It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Saddam/Al Qaeda Ties Getting Weaker By the Day

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 09:15 AM
link   
It's being reported by the Miami Herald that White House-claimed ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda are getting weaker and weaker. How 'bout this? They never did exist. Saddam and Osama were not friendly at all. If anything they would be natural enemies. And yet, unbelievably Cheney and Rumsfeld cling to this lie and continue to push it. They are two seriously demented old men.


Hussein ties to al Qaeda appear faulty

The administration's case on ties between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda relied on intelligence that was weaker than that on Iraq's illegal weapons programs.

By WARREN P. STROBEL, JONATHAN S. LANDAY AND JOHN WALCOTT

wstrobel@krwashington.com
www.miami.com...


The Big Lie



The big lie was a key element in the Nazis rise to power. Joseph Goebbels developed the Nazi campaign against the Jews by blaming them for Germanys failure to recover after World War 1. His famous political insight was that if you tell a lie often enough from a position of power it becomes accepted truth. Goebbels lie laid the foundations for the Holocaust.



Bush is telling the Big Lie about Iraq. He has no evidence that Iraq is a threat to the U.S., so he is using the Big Lie to go to war against a country that is not a threat and has not attacked us.
blogs.salon.com...




posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 09:17 AM
link   
wonders how this all ties in with the propaganda war being waged in Iraq...Maybe the US is the one who is making up Al-Qaeda ties to justify certain actions??????



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   
I think Powell's admission that there was no solid link a while back proved that there were no ties. Plus the admission by Ahmed Chalabi that he lied in order to promote U.S. goals. And with former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter saying that Chalabi was the one who was directly responsible for creating those lies and you have a very solid case for zero Al Qaeda ties.



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   
What I wanna know, is why the hell is it so hard for people to grasp this?


The Bush administration has lied through it's F-en teeth - and still are! Bush sez one thing, Cheney and Rumsfeld keep pushin their BS. It's insane!



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   
We already know Bush lies through his teeth...

The Saddam/Osama link has always been pretty thin....

However, the link between Saddam and terrorism in general is rock solid, including numerous accounts of training camps by former Iraqi military officers and Allied intel branches... Not to mention, the well-publicized 10,000$ reward to Palestinian suicide bombers' families...



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
We already know Bush lies through his teeth...

The Saddam/Osama link has always been pretty thin....

However, the link between Saddam and terrorism in general is rock solid, including numerous accounts of training camps by former Iraqi military officers and Allied intel branches... Not to mention, the well-publicized 10,000$ reward to Palestinian suicide bombers' families...


Training camps? Salmon Pak? The US military has found no evidence of its existence. Former prisoners and defectors made those claims, which have been debunked.

I'll give you that Saddam paid Palestinian suicide bombers' families - but remember, Saddam and Israel were avowed enemies. As a matter of fact, it could be argued that for the first time in history a tiny nation coerced a superpower into fighting a proxy war for it. But that was never given as a reason for the invasion. (That's really a different issue.)



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 10:17 PM
link   
"What I wanna know, is why the hell is it so hard for people to grasp this?"


Yeah, I have been wondering the same myself.

Btw, seen this?


"Part of a document found by Star reporter Mitch Potter suggesting a meeting with Osama bin Laden, whose name had been obscured."

Link to article and/or information:

"Star finds bin Laden-Iraq links
Three pages of documents point to the arrival of a messenger"
www.thestar.com.../Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1051125568646&call_pageid=1045739058633< br />
Excerpt:

"The handwritten file, three pages in all, relates to the arrival of a secret envoy sent by bin Laden to Iraq in March, 1998, apparently to establish a clandestine relationship with the Iraqi regime.

The purpose of the trip was "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden," according to the final page of the Iraqi document, a handwritten letter dated Feb. 19, 1998.

The letter describes bin Laden as an "opponent" of the regime in Saudi Arabia and said the message to convey to him through the envoy would relate to "the future of our relationship with him (bin Laden) and to achieve a direct meeting with him."




You then comment:

"I'll give you that Saddam paid Palestinian suicide bombers' families - but remember, Saddam and Israel were avowed enemies."

ECK, let me remind you, since you seem to have forgotten
that Saddam/Iraq were also "avowed enemies" with Iran....and YET, Saddam had no problem at all about sending his best military aircraft over to Iran, among other things....


As to your article from the Miami Herald, I suppose that there is a difference between "close ties" and "ties" and then how it is interpreted as a "relationship" or "no relationship"?


Your article says that the "ties" were there yet they were not "close ties" and yet they had a "relationship" but not a "close relationship" and yet, they had "no relationship" but had "occasional meetings"? Huh?


Let's see, Saddam can pay and fund Palestinian's "maytr programs" and not pay or fund terrorist organization, such as Mr. Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda??

As a "military" person yourself, would you suppose the US Marines were having hallucinations the day they ran up on this?

"Marines Attack Suspected Terrorist Camp"
www.google.com...

Photos proving Connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda
www.rushlimbaugh.com...

Just in case you are not satisified with the links above, try these:
www.chron.com...
www.sptimes.com...
www.pbs.org...

"Prague Revisited: The evidence of an Iraq/al-Qaida connection hasn't gone away."
slate.msn.com...

usinfo.state.gov...
www.etaiwannews.com...
msnbc.msn.com...
www.weeklystandard.com...
www.meforum.org...


Still circumstantial, at best, eh? Try a bit more than that...



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Looks like circumstantial evidence to me, bud.


Many of your sources are quite shoddy...and yes, I did read through them. Several of them mention various camps, but they don't mention Al Qaeda...and most of these "camps" are based solely on the assumption that the 707 spotted in Iraq is being used to train terrorists for Al Qaeda.
I didn't see any real solid evidence in here...and to use some quotes from your own articles:

The administration has also talked about possible links between al-Qaida, the terrorism group headed by Osama bin Laden, and Iraq, but so far has not uncovered evidence.

And...

"A senior al-Qaida terrorist, now detained, who had been responsible for al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, reports that al-Qaida was intent on obtaining (weapons of mass destruction) assistance from Iraq," Hmmmm...if Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction, explain to me how they would give them to Al Qaeda?


I applaud you for your copy and paste job seekerof, but try to find some real evidence...

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Shoktek]



posted on Mar, 4 2004 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Again, and like before....No Shoktek...I applaud you bud, maybe you can bring some real evidences to the table to refute this? .


Riddle me this:
If there was no WMD or WMD was'nt carted off and hidden somewhere, why did Saddam/Iraq go to such the efforts as to hide the trail?

If all you can supposedly refute is what you have listed or quoted above, you are in worse shape then I thought.


Your fingers type well, but I see nothing to change my mind to the contrary....care to back up your assertions or will you let your fingers keep doing the "dance"?



regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Again, and like before....No Shoktek...I applaud you bud, maybe you can bring some real evidences to the table to refute this? .



I'm not the one trying to prove ties between saddam and al qaeda...you bring the evidence, I will look it over...and please don't start again with WMD...please.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 10:25 AM
link   
For the life of me, what I can't understand is the trouble people will go to to hide or muddy the ties between Hussien and Bil-Laden. I can truly understand why it was done by Hussien's supporters before his removal but in that: A). It wasn't successfully sold to the people that friggin matter and B). Those who did buy it weren't able to successfully block his removal, I can't figure out why its still so damn important to prove something that has no chance or furthering his cause at this juncture of the game.

The only guess I have is that some people can't let go of the past, accept that his murderous regime is gone, and finally move on with the rest of us in hoping that Iraq can now Concentrate on it's economic and civic infrastructure.

In all this bitching and moaning, do you expect someone to say "Oh, you're right, he wasn't a bad man and we'll have him back in his palace shredding peasants by tomorrow" ? If you do, I gotta a bit of a reality check for you. Saddam's role in Iraq is done. Accept it and stop wasting your time...or don't. Come to think of it, he's gone, thats all that matters and I could give a damn less who likes it and who doesn't.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by astrocreep
For the life of me, what I can't understand is the trouble people will go to to hide or muddy the ties between Hussien and Bil-Laden. I can truly understand why it was done by Hussien's supporters before his removal but in that: A). It wasn't successfully sold to the people that friggin matter and B). Those who did buy it weren't able to successfully block his removal, I can't figure out why its still so damn important to prove something that has no chance or furthering his cause at this juncture of the game.

The only guess I have is that some people can't let go of the past, accept that his murderous regime is gone, and finally move on with the rest of us in hoping that Iraq can now Concentrate on it's economic and civic infrastructure.

In all this bitching and moaning, do you expect someone to say "Oh, you're right, he wasn't a bad man and we'll have him back in his palace shredding peasants by tomorrow" ? If you do, I gotta a bit of a reality check for you. Saddam's role in Iraq is done. Accept it and stop wasting your time...or don't. Come to think of it, he's gone, thats all that matters and I could give a damn less who likes it and who doesn't.



The lies are unraveling. They must be pointed out loudly. Maybe then the gullible public won't be so easily fooled. Witness the failed Neo Con push to go in and 'do' Syria and Iran "next." Foiled rightly.

Of course Saddam was an evil man. No argument. But you know what? The truth is he was the CIA's evil man at least up until the Gulf War. You have the company to thank for him.

Conveniently sweeping "the past" under the rug won't make the reality of war crimes go away.

Here's hoping the Brits are smarter than we are and decide to show Phony Blair the door... Here's A few interesting new articles..



A truth too terrible to contemplate

To authorise the war, Goldsmith had to ignore new intelligence

Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday March 5, 2004
The Guardian

At first, we were told by ministers that US and British troops would soon find evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", a smoking gun. When the soldiers didn't, we were told to wait for David Kay's Iraq Survey Group of CIA-approved inspectors. We are still waiting. Meanwhile, a new smoking gun has come to haunt Tony Blair. It is the advice secretly offered to ministers by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, in the weeks leading up to war.
www.guardian.co.uk...



Report: No legal basis for war in Iraq



LONDON, March 4 (UPI) -- Legal advisers to the British cabinet said a U.N. resolution did not authorize the government to wage war in Iraq, The Independent said Thursday.
washingtontimes.com...



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
In all fairness and with no "agenda", you may find the links that will be dropped here a bit of interest ECK....
Yet, knowingly, it won't matter what they mention right? After all, it is only the side that is "we" all eventaully agree with that gets presented, correct? In regards to the links below, bear in mind that I could have found arguments "for" all day long:

"Is the War on Iraq Lawful?"
writ.news.findlaw.com...

"IS IRAQ IN "MATERIAL BREACH" OF ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE U.N. RESOLUTION?"
writ.news.findlaw.com...

"DID THE SECURITY COUNCIL'S RECENT IRAQ RESOLUTION VIOLATE THE U.N. CHARTER BY AUTHORIZING UNILATERAL FORCE?"
writ.news.findlaw.com...

A link to the BU Law Library:
www.bu.edu...

I think, overall, you will find that the issue of "legality" is of ongoing debate.



regards
seekerof



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 02:01 PM
link   


Conveniently sweeping "the past" under the rug won't make the reality of war crimes go away.


Oh really. Ya don't say? Is that your final answer?

I think you just posted a candidate for my new signature quote.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
The truth is my only agenda, Seekerof.


I know what those arguments are. Thanks for the links, just the same.


Of course, I'm of the opinion that the invasion of Iraq was, in fact, an illegal war of aggression. And the debate goes on...

It's interesting to note, if not outrageous, Tony Blair has placed himself and his military (down to the last private) in danger of being tried before the ICC for war crimes.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Again, and like before....No Shoktek...I applaud you bud, maybe you can bring some real evidences to the table to refute this? .


Riddle me this:
If there was no WMD or WMD was'nt carted off and hidden somewhere, why did Saddam/Iraq go to such the efforts as to hide the trail?

If all you can supposedly refute is what you have listed or quoted above, you are in worse shape then I thought.


Your fingers type well, but I see nothing to change my mind to the contrary....care to back up your assertions or will you let your fingers keep doing the "dance"?



regards
seekerof



i thought you cleard this all up seeker. i guesss not. i guess has to beaten into the heads of some people



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

Originally posted by Seekerof
Again, and like before....No Shoktek...I applaud you bud, maybe you can bring some real evidences to the table to refute this? .


Riddle me this:
If there was no WMD or WMD was'nt carted off and hidden somewhere, why did Saddam/Iraq go to such the efforts as to hide the trail?

If all you can supposedly refute is what you have listed or quoted above, you are in worse shape then I thought.


Your fingers type well, but I see nothing to change my mind to the contrary....care to back up your assertions or will you let your fingers keep doing the "dance"?



regards
seekerof



i thought you cleard this all up seeker. i guesss not. i guess has to beaten into the heads of some people


Right.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 07:57 PM
link   
"It's interesting to note, if not outrageous, Tony Blair has placed himself and his military (down to the last private) in danger of being tried before the ICC for war crimes."

Kindly posted the article you mentioned, as such, you are refering to this?

"War crimes trial sought for Blair"
www.dailytimes.com.pk...

Or were you refering to the one that the Greek Petition calling for the extradiction of Blair for War Crimes, back in July of last year?

Nothing more than political shows ECK.

Ever wondered why the US doesn't play along with this type nonsense? Probably because the US was smart enough to have nothing to do with the ICC, perhaps? The general 'thought' of and in the US, is that the UN is defunct, useless, corrupt, and the US certainly don't give credence to what the UN says, per se?

(Doesn't that fit nicely with all this Bush conspiracy stuff?)


These proceedings are always selective, you are aware of this, correct?

Besides ECK....like the steps for Impeachment of a President, what you are thinking as a War Crime Trial is nothing more than a simple criminal complaint (indictment), a petition for determination, an application for determination of a possible need for prosecution.

Since when has the UN been a beacon of International Justice and Law?

As such ECK, I would presume that you would be in full agreement that Bill Clinton and ex-General Clark should recieve likewise indictments, for and over the Kosovo war,? How about Castro? Chavez? Aristide? Leaders of NATO, Leaders of the past USSR regimes, Tojo and Yamamoto, Neville Chamberlain, or how about Winston Churchhill maybe?


Let's not mention Belgium Court either shall we? You know, the same court which immunized Belgium from all claims. Now there's an "revered" body if ever was, eh?

I knida like and prefer what Mark Antony said upon arrival in Egypt, when he was asked what he was there for:
"To enforce the law. And I have ten legions to make it legal."





regards
seekerof

[Edited on 5-3-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 08:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Again, and like before....No Shoktek...I applaud you bud, maybe you can bring some real evidences to the table to refute this? .


Riddle me this:
If there was no WMD or WMD was'nt carted off and hidden somewhere, why did Saddam/Iraq go to such the efforts as to hide the trail?

If all you can supposedly refute is what you have listed or quoted above, you are in worse shape then I thought.


Your fingers type well, but I see nothing to change my mind to the contrary....care to back up your assertions or will you let your fingers keep doing the "dance"?


Seekerof...please, use some common sense. YOU are the one trying to persuade US that saddam had WMD, and that he had links to Al Qaeda...I am not defending my position because of my beliefs about the war, unlike you. I think that the allegations of WMDs and ties with Al Qaeda is completely possible, and to be honest, I believe in all likelihood, we may find it to be true. The only reason I continue to shut down these allegations, is that no real, solid, hard PROOF has been found...I am a hard person to convince, and it will take a lot more than a couple photos of a 707, or some rumor to convince me...the only "evidence" we have right now is simple: We have not found any weapons of mass destruction, and we have not found any link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. End of story. We have found certain things that we could use to infer, assume, and speculate that these could be true, but all of the media sources reporting these have themselves admitted that we don't have real proof. I will be waiting for this real proof, if ever it comes out, but until then, I will continue to be skeptical of all this "evidence" that you bring forth.



posted on Mar, 5 2004 @ 08:19 PM
link   
This all goes back to "justification" of the war in Iraq, and any slight hint of information being present that would help a stance in justification, certain people frantically sell it off as truth and fact...I wonder why they are so desperate to defend the war in the first place.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join