Skip to comments.
Iraq's Tie to Al-Qaeda Terrorists, Airline Hijackings
Aviation Week & Space Technology ^
| January 7, 2002
| Michael A. Dornheim
Posted on 03/15/2003 7:58:40 AM PST by Republican_Strategist
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
To: Republican_Strategist
And as I'm going to keep pointing out, the three reasons OBL gave for attacking the US all point back to Saddam:
1) Because we have troops in Saudi Arabia (there because SH invaded Kuwait)
2) Because we embargoed Iraq (Also because of Saddam)
3) Because we support Israel (who won't create a Palestinian state till the terrorism stops, which it won't while Saddam pays suicide bombers' families $25,000 a pop).
2
posted on
03/15/2003 8:05:58 AM PST
by
A_perfect_lady
(Let them eat cake.)
To: thinden; knighthawk; Fred Mertz; honway; Wallaby; Alamo-Girl
Great article.
3
posted on
03/15/2003 8:05:58 AM PST
by
MizSterious
("The truth takes only seconds to tell."--Jack Straw)
To: Republican_Strategist
This article is over a year old, and comes from a reputable source. My question: why does the media continue to pretend that there is no Iraq-terrorist connection? Of course there is, and they know it as well as anyone does.
4
posted on
03/15/2003 8:08:22 AM PST
by
MizSterious
("The truth takes only seconds to tell."--Jack Straw)
To: Republican_Strategist
To: MizSterious
Thanks for the heads up!
To: *war_list
To: *war_list; *Patriot List; Chunga; *Bush Doctrine Unfold; backhoe; mewzilla; SeenTheLight; Cindy; ...
To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: |
|
click here >>> |
Bush Doctrine Unfold |
<<< click here |
|
(To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) |
To: Republican_Strategist
Simply fantastic list of sites; thank you all for these links.
9
posted on
03/15/2003 8:23:58 AM PST
by
Peach
To: Peach
You're welcome - Freep on!
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; George W. Bush; RnMomof7
ping
11
posted on
03/15/2003 8:43:54 AM PST
by
xzins
(Babylon, you have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting!)
To: Republican_Strategist
Thanks for the ping. I hadn't realized the evidence was so strong concerning Salman Pak.
12
posted on
03/15/2003 8:56:58 AM PST
by
AzJohn
To: Republican_Strategist
Thanks for the heads up!
To: Republican_Strategist
To say there couldn't be a Iraqi/OBL connection because they have different political goals would make as much sense as believing there isn't America and British cooperation. How could a British Socialist ever work with a Texas Republican? Darn, maybe if I work on my grammer and spelling I could be a newspaper columnist someday.
To: Republican_Strategist
Bump.
15
posted on
03/15/2003 9:07:30 AM PST
by
Rocko
To: Republican_Strategist
CRUSH Saddam !!
16
posted on
03/15/2003 11:57:53 AM PST
by
MeekOneGOP
(Bu-bye Saddam! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
To: Republican_Strategist
Thanks for the ping!
17
posted on
03/15/2003 6:43:38 PM PST
by
riri
To: Republican_Strategist
Bump for later perusal.
18
posted on
03/17/2003 8:30:13 AM PST
by
hobbes1
To: A_perfect_lady
The anti-Bush, anti-Americans dismiss these facts as though they never happened. That's why their arguments are so shallow, they only want to hear half of the story.
19
posted on
03/17/2003 8:33:59 AM PST
by
1Old Pro
To: Red Dog #1
How could a British Socialist ever work with a Texas Republican?Oh, that's good. That is good. I'm going to remember that one... that is really, really good. I have heard a hundred times this nonsense that Al Q would never work with SH. I wish I'd thought of this.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson