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.

 

The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
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.
How can the US be the world's police when it speaks only in American? Amelia is a French-Canadian, Irak is correct.

Now maybe you can point me to where the US was given the authority to police the world, by the rest of the world? Please start with my country, Canada, the federal sites where such information should be contained is available in English for those who do not read, speak or understand French. and yes, I wholeheartedly believe that the US should stay out of the affairs of others unless directly elected to by a majority, or by that country's government or majority of citizens.

Why do you believe you have teh right to police the world?




posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   

Somewhereinbetween
Why do you believe you have the right to police the world?


We are the only superpower and have the best military and were the best nation. (yes, i'm biased)

Its not that we have the right, its just that we do it because we have the most to lose and we have the technology to do so (satellites, etc.).

If you havn't noticed that were the worlds police then you dont know much.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 01:26 AM
link   
So Murcielago, what you're essentially saying is that the end justifies the means.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 01:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by MurcielagoWe are the only superpower and have the best military and were the best nation. (yes, i'm biased)

Its not that we have the right, its just that we do it because we have the most to lose and we have the technology to do so (satellites, etc.).

If you havn't noticed that were the worlds police then you dont know much.


Oh I see, so you agree you have not been given that right, but you claim it anyway. That unfortunately does not make it so, that only shows a one-sided and arrogant view. That would be like saying that Germany was once the world's police. And no, I have not noticed that you are the world's police, and will not notice until you have been given that right. But if you think you are, then why do you need to enlist police recruits from other countries to do your policing job in Afghanistan and Iraq?

And I may not know much, but I did know that "Iraq" and "Irak" are English transliterations.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 09:05 AM
link   

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


So, I guess you're now suggesting we invade Syria?



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


English isn't her first language, so don't be so critical. How many languages do you speak and write fluently? Not everyone on the internet is American, remember.


Originally posted by Murcielago
If you havn't noticed that were the worlds police then you dont know much.


Yes, I've noticed, but I don't want my country to police the world. I believe whole heartedly that we should be neutral in every aspect in which we can be neutral. We have way too many problems here to take on the rest of the worlds' problems too. Frankly, we're not even very good at solving problems.



[edit on 11-11-2004 by Damned]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:48 AM
link   
I honestly don't know if I should laugh or cry...

I have the evidence you all require, hard proof that you're views are wrong, I myself went to Iraq two years ago as part of an investigatory mission as to determine the oppressive nature of Sadam's Regime. It was funded by the United States government and signed of by Bush himself. I personally interviewed every single person in Iraq, here are my results:

1) Saddam actually sends flower to every single person living within or visiting Iraq... I myself recieved a lovely bouquet of daffodils, an interesting choice but I couldn't really complain at such a generous offer.

2) Every single person in Iraq is can't be found without a smile on their face, most have an odd prediliction to keeping lagomorph's, but seeing the occational white rabbit hop past is such a pleasing distraction that I didn't think it'd do any harm.

3) Saddam has a large stock pile of nuclear weapons, which he uses for sheep farming and the occational genocide. I've touched them myself and I can assure you they're real and extremely cold. Quite painful if they go off when not wearing protective goggles I can assure you! I'll remember my sunglasses next time.

I can link you to my "official" papers if you want, but I'm just as believable as any of the other articles on the internet so I shouldn't really have to. I hope my slightly piss-take approach hasn't offended too many people but I think my point is relatively clear. You have no solid proof.

None.

Apart from those of you who personally walked accross Iraq to use your own eyes, you have been supplied this information from a variety sources, very few of which you have any reason to trust, and yet you quote them thinking that someone else's opinion is absolute proof.

I don't know whether the war in Iraq was necessary or not, as far as I can tell there was no solid reason for going. I know full well I'll never have enough proof either way because I don't have access to the time, money, or even the country itself.

Don't blindly believe the media or what you're told, have your opinions but don't put down others for having theirs.

Some impressive debating going on here by the way, I'm impressed.

Enjoy your day people



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Thank guys for defending me and my language.....

I'm really sad to see violence in people hearts, like I always say!
I know that not all americans are pro-war, so I won't diss americans
But some people are very ignorant and that is not their fault, they are controled....they are the kind of people who are brainwashed by patriotism since childhood, they heard all their life that USA and the republicans are the best...so in time, the beleived it...so we normal people can't do anything for them...they will be like that for the rest of their life (violent, self destructive, racist and ignorant) STUBORN people like that must be really sad....those people are money lovers, greddy, boring and unhappy! They wanna stay that way and don't want any help....

They like to think that USA is on top because they are so LOW it gives them a bit of self esteem....

Their country IS ALL THEY HAVE poor little ones, we are taking away their pride

They say they are christian or religious or anyhow god beleivers..but that is not really true, if they do, they don't understand what what is meaning of it!

Let's leave them in their low self-esteem life and stop fighting with them, it won't work...they are certain that the USA in the power of the world and that everybody else is a moron...

Maybe these people had a really hard life and tehy wanna hang on on something and that thing is USA

ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

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.

Impressive comeback.
I ask you to sit back and think about who is actually ignoring 'things' here.


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.

Unless there are some major changes made in the manner in which the current Administration is running things; I'd say you (read: the US) will find it more and more difficult to find allies who really care about you.


Originally posted by edsinger
Well thanks for the well thought out reply Durden.

My pleasure. Will you grant me with some thought out replies in the future, or will you keep posting various links containing material which you haven't carefully reviewed?


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.

This is really not that difficult, edsinger. Take into account the vast preponderance of credible evidence that's available and likely, you'll come closer to the truth. I'm not saying you should dismiss the material you've presented off the bat. I'm saying you should critically consider it while you also compare it with that which can actually be substantiated as credible. Again though; I'd love to see you get away with the same kind of logic you've applied thus far to argue a case in a court of law.



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.

Needless to say; thus far, there is not need to comment on this.


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

Pretty much, yes.


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

Using the available credible evidence, I've argued why the 'information' you have presented doesn't bare careful scrutiny - yes. Is there anything in particular you'd like to question as to my reasoning and the sources I've used?


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.

That is your opinion. However again; this reasoning wouldn't have sufficed to raise support of an invasion of Iraq. The Bush Administration was clearly very well aware of that fact.


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

If by this you're referring the notion that Saddam moved WMD's to Syria, then to date; the credible information presented doesn't support this claim.


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.

I'm quite frankly tired of repeating myself over and over again when it comes to this particular matter. All you need to do is read my previous posts. Also, do feel free to once again look into the 9/11 Report for support of my reasoning. Though regrettably, in light of what you've shown as to your ability of rational thought; I doubt that will do much good.


Oh well......

Oh well, indeed...


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...(snip)


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.

It's getting tedious to rehash the same discussion over and over again, simply because you keep failing to actually take a close look at the content of the information your posting as well as its sources. Quite frankly, it's evident that you hardly take an actual interest in what is written in your own links. Here we go again...

The Missing Link is based on the January 2003 SSCI Report Iraqi Support for Terrorism and the material presented by Thomas Owens in your second link is based on The Missing Link. Aside from the fact that this information has carefully been scrutinized in the more recent 9/11 Report, the authors of these particular links have read this report much like the devil reads the Bible and their conclusions are - yet again - assumptions - not supported by the vast preponderance of credible information. Here is what was actually concluded in the SSCI Report and the 9/11 Commission Report:

The IC did not find a substantial link between Iraq and al Qaeda. According to the 9/11 Commission report, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Richard Clarke’s office sent a memo to the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, at the President’s direction, concluding that “only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda...Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein’s regime.” (1)

The January 2003 report Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the final major IC report prior to the war, acknowledged that its conclusions “especially regarding the difficult and elusive question of the exact nature of Iraq’s relations with al Qaida are based on currently available information that is at times contradictory and derived from sources with varying degrees of reliability.” It stated that the relationship “appears to more closely resemble that of two independent actors trying to exploit each other,” and that “al Qaida, including bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation.” Relative to the 9/11 attacks, the report said that the “Intelligence Community has no credible information that Baghdad had foreknowledge of the 11 September attacks or any other al-Qaida strike.” (2)

Moreover, the SSCI, after reviewing all available intelligence, concluded in its report that the CIA “reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida throughout the 1990s, but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship.” (3)

The above is also corroborated by the more recent 9/11 report, concluding that "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".

And to quote Senator Charles Levin, a ranking member of the Senate Armed Service Committee:

As the House and Senate consider legislation in response to the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, it is of critical importance that any new structure or organization correct, to the greatest possible degree, one of the most serious and persistent flaws of the current system of intelligence analysis and estimates: the politicization of intelligence, or, stated another way, the shaping of intelligence to support administration policy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) 9/11 Commission Report, p. 334
(2) SSCI Report, pages 322 and 339
(3) SSCI Report, p. 346



[edit on 11-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Well Durden, I cant go into a deep reply now due to time constraints, but I will say this,


You have put the 911 report as gospel which is undestandable. But as you well know the 911 report did not have all the information available to the committee, and to be frank, the intel agencies would not have given everything in the way of intel to this commission becuase of the 'risk' of leaks.

Again, I can offer no Proof and neither can you that Saddam was not involved with AlQaeda more than just simple meetings. You never really explained away the Bin Ladin in Baghdad sighting, but that is only rumor.

You and I both know that neither of us possess the full picture of what happened on 911 and what happened before 911.

You post your sources, I post mine, they both could be wrong. Thing is, if ABC posts something then you consider it viable, but if Newsmax does, it is right wing propaganda. Well I guess my opinion of ABC would be left-wing propaganda becuase of the obvious bias of most of the media.


I can not prove anything and neither can you, all we have is our opinions based off what information we choose to use.


I think the odds are 50/50 that Saddam either knew or contributed to 911,

I think the odds are 85/15 that he had at least small stocks of Chemical Weapons


I think the Odds are 95/5 that he had 'quantities' of Bioweapons, the likes of which the CIA doeant WANT you to know about.


I think the Odds are 50/50 that some of the WMD's are in Syria or Iran.


It is all opinions at this point, just like yours are.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Bien....

Any way, this is all orchestrated by the illuminatis and everybody is a puppet! We are fighting for nothing! USA is like used right now to acheive the NWO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a big agenda, much bigger than all those craps about saddam and binladen, it's like 1% of the real deal!

I could talk for HOURS about that, but I won't

Ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well Durden, I cant go into a deep reply now due to time constraints, but I will say this,

You have put the 911 report as gospel which is undestandable. But as you well know the 911 report did not have all the information available to the committee, and to be frank, the intel agencies would not have given everything in the way of intel to this commission becuase of the 'risk' of leaks.

And the information lacking - of which content you really have no knowledge whatsoever - is actually what you claim to be that which support your claims?


Again, I can offer no Proof and neither can you that Saddam was not involved with AlQaeda more than just simple meetings.

The credible information available doesn't support any collaboration - period.

Now we can assume all we want, but if those assumptions aren't supported by any credible information, they remain as such - assumptions.


You never really explained away the Bin Ladin in Baghdad sighting, but that is only rumor.

You said it yourself. It's a rumor and the burden of proof is clearly in the hands of the source of this claim.


You and I both know that neither of us possess the full picture of what happened on 911 and what happened before 911.

You're absolutely right about that, edsinger. And in light of that fact, all we have to go by is the credibility of the information we choose to subscribe to.


You post your sources, I post mine, they both could be wrong. Thing is, if ABC posts something then you consider it viable, but if Newsmax does, it is right wing propaganda. Well I guess my opinion of ABC would be left-wing propaganda becuase of the obvious bias of most of the media.

Actually, I haven't posted any ABC material here and you know it. Surely you're not calling the 9/11 Commission or the Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) sources of left-wing propaganda - are you?

Also, please do notice that I haven't dismissed your claims right off the bat and I've taken most, if not all the content of your posts into careful consideration and argued as to why I disagree with you.


I can not prove anything and neither can you, all we have is our opinions based off what information we choose to use.


.......(snip)
It is all opinions at this point, just like yours are.

Again, I agree. And this is why the credibility of those sources is ever more important.



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amelia
I'm really sad to see violence in people hearts, like I always say!
I know that not all americans are pro-war, so I won't diss americans
But some people are very ignorant and that is not their fault, they are controled....they are the kind of people who are brainwashed by patriotism since childhood, they heard all their life that USA and the republicans are the best...so in time, the beleived it...so we normal people can't do anything for them...they will be like that for the rest of their life (violent, self destructive, racist and ignorant) STUBORN people like that must be really sad....those people are money lovers, greddy, boring and unhappy! They wanna stay that way and don't want any help....

They like to think that USA is on top because they are so LOW it gives them a bit of self esteem....

Their country IS ALL THEY HAVE poor little ones, we are taking away their pride

Let's leave them in their low self-esteem life and stop fighting with them, it won't work...they are certain that the USA in the power of the world and that everybody else is a moron...

Maybe these people had a really hard life and tehy wanna hang on on something and that thing is USA

ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


everything you said could be turned around, like people like you, who get brought up in a society where war is bad, and that there should be peace always, But that would only happen if everyone thought the same as you do.



They say they are christian or religious or anyhow god beleivers..but that is not really true, if they do, they don't understand what what is meaning of it!

- ok, go on, enlighten us all!
If you do believe in religion and think that the world should be peacefull like god wants or whatever, then why would he kill every person on earth in the flood?(except of couse everything on noas ark)



posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Well Durden, I looked for the link to the Osama Baghdad link and could find one, but I found this:


Now this source I would question, as would you. But the information is there real or not. And no the 911 commission is not left wing propaganda but do you work for the government? Do you know how they are about 'some' information? The 911 commission was to appease the publics desire for an answer, nothing more. Plenty was left out and probably for good reasons that you and I would most likely agree on if we knew them.


You say all the evidence is only circumstantial, so therefore by your logic,

Scott Peterson should be set free? They have no 'concrete' evidence that he did it. It is just that the preponderance of the evidence says he was the most likely culprit. He had the motive, the means, and the will and no alibi.

So therefore I feel that unless you can actually get undisputable evidence you will not believe it. Fine you are so entitled…….



Saddam Invites Bin Laden to Baghdad

MIddle of the way down


Saddam Invites Bin Laden to Baghdad

Iraqi intelligence worked hard to develop close ties with bin Laden and his operatives. Saddam Hussein‘s interest in meeting with him reportedly became a priority following the bombing of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. In 1998 General Hijazi was appointed ambassador to Turkey. In his role as a diplomat, the former intelligence director was able to travel more freely abroad. One of his first trips was to Afghanistan, where he met with bin Laden. The general conveyed a personal message from Saddam Hussein inviting bin Laden to Baghdad. (6, 12)

Bin Laden was seen in Baghdad‘s al-Rashid Hotel in December 1998. International lawyer Giovanni Di Stefano, who was in Baghdad at the time to negotiate a contract to represent Iraqi Airlines in Italy and Yugoslavia, met and talked with bin Laden. Western and regional intelligence officers, as well as Iraqi exiles, confirm that bin Laden met with Saddam, who reportedly offered to grant bin Laden a base and asylum in Iraq. Bin Laden, however, already firmly established in Afghanistan, where his money and armed followers had made him an important figure in the regime, declined. Bin Laden did agree to send men to Iraq to receive "special" training. (9, 15)

Former General Hijazi became Saddam Hussein‘s official liaison with bin Laden shortly after his visit to Afghanistan in 1998. He facilitated the movement of about 60 of bin Laden‘s followers to Iraq for special training. That unit became the core cadre of the Jund al-Islam, or "Soldiers of Islam." It has been built up to about 500 men and is led by Amir Abdullah al-Shafi‘i, an Egyptian (or Syrian) who was one of bin Laden‘s "Afghan Arabs." Most of Jund al-Islam‘s recruits are mercenaries. Many are members of renegade Kurdish groups Iraq has created as a counterpoint to the larger Kurdish guerrilla forces that oppose the Baghdad regime. (9)

Interesting link here







And keep one thing in mind, if you say he never had them, then there is a big problem. Since the election is over, I will post this:






And speaking of the election, you know, damn near everyone on this board wnated Bush out, made up things etc, hounded him on mistakes even if they were not mistakes. Iraq was not a mistake in my opinion, and America spoke during the election. So all this bad Bush press only accomplished one thing really,,



[edit on 11-11-2004 by edsinger]


IBM

posted on Nov, 11 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amelia
Thank guys for defending me and my language.....

I'm really sad to see violence in people hearts, like I always say!
I know that not all americans are pro-war, so I won't diss americans
But some people are very ignorant and that is not their fault, they are controled....they are the kind of people who are brainwashed by patriotism since childhood, they heard all their life that USA and the republicans are the best...so in time, the beleived it...so we normal people can't do anything for them...they will be like that for the rest of their life (violent, self destructive, racist and ignorant) STUBORN people like that must be really sad....those people are money lovers, greddy, boring and unhappy! They wanna stay that way and don't want any help....

They like to think that USA is on top because they are so LOW it gives them a bit of self esteem....

Their country IS ALL THEY HAVE poor little ones, we are taking away their pride

They say they are christian or religious or anyhow god beleivers..but that is not really true, if they do, they don't understand what what is meaning of it!

Let's leave them in their low self-esteem life and stop fighting with them, it won't work...they are certain that the USA in the power of the world and that everybody else is a moron...

Maybe these people had a really hard life and tehy wanna hang on on something and that thing is USA

ameliaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Excuse me, no one brainwashed me, I accepeted the strong values of the Republican party myself. I dont know what makes you normal, just because you believe in something else. I believe you need to have a psychatriaist check your head out.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well Durden, I looked for the link to the Osama Baghdad link and could find one, but I found this:


Now this source I would question, as would you. But the information is there real or not. And no the 911 commission is not left wing propaganda but do you work for the government? Do you know how they are about 'some' information? The 911 commission was to appease the publics desire for an answer, nothing more. Plenty was left out and probably for good reasons that you and I would most likely agree on if we knew them.

I repeat; and the information lacking - of which content you really have no real knowledge whatsoever - is actually what you claim to be that which supports your claims? If you don't realize the obvious problem with your reasoning in that respect, then there's really little to add. Amazing.



You say all the evidence is only circumstantial, so therefore by your logic,

Scott Peterson should be set free? They have no 'concrete' evidence that he did it. It is just that the preponderance of the evidence says he was the most likely culprit. He had the motive, the means, and the will and no alibi.

So therefore I feel that unless you can actually get undisputable evidence you will not believe it. Fine you are so entitled…….

I really can't say anything of value as to the case to which you're referring as I have little insight into it. However it would seem your analogy is quite false. I'm saying, the 'evidence' you've presented in support of your argument is anecdotal at best. To even call it circumstantial is to apply it too much credit. As I've shown, the vast preponderance of credible information shown by 9/11 Commission as well as the Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) supports that assessment.


Saddam Invites Bin Laden to Baghdad

MIddle of the way down


Saddam Invites Bin Laden to Baghdad

Iraqi intelligence worked hard to develop close ties with bin Laden and his operatives. Saddam Hussein‘s interest in meeting with him reportedly became a priority following the bombing of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998. In 1998 General Hijazi was appointed ambassador to Turkey. In his role as a diplomat, the former intelligence director was able to travel more freely abroad. One of his first trips was to Afghanistan, where he met with bin Laden. The general conveyed a personal message from Saddam Hussein inviting bin Laden to Baghdad. (6, 12)
...
(snip)

Like you said; I would question the source. I'm glad you would as well. Reading the content of that link and looking at the sources provided to support its content, it's quite evident that this material is dated. They present quite a bit of material to support their argument that has very much been debunked a good while ago. Again, the conclusion presented by both the 9/11 Commission and SSCI doesn't support what is argued as evidence of Saddam's large support of al Qaeda and its members.

As to the political cartoons in the rest of your post, I really don't find it necessary to comment on them.

And again; this is really not that difficult. Take into account the vast preponderance of credible evidence that's available and likely, you'll come closer to the truth. I'm not saying you should dismiss the material you've presented off the bat. I'm saying you should critically consider it while you also compare it with that which can actually be substantiated as credible.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
So Murcielago, what you're essentially saying is that the end justifies the means.

In the case of the United States, it would be more accurate to say the means justifies the ends.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:10 AM
link   
[edit on 12-11-2004 by magical communications]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by magical communications
There is a very dangerous minority in Islam that either has--or wants to have, and may soon have--the ability to deliver small nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, almost anywhere in the world, unless it is prevented from doing so......

Any of your own thoughts you'd like to share.....?

You may also want to take a look at this this.



[edit on 12-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:46 AM
link   
Amelia.... I'm sorry but you really need to think about what you're saying before you say it. Your logic, or lack there of I should say, is insane. You should lay off the Micheal Moore books for real. Blinded by Patriotism? I'm not even gonna say what I'd like to about what you're blinded by, for fear of getting banned from ATS.

A person is never happy except at the price of some ignorance.

Anatole France
French novelist (1844 - 1924)

A little learning is a dangerous thing but a lot of ignorance is just as bad.

Bob Edward

PS - Good points Magical Communications, but you could have just provided the link. I only wish I had enough time to research and make threads like ed and Fondadurden


[edit on 12-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   
yes this war is necessary! we need oil!!!

am i correct???





new topics




 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join