The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

Originally posted by edsinger
I want to see them (Iraqis) Free!

Does anyone else's BS meter hit red alert whenever they see this in posts?

Originally posted by cargo


Does anyone else's BS meter hit red alert whenever they see this in posts?

well i must ask a question.
are they free?

do they feel free?

Edsinger. Your show of intentional ignorance and lack of rational reasoning is quite frankly amazing. There's really no other way to put it. You keep presenting links to one quiestionable source after another. And when your 'evidence' is debunked, you simply find another bs source with even more bs claims and start a new thread. I'm betting you burned your hand on the stove quite a few times as a kid, huh?

Well I've thoroughly read through the report you presented, edsinger. Here is my conclusion of the key issues raised.

Originally presented in "A White Paper" by Andrew Apostolou
What appears to have happened, according to the ISG, is that unilateral WMD stock destruction was part of Saddam�s campaign of deception. While the U.N. suspicion of March 2003 that the stocks still existed was probably wrong, the underlying assumption of malign Iraqi intent was correct.

What was viable, however, was to retain as much of the intellectual capital and dual use infrastructure as could be concealed so that full WMD programs and, when militarily required, WMD production, could resume in the future�probably after sanctions were lifted. As the Butler inquiry in Britain found in July 2004, Iraq had �the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

"Malign intent"? "WMD production could resume in the future - probably after sanctions were lifted"? These are assumptions and does nothing to justify the invasion of Iraq. Here are the facts:

Contrary to prewar statements by President Bush and top administration officials, Saddam did not have chemical and biological stockpiles when the war began and his nuclear capabilities were deteriorating, not advancing, said Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group.

Duelfer said his report found that aluminum tubes suspected of being used for enriching uranium for use in a nuclear bomb were likely destined for conventional rockets and that there is no evidence Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991. Both findings contradict claims made by Bush and other top administration officials before the war the Bush administration before the war.

Duelfer said Wednesday his teams found no evidence of a mobile biological weapons capability.*

In fact, the ISG reports that on the eve of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq still had a chemical weapons capability and could have produced significant volumes of mustard gas within three to six months and large volumes of nerve agents within two years if it could acquire the necessary precursors. 59 Iraq apparently had the capability to rapidly produce mustard gas within days, but production would not have been sustainable.

he ISG concluded that depending upon the extent of the activity ordered, �Iraq could have reestablished an elementary BW program within a few weeks to a few months of a decision to do so.

"Extent" is the key issue here. Furthermore, ISG concluded the following:

The most specific evidence of an illicit weapons program, the officials said, has been uncovered in clandestine labs operated by the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which could have produced small quantities of lethal chemical and biological agents -- though probably for use in assassinations, not to inflict mass casualties.

Iraq's nuclear program, which in 1991 was well-advanced, "was decaying" by 2001, the official said, to the point where Iraq was -- if it even could restart the program -- "many years from a bomb.*

Unknown to the U.N., Saddam had constructed a WMD system designed to beat the inspection system.

Another assumption. There is no substantial evidence to support this claim.

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them.

Other countries have nuclear weapons. With the US, there is one big difference: it has used them.
Again, this doesn't justify attacking another nation.

Before 9/11 there was credible evidence available that Saddam had been in contact with al Qaeda, as noted by the 9/11 Commission.

This particular issue was thoroughly investigated by the 9/11 Commission. They came to the following conclusion:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda - save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraq Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.*

Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance to producing weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.*

The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.*

Furthermore, evidently there were no written strategies or plans by Saddam's regime to pursue the banned weapons in case the UN sanctions were lifted. Instead, the inspectors based their findings on Duelfer's interviews with Saddam after his capture. These interviews left Duelfer's team with the impression that Saddam was more concerned about Iran and Israel as enemies than he was about the United States.

The war of 2003 was not a U.S. war of choice, nor a U.S. war of prevention, but a war of Saddam�s choosing.

War was the option that Saddam chose. The Iraqi regime was afforded the opportunity to comply with its U.N. obligations, a genuine �last chance� that it chose not to take.

These are quite fantastic statements and are evidently together with statements such as "Iraq was harboring terrorists" and "sought to gain WMD capabilities" pathetic attempts to shift from the actual major reasons presented to support the attack on Iraq. Those statements would not have sufficed to gain support of this war; the Bush Administration was well aware of this fact. Consequently, the main arguments presented by the Bush Administration were the alleged relationship between Saddam and OBL, coupled with the assertion that Iraq possessed stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. These claims were considered proof of how Iraq posed an imminent threat to the US and the rest of the free world.

To date, there is no credible information whatsoever to support those claims.

Originally posted by edsinger
Look if you want concrete facts and want to hold it in your hand then I can not make you hold it, but I can tell you that the information I post is just as legit as what you do. The perspectives are different thats all.

On the contrary, edsinger. The vast preponderance of available credible evidence doesn't support the notion of your 'information' being as legit as mine. Factual evidence is factual evidence - period.

Look has the Osama in Baghdad visit been explained? If they were such mortal enemies then Osama would not have made it out alive.

Welcome to the real world, edsinger. All mortal enemies doesn't necessarily kill each other. Educate yourself on your own nation's non-mortal connections with its 'mortal enemies'.

As I have stated many of times, the old arab saying that "the enemy of your enemy is your friend" bears credence here. The 911 report plainly states that there were connections but no CONCRETE PROOF of collabaration. The article I posted would be a decent reason as to why they met and had contacts. If we can find the proof that the documents in which I posted show that Saddam was funding or involved in the Somalia fiasco, then you would have your evidence.

You keep beating this dead horse. There is also evidence of US contacts with al Qaeda as well as US support and training of militant groups closely associated with al Qaeda. Yet again; the level of connection and what it has amounted to, is what's important. The available credible information doesn't support any collaboration whatsoever between OBL and Saddam Hussein - period.

Jan. 18, 1993 memo from Saddam Hussein, through his secretary, to the Iraqi Intelligence Service, urging that missions be undertaken to "hunt down Americans," especially in Somalia.

Well I've read through the interpretation of these papers. The only thing that can be concluded is that Saddam had hostile intentions towards the US in the early 90's. How odd... Desert Storm - anyone? This memo - authentic or not - doesn't support the claims made by the Bush Admin prior to the invasion.

I would say that Saddam and Osama must have had an agreement as Osama never attemted to get rid of Saddam, maybe they worked togther towards a common goal , who knows. But America was the enemy of both.

Actually according to the 911 Report, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraq Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army. The fact that the US was the enemy of both is in no way evidence of their alleged collaboration. Or do you feel like you want to throw in a few additional nations in this 'collaboration' as well?

Oh ok, well

Three in Four Say If Iraq Did Not Have WMD or Support al Qaeda, US Should Not Have Gone to War

Saddam's Intent to Build WMD Not Seen as Sufficient Reason

Yep. Thats how most people in the US actually feel. Glad to see it.

But he got re-elected even though the public in general has no clue to the facts and the assumed facts. Some things will never be proven, and did you notice this one?

Only 1 in 5 Want to Withdraw

Oh, absolutly. I noticed it. "If you break it, you fix it".
Btw, did you notice that a majority of the US citizens also oppose the war in Iraq all together?

We have a job to finish and the only way to do so is to win.

This is a revealing statement on your part, edsinger. Get your head out - this is not about winning.

Unfriendly forces do not meet as AlQada and Saddam's folks did. Again why would Osama be allowed in Baghdad? True, I agree that Saddam was Islamic only in "show", but he also had things that Osama needed and was probably willing to sell them.

"Probably"? Again; read the 911 Report and quit spewing your bs assumptions.

I do not live in a dreamworld, I live in one that is hostile to my way of life and my country.

Another fine example of Bush propaganda.

We deal with threats as they come.

You mean "shoot first and ask questions later"?
I would say in light of the available evidence, you deal with imagined threats before they come.

911 was not the first strike against us, but it was the first to draw a serious response, and one that I think Bin Ladin miscalculated on, IMHO.

Yeah, I'm sure OBL absolutly didn't see the attack on Saddam coming...

I do not think that Saddam had any part in the planning or execution of the 911 attacks. he might have known about it but that is pure conjecture on my part.

Correct, edsinger; that's pure conjecture on your part.

Islamic fundementalist Terrorists attacked the United States on 911

Actually from what is known to date and being specific; people associated with al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11.

We declared war on the terrorists and those who harbor them.

Here we go with the famous broad brush of Dubya. So would you also say you're currently at war with IRA as well?

Iraq supported state sponsered terrorism and gave refuge to those involved.

Circumstantial. And there is no credible information to support a link to the events surrounding the actual invasion of Iraq or what was initially claimed by the Bush Administration.

He had the means to provide them with WMD and was getting more senile as time passed. He had plenty of chances to aviod war, but failed to meet the agreements HE signed.

Again - these are guesses and assumptions. The available evidence contradicts the notion of Saddam having or being close to have the means or the intent of providing al Qaeda with WMD's - period.

Case closed.

I would agree. And you have yet to provide a valid argument, edsinger.

I do not hate Iraqi's at all, I want to see them Free! Look warfare is nasty, people are dying on both sides, it is sad here that everyone loved Saddam so much but as an American, I feel it was in the worlds interest to see him go.

So now you claim to feel this war is actually about the freedom of the Iraqis? Gimme a break.

Originally posted by LostSailor
And Durden, theres no point in showing the facts.

"There is not point in showing the facts"? Try it, why don't you?

I could shove a document signed by Saddam Hussein himself stating that he was planning on using a nuclear bomb on the US in your face and you still wouldn't believe me, so whats the damn point?

See, this is the problem. The available credible information contradicts said claims about Saddam, and you seem to completely ignore that fact. If you have something to support your opinion you feel like sharing; by all means do so or go find another place to play.

At least the majority of US citizens can see the light

You're right, and it's supported by my previous link.

Check out the link in my signature ed..... its some interesting stuff.

Hey LostSailor, check out this link, why don't you?

Originally posted by edsinger
So you would be willing to bet he absolutley had none? Would you bet your life on it? What if the documents show that he did purchase some anthrax in 2000? Did you read the Dalfur report? It stated that saddam could have restarted production in weeks from his ok to do so. I guess you would have some excuse for that one also? Even Durden knows this to be the case....we still know he had them, he did not declare all that he had, some think he destroyed them so as to not have to admitt he had biological weapons........funny turns of events wouldnt you say?

You have my reply on this issue earlier in this post.

Look I have never said this president is perfect, I think Ronnie Raygun was a much better one, but I will say this, Bush doesnt back down and he says what he means and means what he says. You know what you have with him, unlike the POS the demo's through out for fodder this year.

Nor does he admit when his wrong - even when the available evidence proves this to be the case.
And you feel this is actually a good thing? Amazing.

If you would look into it, there is a lot of circumstancial evidence that he sent some to Syria and/or hid them in the Western desserts. I would not be so quick to believe the lies that you hear.

To even call this lot of 'evidence' circumstantial is IMO to give it too much credit.
And I agree, edsinger. You really shouldn't be so quick to believe the lies that you hear. So don't.

Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States - confirming news reports that until now have emerged only in bits and pieces. A senior government official responsible for investigating terrorism tells Insight that while Saddam Hussein may not have had details of the Sept. 11 attacks in advance, he "gave assistance for whatever al-Qaeda came up with."(snip)

You seem to think this was news..? Actually, it was in fact posted September the 29th in 2003. And now, more than a year later - there is still no solid evidence presented in support of those dated claims.

I do not know if it is real, but I would not be surprised...

You wouldn't be surprised, huh? It seems quite obvious to me that your mind is very much made up - despite what the evidence show or doesn't show, so why do you even try and make it look as if you're actually interested in the truth? You're not fooling anyone but yourself, edsinger.

According to the September 11 report:

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request ... [but] the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections. (p.61)

In March 1998, after Bin Ladin�s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin�s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. (p.66)

You can find my reply on this issue earlier in this post.

Look you said they have already been debunked and you have the wrong set of papers, thats all. These have not been authenticated either as of yet.

No. They haven't been authenticated. But you still use them in this attempt to support your opinion; while you discount that which is supported by the actual evidence.

Originally posted by IBM
You peaceniks will not understand that a country that is not aggressive will cease to exist. War although ugly is necessary. This war was to make sure that no one threatens the US. It was absolutely necessary and justifiable.

So essentially, you're justifying a preemptive war with no credible information to support an imminent threat. Beautiful.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
- Edmund Burke (1729-1797), British statesman and philosopher

"Veni, vidi, vici."
(I came, I saw, I conquered)
- Julius Caesar, Roman emperor (100BC-44BC)

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George Patton Jr

"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum".
("If you wan't peace, prepare for war")
- Flavius Vegetius Renatus. Roman Military strategist. c. 390. A.D

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of
tyrants and patriots."
- Thomas Jefferson
.....
(snip)
.....

"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed"
- Joseph Goebbels

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
- Joseph Goebbels

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
- Joseph Goebbels

"This war is a defensive war. It was forced upon us by our enemies, who wish to destroy our nation. The only thing we cannot afford to lose in this war is our freedom, the foundation of our life and our future. No one has the right to complain about limitations on his personal freedom caused by the war."
- Joseph Goebbels

"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany."
- Hermann G�ring

"No matter what human beings do I shall some day stand before the judgement seat of the Eternal. I shall answer to Him, and I know he will judge me innocent."
- Rudolf Hess

"We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge."
- Rudolf Hess

"With all our powers we will endeavour to be worthy of the Fuhrer thou, O Lord, has sent us!"
- Rudolf Hess

"You Einsatztruppen (task forces) are called upon to fulfill a repulsive duty. But you are soldiers who have to carry out every order unconditionally. You have a responsibility before God and Hitler for everything that is happening. I myself hate this bloody business and I have been moved to the depths of my soul. But I am obeying the highest law by doing my duty. Man must defend himself against bedbugs and rats-- against vermin."
- Heinrich Himmler

I ask for you to think about what these wise men have said and not let history repeat itself.

Indeed, IBM. Let's not let history repeat itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sources:
www.9-11commission.gov...
wid.ap.org...
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/09/17/MNGA88QJIJ1.DTL



[edit on 10-11-2004 by Durden]

you are getting my way above vote.

In addition to the analysis, these German quotes are just eerie -- some of them sound like TV nowadays.

1. There's only one valid reason for the United States to go to war: Self-defense. Such a "risk of attack" must obviously be immediate, grave, and unequivocal. Otherwise, the government could point to almost any risk -- no matter how unlikely or insignificant -- as a rationale for war.

[edit on 10-11-2004 by Damned]

Originally posted by Aelita
you are getting my way above vote.

Me too!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for your support

Love

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Oh if only all Americans were as wise and knowing as you oh great Durden. If only all Americans saw things your way and blindly ignored the others. If only all Americans spit in the face of the soldiers fighting for your country. Sorry, but I'm still supporting the war, and I still think it is a just cause. I can't wait to see the Iraqi's vote for their first leader.

My only hope now is that we leave the UN and maybe start some alliances with countries who really care about us and our well being.

This is purely chaos generation throughout the whole region
Killing for Killing's sake
How many thousands of dead do we want
The whole area's sucked in Depleted Urranium- cancers and birth defects for a thousand years
This is a hellhole of our own making
This is genocidal war and city-sacking on the grand scale
This is putrefaction of the world from the elite down
And the most poor will suffer and die
Americans need to puke over their own flag, a flag of killing and unreason
Their own President pledged allegiance to an otherworldly organistion a long time ago
Christians swearing allegiance to a Satanist Ape
For real

[edit on 10-11-2004 by dh]

Originally posted by LostSailor
Oh if only all Americans were as wise and knowing as you oh great Durden. If only all Americans saw things your way and blindly ignored the others. If only all Americans spit in the face of the soldiers fighting for your country. Sorry, but I'm still supporting the war, and I still think it is a just cause. I can't wait to see the Iraqi's vote for their first leader.

My only hope now is that we leave the UN and maybe start some alliances with countries who really care about us and our well being.

O.k....your arguments are just songs going in my ears.....
What will war change in your everyday life dude...when you wake up in the morning, what will it change??????
Saddam is gone, so the USA should leave the country and stop killing innocent...
I do not support war because I don't not support violence and war is violence! It's just the solution for the "faibles" that means the "not strong"
I see your picture: IRAKIS are just poor bastards, they have no money so if they die, too bad
If a solider die or WORST, a rich american!!!!!, then it's like drama
But a human is a human, poor or rich, irakis or not
Can you put that in your head, or you are just a person who likes violence?
What if GOD (you know god...you are a christian) made you born in Irak...just think about it if you are so religious and read the bible and all...
GOD said, love one another
YOU SHOULD JUST DO THAT

I love you dude
Ameliaxoxoxox

Originally posted by DurdenEdsinger. Your show of intentional ignorance and lack of rational reasoning is quite frankly amazing. There's really no other way to put it. You keep presenting links to one quiestionable source after another. And when your 'evidence' is debunked, you simply find another bs source with even more bs claims and start a new thread. I'm betting you burned your hand on the stove quite a few times as a kid, huh?

Well thanks for the well thought out reply Durden.

Look you know that the 911 report was not complete, some was not released due to "information". Thing is, if you want to believe that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, then fine. I am not 100% convinced that he was, but I am 100% convinced that he supported islamic terror against the West, especially Israel and the US.

Interesting article that I came across stated an idea that I saw as farfetched but you conspiracy buffs will love. They say there is no doubt that Saddam had involvment in 911 but the Government does NOT want to admitt it. That I found strange because of the political price that Bush paid when no "eveidence" was found. It stated that the Goverment was worried about the lawsuits that would hamper Iraq's recovery because of its involvement. Seems far fetched but not out of the question. I would think the odds really low.

You have it all figured out on publically released information huh?


You have debunked the CSN articles and Docs have you? Hmm


We just have to disagree, I feel the Iraq war was justified as did the UN before it came time to "actually" back up the resolutions. By that fact alone the war was justified.

No WMD, so you have PROOF that there are no weapons in Syria huh?


Get real, you have your sources that you feel are concrete, thing is the 911 report seems to me to give the impression that Al Qada and Saddam were more than coffee shop buddies. But believe what you wish, as Lost Sailor said, even IF you were presented with concrete facts you would still deny.


Oh well......

Originally posted by Durden


"The bigger the lie, the more it will be believed"
- Joseph Goebbels

"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly... it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over."
- Joseph Goebbels

"...the rank and file are usually much more primitive than we imagine. Propaganda must therefore always be essentially simple and repetitious."
- Joseph Goebbels

"This war is a defensive war. It was forced upon us by our enemies, who wish to destroy our nation. The only thing we cannot afford to lose in this war is our freedom, the foundation of our life and our future. No one has the right to complain about limitations on his personal freedom caused by the war."
- Joseph Goebbels

"God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany."
- Hermann G�ring

"No matter what human beings do I shall some day stand before the judgement seat of the Eternal. I shall answer to Him, and I know he will judge me innocent."
- Rudolf Hess

"We believe that the Fuhrer is fulfilling a divine mission to German destiny! This belief is beyond challenge."
- Rudolf Hess

"With all our powers we will endeavour to be worthy of the Fuhrer thou, O Lord, has sent us!"
- Rudolf Hess

"You Einsatztruppen (task forces) are called upon to fulfill a repulsive duty. But you are soldiers who have to carry out every order unconditionally. You have a responsibility before God and Hitler for everything that is happening. I myself hate this bloody business and I have been moved to the depths of my soul. But I am obeying the highest law by doing my duty. Man must defend himself against bedbugs and rats-- against vermin."
- Heinrich Himmler

I ask for you to think about what these wise men have said and not let history repeat itself.

Indeed, IBM. Let's not let history repeat itself.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Sources:
www.9-11commission.gov...
wid.ap.org...
www.sfgate.com.../c/a/2004/09/17/MNGA88QJIJ1.DTL



[edit on 10-11-2004 by Durden]

LOL you make me laugh, I have never heard of these people making these quotes. Who are these people reppressed professors in liberal universities? The quotes I posted were from people who actually participated in warfare, and dont sit there on thier chair and criticieze. Let me ask you who would you rather have leading your army General Patton or Rudolf Hess? We all know that Nazis were evil. No one has ever heard of the people you posted because you know why? Their theory was not successfull and it failed them.

Some more links with more information

The Missing Link
From the July 26, 2004 issue: What the Senate report really says about Iraq and al Qaeda.
by Stephen F. Hayes
07/26/2004, Volume 009, Issue 43


With the absence of large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, a new conventional wisdom has emerged. Saddam Hussein was contained, in his box. The Iraqi Intelligence Service, active in crushing internal dissent, was essentially inactive outside Iraq's borders. The bottom line: Saddam Hussein's Iraq was not a threat.

The text of the Senate report tells a very different story. The panel based much of its analysis on a CIA product published in January 2003 called Iraqi Support for Terrorism--the most restrained of five CIA reports on Iraq and terror. The findings will surprise Americans who have relied for their information about the Iraqi threat on the establishment news media.

Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel, and other allies. Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism. During the last four decades, it has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It continues to harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively encourage violence against Israel. Regarding the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship, reporting from sources of varying credibility points to a number of contacts, incidents of training, and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Osama bin Laden and his organization dating from the early 1990s.

LINK 1



Al Qaeda
On the Offensive
By Mackubin Thomas Owens
National Review Online
October 6, 2004

Before the Iraq war, the US intelligence community reported that from 1996 to 2003, the Iraqi Intelligence Service [IIS] had focused its terrorist activity on Western interests, including the United States; "throughout 2002, the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against US interests;" Saddam Hussein was open "to enhancing bin Laden's operational capability" and may have provided training to al Qaeda; bin Laden had made direst and specific requests for Iraqi assistance; al Qaeda had demonstrated an "enduring interest" in WMD expertise from Iraq; the Iraqi regime "certainly" knew that al Qaeda agents were operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq; and Saddam Hussein had made a "standing offer" to Osama bin Laden for safe haven in Iraq.

LINK2

Originally posted by IBM
LOL you make me laugh, I have never heard of these people making these quotes. Who are these people reppressed professors in liberal universities? The quotes I posted were from people who actually participated in warfare, and dont sit there on thier chair and criticieze...

You're telling me noone has ever heard of these people and I make you laugh?
There's clearly no need for me to point out your ignorance. You're handling that quite nicely yourself.

EDIT to add: Edsinger, I'll tend to your post(s) when I get back from work.

[edit on 11-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by DurdenEdsinger. Your show of intentional ignorance and lack of rational reasoning is quite frankly amazing. There's really no other way to put it. You keep presenting links to one quiestionable source after another. And when your 'evidence' is debunked, you simply find another bs source with even more bs claims and start a new thread. I'm betting you burned your hand on the stove quite a few times as a kid, huh?

Well thanks for the well thought out reply Durden.

Look you know that the 911 report was not complete, some was not released due to "information". Thing is, if you want to believe that Iraq had nothing to do with 911, then fine. I am not 100% convinced that he was, but I am 100% convinced that he supported islamic terror against the West, especially Israel and the US.

Interesting article that I came across stated an idea that I saw as farfetched but you conspiracy buffs will love. They say there is no doubt that Saddam had involvment in 911 but the Government does NOT want to admitt it. That I found strange because of the political price that Bush paid when no "eveidence" was found. It stated that the Goverment was worried about the lawsuits that would hamper Iraq's recovery because of its involvement. Seems far fetched but not out of the question. I would think the odds really low.

You have it all figured out on publically released information huh?


You have debunked the CSN articles and Docs have you? Hmm


We just have to disagree, I feel the Iraq war was justified as did the UN before it came time to "actually" back up the resolutions. By that fact alone the war was justified.

No WMD, so you have PROOF that there are no weapons in Syria huh?


Get real, you have your sources that you feel are concrete, thing is the 911 report seems to me to give the impression that Al Qada and Saddam were more than coffee shop buddies. But believe what you wish, as Lost Sailor said, even IF you were presented with concrete facts you would still deny.


Oh well......

Its just like the old "twin towers were not terrorists fault" No matter how much proof you show them they wont budge. Edsinger dont waste your time on these people. People saw the twin towers get hit by terrorist planes and yet they still claim it was not them and there was something sinister. The proof was on National TV and yet they still refuse to believe it.

Originally posted by IBM
Its just like the old "twin towers were not terrorists fault" No matter how much proof you show them they wont budge. Edsinger dont waste your time on these people. People saw the twin towers get hit by terrorist planes and yet they still claim it was not them and there was something sinister. The proof was on National TV and yet they still refuse to believe it.

Who here said they didn't believe in the events that took place in 9/11? Fresh out of arguments so you feel the need to resort to complete nonsense, IBM?


[edit on 11-11-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by IBM
Its just like the old "twin towers were not terrorists fault" No matter how much proof you show them they wont budge. Edsinger dont waste your time on these people. People saw the twin towers get hit by terrorist planes and yet they still claim it was not them and there was something sinister. The proof was on National TV and yet they still refuse to believe it.

Who here said they didn't believe in the events that took place in 9/11? Fresh out of arguments so you feel the need to resort to complete nonsense, IBM?


[edit on 11-11-2004 by Durden]

They claim that the US government is responisble and not terrorists is what i meant. There is even a whole thread on it here somewhere.

Originally posted by Amelia

Originally posted by LostSailor
Oh if only all Americans were as wise and knowing as you oh great Durden. If only all Americans saw things your way and blindly ignored the others. If only all Americans spit in the face of the soldiers fighting for your country. Sorry, but I'm still supporting the war, and I still think it is a just cause. I can't wait to see the Iraqi's vote for their first leader.

My only hope now is that we leave the UN and maybe start some alliances with countries who really care about us and our well being.

O.k....your arguments are just songs going in my ears.....
What will war change in your everyday life dude...when you wake up in the morning, what will it change??????
Saddam is gone, so the USA should leave the country and stop killing innocent...
I do not support war because I don't not support violence and war is violence! It's just the solution for the "faibles" that means the "not strong"
I see your picture: IRAKIS are just poor bastards, they have no money so if they die, too bad
If a solider die or WORST, a rich american!!!!!, then it's like drama
But a human is a human, poor or rich, irakis or not
Can you put that in your head, or you are just a person who likes violence?
What if GOD (you know god...you are a christian) made you born in Irak...just think about it if you are so religious and read the bible and all...
GOD said, love one another
YOU SHOULD JUST DO THAT

I love you dude
Ameliaxoxoxox

I support the war, and Bush as well.
oh, and someone has to say it, it's spelled IRAQ, not IRAK.

Do some of you people think that the US should just stay out of other countries business? If you do, then I hope you never have a position of power. The US is the world's police, and since were a top nation we try and keep our selves that way, by not letting crazy unstable governments buy or make nukes.

Peace treaties have never worked in the middle east, so the US's plan is to take out all the threats, so at the same time america is getting more secure the country that we attacked will be re built and be better then before. Examples of this working is Afghan, who recently had elections, and in a couple years Iraq can be added to the list.

Originally posted by IBM
They claim that the US government is responisble and not terrorists is what i meant. There is even a whole thread on it here somewhere.

Regardless of who was actually behind those attacks, please elaborate on this statement of yours:

The proof was on National TV and yet they still refuse to believe it.

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by IBM
They claim that the US government is responisble and not terrorists is what i meant. There is even a whole thread on it here somewhere.

Regardless of who was actually behind those attacks, please elaborate on this statement of yours:

The proof was on National TV and yet they still refuse to believe it.

The proof that the terrorist hijackers were the ones who destroyed the twin towers. They posted thier faces on TV.

Originally posted by IBM
The proof that the terrorist hijackers were the ones who destroyed the twin towers. They posted thier faces on TV.

Yes, they did post faces on TV; which really isn't proof in itself. However, one may consider the sources posting these faces as credible enough to trust (which in this case, I personally do).

Additionally, those images doesn't prove who was actually behind the attacks. Though I would say most of the evidence point to al Qaeda as the perpetrator in this case (which is also what I believe to be the case).