This Freeper crap about Saddam and terror...

[Dangerman]

Check this link I found:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/

I don't know, possibly Republican trash talk and some crazy freeper psycho's delusion.

[Dangerman]

1. Saddam do not support terrorists.

He hates bin Laden and Al qeada as much as the next guy.

[The Minus World]

2. I read through it.

It isn't your stereotypical right-wing terror hysteria, and I've got to give the author some credit for posing what, on the surface seems to be a credible argument. Unfortunately, it's obsessed with focusing on the minutia of interpersonal connections, and it attempts to use sophistry to justify the neo-con train of thought:

1.) Hussein supported Palestinians in their struggle against Israel, therefore he supported terrorists. (a very pro-Israel viewpoint, since one may either see Israelis as terrorists, or the Palestinians as terrorists.)

2.) Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in the past (no mention of U.S. involvement). Therefore, he may have weapons of mass destruction in the future. And, his involvement with terrorism suggests that he might use them on us. (despite many high-ranking officials coming out and saying he posed no imminent threat)

4.) Hussein was a butcher, and a destroyer of human rights. (That may be so, although, it would serve us well to look back into history and recognize that much of the slaughtering took place with U.S. approval - and why go to Iraq of all places, if we're simply on a crusade for human rights? Why not start here at home?)

5.) Hussein's followers took some joy in the events of September 11. It must mean that they were involved. (Enjoyment is not complicity, just as disdain does not serve to make things right again)

6.) We must preempt those who aim to attack the U.S. (despite the lack of an imminent threat)

The author masterfully omits any notion that the United States made the decision to attack Iraq for political, financial or religious purposes. It seems almost a subject too taboo for right-wingers to handle; they're interested more in exploiting the bloody scenes of "homicide bombers" than they are in examining the message these people died for.

Religious extremism and political desperation are two very different circumstances - both of which can lead to an individual resorting to terrorist practices. U.S. media has done away with the context, and just presented every act of violence against the west as "terrorism".