Has Bush planted terrorists in Iraq?

Since they must realize that they have no credibility regarding any WMDs that may be found, they may have changed strategies and are looking to build up the Saddam/al Qaeda connection, which was one of the other justifications. They might think they can recover the public opinion about the operation in Iraq if they can show that there really was a connection. They can use the War on Terrorism as the justification, hoping that the sheeple don't realize that al Qaeda had nothing to do with Iraq before we invaded. But now that they can (conveniently) point to al Qaeda terrorist activity in Iraq, they can start reinforcing the association.

He's planted 150,000 US 'targets' in Iraq! Every freak in the world wants to get there to kill our TROOPS!!!

Thanks, Saint George!


edit: to fix number

This is exactly what the Bin Laden's of the world wanted; a holy war on their turf. The idea that the Iraqis are going to side with the Americans against their Arab brothers is ludicrous. America never really sent enough ground forces to Afghanistan; 150,000 potential targets must seem like much better odds.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I mean, since everything is a damned secret, no one can present any evidence to me that Bush and Ossama don't work for the same men, toward the same goals...

Someone typing in a couple of words telling someone their post is 'stupid' without refuting anything or offering up an explaination as to why they feel that way. I just don't understand the kind of rudeness I see in a couple of posts in this thread.

I don't think the post is 'stupid'. It's a theory, and quite plausible. It's not like the CIA or Pentagon hasn't thought about using Americans as targets before. (Operation Northwoods) To some, the ends justify the means, and people can be pretty ruthless when it comes to grabbing money/power. And why hasn't Hussein or bin Laden been captured? The Bush family and former Republican regimes used to be tight with both men. I don't think it's a coincedence or good luck that these men managed to escape.

and the sheep will lap it up

even their presence in the northern regions where our islamic fundy allies live, that's close enough to Baghdad to consider them allies of Saddam no matter how much they hated him (or we supported them)

NO DOUBT!! NO EVIDENCE!!! NO COMMON SENSE!!!

Just make shit up and post it on the board!

why would it seem so fantastic now especially considering the current regime at the helm?

peace

There is zero evidence that al Qaeda was behind the UN bombing, and very little motive, but that seems to be the story they are promoting. There is less incentive for Iraqis to attack the UN, since the UN is possibly the only thing that can get the Americans out of their country.

The administration? The media? Who's promoting the idea that Al Qaeda was behind the UN bombing and how are they promoting it (as a "possibility" or are they pointing at evidence).
Either way though....it wouldn't support your bizarre theory.

And I see all kinds of incentive for Iraqis to attack the UN. It was the UN that humiliated them with unwanted inspections after all. It was the UN that many of them believe (right or wrong) "allowed" the USA to attack them.
It was the UN that was disarming them in the prelude to war!

I tend to agree, but not that Bush planted terrorists there.

What I do believe is that he deliberately (or through incompetence and neglegence) has created an environment in which terrorism is abundant and does little to stop it.

I don't think he has to plant or train any terrorists over there, his dad and Reagan did a good enough job of that.
But there is no doubt that terrorist actions benifit him. So all he has to do is not stop it, and he is fine with one or two American deaths a day.
Then take the UN attack yesterday. Assuming that was terrorists, its fine with Bush becuase it gets him what he wants.

These types of theories make us look a little silly. No offense.

This terrorism could be interpreted to be good or bad for public opinion.
It could be said that the public will accept the war more because terrorism in Iraq shows it was a terrorist state...or it could be said that if it wasn't for the war all this terrorism wouldn't be happening.

And did anyone really expect that there WOULDN'T be terrorism in Iraq? Does anyone expect it to end before US troops leave there?

No and no.

So, IMO it's best to refrain from speculating wild accusations about something that was and is expected.

This is another "I told you so" moment for the left. We said if you topple the regime with no plan whatsoever on what to do otherwise, terrorism will spring up all over the place. Terrorists like anarchy, gives them a free hand. There are a whole lot more than 150,000 potential targets. Everyone who is not on the approved list of whatever faction decides to blow something up is a potential target, westerners and arabs alike.

Iraq has zero security now. If any terrorist organizations out there want to blow something up and send a message, Iraq has to be on the top of their lists. Its easy pickings over there now, and its all our fault.

The blood of those UN people is on our hands. Not that there is anymore room on our hands for more blood.....

No, because he's not in Iraq at the moment.

in 2 weeks before the staged toppling of the saddam statue outside the Palistinine Hotel ...oh yes bush did it