07-09-2005, 06:13 PM | #1 | |||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Interesting article on the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection
First, this is from a right-leaning publication (Weekly Standard). So, keep that in mind. That said, it offers some new information on potential interaction between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda. It's fairly long, so I will just post the front page and give the link for those interested. It's a decent read and brings to light many things I had no idea were known/occuring:
Quote:
Rest of the article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...yqqnr.asp?pg=2 |
|||
07-09-2005, 06:21 PM | #2 |
Captain Obvious
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Norman, Oklahoma
|
Personally I don't believe that the ties between Iraq and Al-quida were all that great. It seems that they already had plenty of support from the Taliban, so why would they need more support for Iraq?
__________________
Thread Killer extraordinaire Yay! its football season once again! |
07-09-2005, 06:32 PM | #3 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
and yet none of those points has anything to do with a Saddam-Al Queda connection.
To try and make the jump from a former Iraqi milatry person being a member of Al Queda to Saddam hearts Osama is just as stupid as saying since there have been American members of Al Queda than obviously Clinton and Bush are in cahoots with Osama as well... |
07-09-2005, 06:59 PM | #4 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
The people looking for a Saddam-Al Qaeda tie are getting pretty desperate if that's the best evidence they can come up with.
|
07-09-2005, 07:20 PM | #5 |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Appleton, WI
|
Didn't the 9/11 Commission report indicate that Saddam was trying to get into bed with OBL but there was no evidence that he was successful?
|
07-09-2005, 07:27 PM | #6 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: MA
|
I wouldn't say The Weekly Standard simply "leans" .
Quote:
I thought I remembered reading it the other way around. Bin Laden was trying to get in with Saddam, but Saddam was afraid of the consequences(go figure). Can't remember where I read that though, it was awhile ago. Last edited by jeff061 : 07-09-2005 at 07:28 PM. |
|
07-09-2005, 08:20 PM | #7 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
Try this then. But of course people will believe what they choose to believe. People's minds are long made up on this. http://www.nationalreview.com/mccart...0506290912.asp |
|
07-09-2005, 08:24 PM | #8 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Nice semantics, Arles:
Quote:
Guess what, based on similar intelligence, we can also say there were "potential interactions" between: King Fahd's (or Prince Abdallah's) Saudi Arabia & Al Qaeda General Musharraf's Pakistan & Al Qaeda President Yudhoyono's Indonesia & Al Qaeda President Mubarak's Egypt & Al Qaeda etc.... In fact, based on this logic, one could even say there were "potential interactions" between: President Bush's United States & Al Qaeda (remember John Walker?) Prime Minister Blair's UK & Al Qaeda President Schroeder's Germany & Al Qaeda President Chirac's France & Al Qaeda We've hashed & rehashed the Saddam-Al Qaeda issue many times, including threads in the past two weeks. You've never adequately countered our "no link" claims in those threads, and so this is just another way of trying to make something true by repeating it. There were no WMDs. Saddam wasn't working with Al Qaeda. Deal with it. |
|
07-09-2005, 08:31 PM | #9 |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Davis, CA
|
Sorry, but I find the findings of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission a lot more credible than an editorial writer from The National Review.
|
07-09-2005, 08:36 PM | #10 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
McCarthy's article is, he says, largely based on Stephen Hayes' book The Connection which has been, in turn, often dismantled by other, more objective, journalists. |
|
07-09-2005, 08:36 PM | #11 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
|
Quote:
Flere makes a valid point -- linking an Hussein to al qaeeda through an Iraqi who joined the Taliban is almost as silly as linking Bush to al qaeeda through John Walker Lindh. But in the end, does it really matter? The people who opposed the President's logic and plan for war won't change their mind, and the people who agree with him still think Hussein was dangerous and needed to go. Trying to prove a link in this manner after the fact smacks of desperation and insecurity. |
|
07-09-2005, 08:40 PM | #12 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Arguably, given the Bush family ties to important families in Saudi Arabia (including the bin Ladens), one could argue, along the same lines, that George Bush himself had ties to bin Laden.
In fact, isn't this exactly what Fahrenheit 9/11 was all about? Seems to me Hayes & McCarthy are simply practicing the same flight of fancy they derided not so recently in the past. |
07-10-2005, 09:12 AM | #13 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
Schiavos parents write for the weekly standard?
|
07-10-2005, 09:35 AM | #14 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Yes, everything in this world that is bad is the Republicans fault. Everything that is good is because of Democrats. We get it already. |
|
07-10-2005, 12:02 PM | #15 | |
n00b
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Psychotropic Command Center
|
Quote:
of course those are the only choices
__________________
It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear That I'm not here. |
|
07-10-2005, 12:13 PM | #16 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
We get it already. |
|
07-10-2005, 12:20 PM | #17 |
n00b
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Psychotropic Command Center
|
this seems...oddly...circular
__________________
It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear That I'm not here. |
07-10-2005, 12:40 PM | #18 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Not quite. Everything the terrorists do is bad and everything America does is good. Let's get my side of the argument straight! |
|
07-10-2005, 12:54 PM | #19 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
in other words you mean, anything not in agreement with your side is pro-terrorist and anti-american. now we got it straight |
|
07-10-2005, 12:56 PM | #20 | |
Hockey Boy
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
Quote:
Heya, Nick!
__________________
Steve Yzerman: 1,755 points in 1,514 regular season games. 185 points in 196 postseason games. A First-Team All-Star, Conn Smythe Trophy winner, Selke Trophy winner, Masterton Trophy winner, member of the Hockey Hall of Fame, Olympic gold medallist, and a three-time Stanley Cup Champion. Longest serving captain of one team in the history of the NHL (19 seasons). |
|
07-10-2005, 01:15 PM | #21 | |
"Dutch"
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Tampa, FL
|
Quote:
Well, my side is pro-American and anti-terrorist...so...yeah! |
|
07-10-2005, 01:30 PM | #22 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
As I've said, people have made up their minds. And objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. It is an easy word to throw around. If 1/4 of what is in the reference is accurate, and some of it is and has been verified, that is still a connection. I believe there were definite connections between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda, based on many things I've read and heard over the years, even before 9/11, the date when some people seem to believe the war by Islamic fundamentalist radicals against the West began. I believe those connections were very loose and based on having a mutual enemy, in fact, two enemies working very loosely against another enemy. There was never any formal connection. I think it is quite amusing to hear people argue that there were NO connections. However, the other points made in this thread are quite good. The web of Al Qaeda is quite expansive, with tenuous connections in many directions. I also believe it is one thing to say Saddam and A Qaeda had some loose ties. It is quite another to say that this justified in any way the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But like I said at the start, everyone's mind is made up. No one looks at the evidence objectively. |
|
07-10-2005, 03:04 PM | #23 | |
n00b
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Psychotropic Command Center
|
Quote:
hey, ummm, person!
__________________
It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear That I'm not here. |
|
07-10-2005, 03:44 PM | #24 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
So is mine. |
|
07-11-2005, 08:54 AM | #25 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Actually, the stuff Arles posted doesn't do the article justice. The link he provides does highlight ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda.
|
07-11-2005, 08:58 AM | #26 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
the same ties one could make between the US and Al Qaeda. in other words, none. |
|
07-11-2005, 09:05 AM | #27 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
No, read the article. We haven't hosted the Islamic Jihadist Summit in Washington D.C. yet. Nor have we been trying to get Al Qaeda operatives jobs at airlines and giving them their schedule, etc. Now is any of these links a smoking gun that points to Iraq being involved in 9/11? No. These are links between Al Qaeda and Iraq where they were working together over a 10 year time frame, 1993-2003. |
|
07-11-2005, 09:06 AM | #28 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
You're right, we were simply in bed with Osama a decade ago. Just as we were with Saddam in the Iran/Iraq grudge match. |
|
07-11-2005, 09:24 AM | #29 | |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
Quote:
Good point, 2 points for you. However, I think the whole point that Arles was trying to make is that there was an ongoing working relationship between OBL and Iraq, which the 9/11 commission turned a blind eye to. |
|
07-11-2005, 09:42 AM | #30 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
The 9/11 commission turned a blind eye on this because it was not the emphasis of their investigation. If you recall, their statement on an Iraqi-Al Qaeda relationship was focused primarily on 9-11. However, they left the door open on prior activities and relationships between Saddam's forces and Al Qaeda though as that determination was not part of their investigation into 9/11.
What happened, though, is that the media took the commission's statement that "Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda on 9/11" to mean "Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda". That is what some of the commission members (like Lehman) have taken issue with, as they did not do much investigating outside the scope of the 9/11 attacks. Last edited by Arles : 07-11-2005 at 09:44 AM. |
07-11-2005, 10:31 AM | #31 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
Good points. I think there is significant evidence of Iraq-AQ connections, even if some people here want to take the totality of what has been presented here and dismiss because some of it is in dispute. The only argument I would see is just how substantial those connections were, not whether they existed or not, and whether or not those connections were substantial enough to be a justification for war. |
|
07-11-2005, 11:10 AM | #32 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
This thread is merely an exercise in a new form of discourse brought to us by the Bush Administration: Truth Through Repetition.
If you repeat something enough people will not only begin to believe it's true, but will begin to see supporting "evidence" in a light that convinces them the original premise is true. Last edited by flere-imsaho : 07-11-2005 at 11:21 AM. Reason: Spelling |
07-11-2005, 11:18 AM | #33 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
Just as you see things through your own prism. You are no more objective than those you criticize. Last edited by JW : 07-11-2005 at 11:18 AM. |
|
07-11-2005, 11:22 AM | #34 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
The difference, critically, is that I'm not making stuff up. |
|
07-11-2005, 12:26 PM | #35 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Flere, I suggest you read the above article in its entirety instead of dismissing it and chastising those of us intrigued by it sight unseen.
|
07-11-2005, 12:43 PM | #36 |
Retired
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Fantasyland
|
*chuckle*
*giggle* *guffaw* LMAO!!! Arles, this is the best you can do? Too funny! It doesn't even deserve a critical response, because it's total crap. It's like reading the six degrees of Kevin Bacon applied to Iraq. What's even funnier is that you somehow thought this was something to be "intrigued" by. Geez, you have sunk to a new low of absurdity. Congratulations! BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! |
07-11-2005, 12:43 PM | #37 |
Coordinator
Join Date: Oct 2000
|
I think my position on this matter is, "Why does it matter now?"
We invaded Iraq to stop their WMD program (which were either not there, inoperable, or very well hidden). Then we did it to out the evil dictator. Now you are hoping/praying that some strong ties to Al-Qaeda can be found, two years after the fact? It doesn't matter. We're there. The majority of folks who took the time to vote, elected to retain the leader who made the call (after the facts seemed to indicate it was not for the reasons he gave), so apparently Americans are okay with it. So why are we still looking for approval? |
07-11-2005, 12:55 PM | #38 | |
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
Arles, I refer you to my previous post on the subject: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...5&postcount=10 For the record, I'm not chastising you for finding it intriguing. Heck I find it intriguing. I'm chastising you for, shall I say, naively giving it a considerable amount of credence. If that's not what you've been doing, then I apologize. |
|
07-11-2005, 02:14 PM | #39 |
Pro Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Dayton, OH
|
A little OT, but I found this to be a much better article, but one that the leftists will all dismiss out of hand.
http://go.fark.com/cgi/fark/go.pl?ID...cial%2Fxyz.php It touches on a couple of subjects brought up here. |
07-11-2005, 02:31 PM | #40 | |
College Starter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The DMV
|
Quote:
For what it's worth, his critiques are shorter than the quoted stuff he was trying to analyze. Also, his MO seems to be "find a liberal who agrees with administration policy to prove that the administration policy was right." If he could beef up the analysis of his supporting material for his arguments, then I would take him more seriously. Edit: Nothing in that article is really too controversial, just debunking obvious overreaches by the leftist die-hards while offering the defense of questionable administration policy thinking in the manner described above... Last edited by Klinglerware : 07-11-2005 at 02:45 PM. |
|
07-11-2005, 02:42 PM | #41 |
College Prospect
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Portland, Oregon
|
that 'article' (if you can call a blog entry by a right winger, who has no journalistic experience, college education, and has 'The fall of the WCW' on his amazon wish list) ahem, like a i was saying.... that 'article' offers zero information, its everything we've already heard from any other right winger on this board. typically, he fails to leave out every single piece of information that could/would support the counter arguement. For instance, when talking of the supposed ties between Saddam and 9/11, heres his answer - a quote by Bush... "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the 11 September attacks." Viola, end of story?
Last edited by chinaski : 07-11-2005 at 02:42 PM. |
07-11-2005, 03:19 PM | #42 |
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
I want to make sure I am clear here. I do not (nor does the article I cite) think that Saddam has anything even remotely to do with 9/11. It was simply regarding the similar goals both the Iraqi military (under Saddam) and Al Qaeda had on numerous occasions. Does this somehow justify a war? That's a debatable topic and my opinion is that it is not enough when taken in a vaccum. Still, it was interesting to learn about many different terrorism projects and/or meetings that involved both representatives from Al Qaeda and the Iraqi military. If people want to use this as support for the Iraqi war - so be it. But that was not my intent. My intent on posting this was to provide more information on how often this groups work together and get something out I didn't think many had looked into.
But, again, this will (and has been) be morphed into "Arles thinks this article shows Saddam was involved with 9/11" and be quickly dismissed. Such is life, I guess. |
07-11-2005, 05:56 PM | #43 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
You continue to prove my point. You believe what you want to believe and accept no other position. Are you saying categorically that there was no connection whatsoever between Al Qaeda and Saddam? None? Period? I want to be clear on that. |
|
07-12-2005, 09:08 AM | #44 | ||
Coordinator
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Chicagoland
|
Quote:
I'll accept a position as soon as it has some evidence behind it that isn't hearsay and circumstantial. Quote:
Re-read what I wrote. My position is clear. You are the one misconstruing my opinion. |
||
07-12-2005, 10:09 AM | #45 | |
College Prospect
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Monroe, LA, USA
|
Quote:
Make it clear for me, since I obviously have trouble understanding things. Are you saying categorically that there was no connection whatsoever between Al Qaeda and Saddam? None? Period? Please answer me so that I will understand these things better. |
|
07-12-2005, 05:59 PM | #46 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
And yet your thread title would imply otherwise... |
|
07-12-2005, 08:40 PM | #47 |
n00b
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Yes, there was a connection between Iraq and the Taliban!
And I also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the tooth fairy!!!! |
07-12-2005, 09:10 PM | #48 | ||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Arles : 07-12-2005 at 09:11 PM. |
||
07-12-2005, 09:16 PM | #49 | |
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Syracuse, NY
|
Quote:
Please point out where I tried to say you think Saddam was connected to 9/11. Joe Schmuck in the Iraqi army being a member of Al Qaeda does NOT mean Saddam was in cahoots with Osama. You seem to want to make that connection that isn't there. But if you want to maintain that, then feel free to tout any random American's involvement with Al Qaeda as proof of our government being in bed with them as well. |
|
07-12-2005, 09:25 PM | #50 | ||||
Grey Dog Software
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ by way of Belleville, IL
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The thread title had nothing to do with 9/11, nor did the story it referenced. Quote:
Another interesting irony here is when some random idiot guard at Abu Ghraib tortures a prisoner to get his jollys - it's "Bush and Rumsfeld were behind it". Yet, when high level members of the Iraqi military are found cooperating with Al Qaeda it's "well, Saddam doesn't know what goes on with all of his guys". Certainly an interesting way to look at these two situations .... Last edited by Arles : 07-12-2005 at 09:25 PM. |
||||
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|