the United States invaded Iraq. Indeed, in 2001, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the group's founder, was more a rival to Osama Bin Laden than an ally. In the aftermath of the U.S. invasion, however, Zarqawi opportunistically established an al-Qaeda franchise in Iraq to increase the profile of his terrorist organization. But it is beyond dispute that no members of al-Qaeda in Iraq "planned or carried out" the Sept. 11 attacks. Those guys resided in Afghanistan and now camp out along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. Moreover, over the past year, al-Qaeda in Iraq has been degraded to the point where it is probably "strategically defeated." As a result, al-Qaeda Central is devoting more and more of its energy to Afghanistan/Pakistan. Taken together, these facts make it difficult to sustain the claim that Iraq was, or is, the central front in the war on terrorism.

So, besides being literally and factually incorrect, Palin's comment belies a deeper analytical misunderstanding that she shares with President Bush and her running mate: a conflation of Iraq and Sept. 11 used to justify a continued strategic over-commitment in Iraq and a diversion of resources away from fighting the folks who actually carried out the Sept. 11 attacks. Continuing to send U.S. troops to Iraq might be important for other reasons -- humanitarian concerns or Iraq's pivotal geopolitical position in the Middle East, for example -- but the war can not, and should not, be justified on the grounds that it is necessary to go after the people who attacked us seven years ago.

Palin has made up her mind... and about half of what she says. Don't confuse her with facts. :roll: