WAR: Iraq knew and supported Al Qaeda pre 9/11

I still don't see how people can say quadruple hearsay is evidence.

The pentagon supposedly found papaers supposedly written by an Iraqi intelligence agent who supposedly quotes an informer from Afghanistan who supposedly quotes another Afghan who supposedly quotes Bin Laden himself.

Using that standard for proof there are strong ties between Bush and Bin Laden, and the War on Terror should focus on the White House!

This appears to be revisionism at its best or worst. Apparently this had nothing to do with our actual attack on Iraq because it takes so long to translate these documents? So the war is 3 years old and these boxes of documents prove what? Of course the Govt which has been taking already released documents off the shelves of the Library of Congress(rewriting history) The same Govt that would not release the energy meeting held before 9/11, the same govt that has extended the date to release documents from Bush I time in the CIA, in fact maybe nothing will be released unless the President involved allows it. This is the govt that is going to supply us with he definative proof that Saddam was thick s thieves with Al Qaeda? Actually bring them on it may prove something quite the opposite?

Originally posted by Malichai
I still don't see how people can say quadruple hearsay is evidence.

The pentagon supposedly found papaers supposedly written by an Iraqi intelligence agent who supposedly quotes an informer from Afghanistan who supposedly quotes another Afghan who supposedly quotes Bin Laden himself.

Quadruple hearsay?.... The report is by one of Saddam's officers, who wrote down was happening in the meeting.... What were you expecting a document saying Saddam was going around by himself committing terrorist acts?

You are just attempting to grab at straws here.....

Originally posted by Malichai
Using that standard for proof there are strong ties between Bush and Bin Laden, and the War on Terror should focus on the White House!

Oh please, that is bs...you know, ro should know full well that there is no connection between president Bush and Osama, the connection is with some of the Bin Laden family who have the biggest construction company in the Middle East and whose headquaters is somewhere in Europe, I can't recall where exactly.

His family dennounced Osama, and was made public. Part of his family is linked with the Royal Arab family and Osama has vowed to destroy them because they have accepted western society.

Many member of the Bin Laden family have accepted and adapted to western society, and they did not accept nor comdemn what Osama has been doing.

BTW, Osama Bin Laden is one of 57 siblings that his father had.

Again, you are just trying another straw man argument....

[edit on 26-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
People change sides all the time, but i guess to some it has to be some conspiracy by the government or "CIA" instead of what has been happening since the advent of time.... PEOPLE DO CHANGE SIDES.........

The document that this whole thread is based on is dated 5 years prior to 9/11 so what is the point, really. By your own logic it appears that he changed his alliance or "change sides" if you will given the fact that OBL stated on a tape broadcast by al-Jazeera in 2003 that "While urging Muslims to support the Iraqi people and repel any attack on their country, Saddam's secular 'socialist' government had lost credibility. 'Socialists are infidels wherever they are,' the statement said."

And another known fact...the 9/11 commission found no credible evidence linking Saddam's Regime to al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. This fact is easily found through a simple web search. So really....what's the point? Do you expect us to believe that this is the proof that justifies the war in Iraq? It appears it is you who is grasping at one straw! *snicker*

[edit on 26-3-2006 by antipigopolist]

Riiight, antipigopolist, wasn't there other excerpts and links in which OBL's officers did meet with Saddam's officers, and they didn't kill each other?....

Didn't OBL have a pact with the U.S. in the 80s to fight the Russians, and didn't OBL in an interview in 1997 say that even though he had a pact with the U.S. to fight the Russians he was still thinking on attacking the U.S. once the Russians were defeated?......

OBL could very well have accepted a pact with Saddam to fight the coalition, and still have a grudge against Saddam.... So, choke yourself as you chuckle/snicker if you want antipigopolist.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by Muaddib]

Now your just running in circles and making no cohesive sense, Muaddib. This supposed document is being held out as defense for invasion because without linking Saddam and his regime to some affiliation of terrorism directly aimed at the US, the wisdom for the preemptive strike is chimerical...much like your circular postulates. But by all means, don't let me keep you from digging that hole to an even further depth.



And don't worry too much...we'll keep lowering the light on a string for you.

[edit on 27-3-2006 by antipigopolist]

And just so you don't get too angered by my quips, I thought your research on the COSCO article was indeed stellar , but my opinion here is that you are far off the mark given all the articles/info to the contrary and lack of substantial proof.

Hey is that the same John Negroponte of the Reagan years. The flaming neo con who helped organize the Nicuaguan death squads. The new Head of the world bank? Do you really think he has any credibility left? Are we to believe that they actually had this information before they started the war? I quess I've just been told trust me one too many times. I'm not buyin it.

I think this is bs and a leadin to a lie. Why would the connections between the former Iraqi government and these criminal terrorists be in the form of millions of tapes and documents?

They're scraping for reasons here, as they remove the oil and keep their economy afloat, and anyone who buys into this, is doing themselves a great disservice.

And I checked out your source website, thread creator. It's a complete joke as far as a legitimate source goes, and only goes so far to say that Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Qaeda affiliates only met with Saddam and stayed in Baghdad previous to the attacks.

My reply?

Of course they met once or a few times, but it does not indicate any sort of serious logistical support that would back an entire invasion.

"Northeastern Intelligence Network", PSHAW!

I am amazingly unamazed...
I wondered when they would "prove" a connection...
I also wonder when they will march out the "proof" that Saddam was using WMD's... OH yeah... they did that already recently.... except that was also unremarkable...

Geez, people...it is called CYO, and they are doing it left and right.

interesting that all it alleges is that OBL/taliban visited Iraq...
so what? (they visited us also, just months before 9-11)...?
I need to see agreed upon plans of attack, or cashed checks with OBLs signiture on the back... not "proof they were there"

They could have very well been intending to attack Saddam, as they are on opposite sides of Islam, and we all know how well islamic sects get along...

Saddam had also attacked the Holy land of OBLs birth just years before... an attack that made him mad on two fronts... (mad at saddam for attacking SA, and mad at the USA for occupying SA in response) for which he attacked the US interests in reprisal, why wouldn't he have planned the same for the attacking Saddam?

In closing, since the Taliban had visited top Government and oil industry leaders in the USA, just months before 9-11 (well after the supposed OBL-Iraq trip)... I guess that proves that we worked with the Taliban to perform 9-11?

Using the exact same logic folks... so maybe it does make sense.

US Army Foreign Military Studies Office website reveals that the Iraq government was aware of the presence of al Qaeda in their country

Is this the same government that declared war on Iraq on the bases of lies and the this thing callled WMD, well if you can't find WMD in that country and that stockpiles of nucklear weapons, than these documents released are for propoganda reasons, just to justifie the attack on Iraq, and the murder of hunderds and thousands of people.

"al qeada" is created by the CIA so what ever terrorist there are in this world are created by CIA tacticians.

There were no any murders of "hundreds of thousands of people"....

Present any reliable link that proves this....

Originally posted by antipigopolist
....................
And another known fact...the 9/11 commission found no credible evidence linking Saddam's Regime to al-Qaeda in the 9/11 attacks. This fact is easily found through a simple web search. So really....what's the point? Do you expect us to believe that this is the proof that justifies the war in Iraq? It appears it is you who is grasping at one straw! *snicker*

Well, i hope you don;'t choke in your own "snicker".... there is no point in trying to justify or not justify something which has "already happened"... the point is to prove all those people who kept saying there was no evidence that Saddam had any involvement with terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, that want to make terrorist attacks on the US.

These forums are about finding the truth, is it not?

And btw, if you do an indepth search on the web you will find that pretty much what the 9/11 Commission said was that they did not find conclusive evidence that Saddam helped Al Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks, but there is evidence out there of Saddam helping Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Originally posted by antipigopolist
Now your just running in circles and making no cohesive sense, Muaddib. This supposed document is being held out as defense for invasion because without linking Saddam and his regime to some affiliation of terrorism directly aimed at the US, the wisdom for the preemptive strike is chimerical...much like your circular postulates. But by all means, don't let me keep you from digging that hole to an even further depth.

Right, so I guess your opinion can dismiss entirely the statements made by Iraqi military officers, high ranking Russian ex military officers and others who have been saying for a long time that SAddam did have WMD which they procured from Russia mostly, which is the reason why Saddam owed Russia billions of dollars in debt, it wasn't because Russia was selling milk and honey to Saddam.....

So who is really digging around themselves trying to dismiss the evidence?.... I am sure it is not me.

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Muaddib]

I guess i need a clairification...

does this release of info prove that they worked together, or that Saddam supported AQ?

it doesn't appear to do either...

only mentions that OBL and taliban (or members of AQ) were in Iraq...
they have probably been in alot of countries that didn't help them perform 9-11...

again... they visited the USA just months before 9-11...
does that mean we supported them also?

Originally posted by LazarusTheLong
..........................

In closing, since the Taliban had visited top Government and oil industry leaders in the USA, just months before 9-11 (well after the supposed OBL-Iraq trip)... I guess that proves that we worked with the Taliban to perform 9-11?

Using the exact same logic folks... so maybe it does make sense.

It is more than just visits which proves the link between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Has the U.S. govenrment made mistakes? yes it has, does it mean that the U.S. government worked with anyone to perform 9/11?.... Please, you know full well that is really grabbing at straws.

Originally posted by antipigopolist

Had you done a simple profile check you would find that I was around here for awhile when you joined ATS and I have witnessed your one-sided arguments many a time before. I guess your conclusion that I've not been a member here for long is based on more of your stellar "research". You are blinded by Uncle Sam, prone to soapboxing and there is no point talking to you. And yes, the benefit of age and experience are helpful. And whatever tangent you were on about with this whole "feelings" diatribe...who knows.

Not really, it has to do with the fact that you haven't contributed anything in the years you have been in the forums, which made me think you were a new member.

You think that downplaying someone else's research is going to make up for your lack of contribution in the years you have spent in ATSNN?....

BTW, no, my conclusions do not reside "in feelings" or "diatrabe" like you seem to like to present to dispute the facts, but actually from statements and evidence which several members included myself have been providing for a long while....

[edit on 18-4-2006 by Muaddib]

If you divide the number of characters typed into the thread by the amount of actual information presented as news, you'll get infinity.

The whole thing is preposterous. For all I know, these boxes of documents (all in Arabic) can contain invoices for paperclips, printer cartidges and napkins procured by some government agency between 1981 and 2003. Or, they can in fact be a detailed account of Saddam Hissein's multiple meetings with aliens from planet Nibiru. I dare you to prove me wrong. Oh wait, it was Zarkawi who was abducted and came back.

It's a shame to be beating such a dead horse as the non-existent cooperation between the Iraqi govt and Al-Qaeda.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW, no, my conclusions do not reside "in feelings" or "diatrabe" like you seem to like to present to dispute the facts, but actually from statements and evidence which several members included myself have been providing for a long while....

Touchy, touchy...take a breath and step away from the monitor unless you relish the idea of being on high blood pressure meds before your 40. This site is merely "left of center" news and entertainment for me on occasion...I invest my time and ideas more constructively so no, you will not see alot of posts by me. I guess that makes me less informed or a lesser member in your opinion. Typical thinking of a point or notoriety whore is it not? But I have no problem calling bs when I see it and you are shoveling it thick. And honestly, you are in the minority here pushing unsubstantiated info that has yet to be backed by credible evidence to support the term "supported" in the thread's title. Have a nice day, Muaddib...and try to lighten up a bit. And for crying out loud...smile!

[edit on 19-4-2006 by antipigopolist]