Explosive New Book Documents Ties Between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Relpace the word terrorist, with AL Qaeda..In my post...It STILL works.

Sure it still works; in your mind. In reality, if we're looking at the available credible evidence, it absolutely doesn't.

Apparently, there is NO credible evidence either way..
So MY MIND, as you put it, uses non-partisan common sense..

Why would Iraq be empty of terrorists? It just makes no sense..

Look When I get the time I will post the relavant sections of the 911 report.

Iraq had ties to OBL even, not nessesarily operational ties, but ties to take down a mutual enemy.

Saddam had the bucks, the will, and the plausible deniablity to allow osama to operate, Iran does the same thing.

Although it is true that Osama did not like Saddam, but what folks on the left fail to realize is this, Osama NEEDED Saddam and visa versa.

Before you spin the # just read it....

Originally posted by Durden
Edsinger, are you of the opinion that something becomes the truth if you repeat saying it's true enough times? Just curious.

Well if you're really interested, why don't you take the time to read this current report (oct 21) on the connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida; or rather lack thereof.

Thanks for the link, I will be reading this one for sure, a bit long at 48 pages but I will read it. Did you read the 12 page one that I posted?


YOur is from a Senator, so it shoudl ahve some creditiblity but in this day and age, we cant even trust them. It is his committee membership that grabbed my eye.

Again thanks

It surprises me that people posting here think their research is more valid or extensive than the research of the very governments with the most to lose by their not being a connection between AQ and Iraq, but they've said it themselves.

484. We conclude that the JIC made clear that, although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaida, there was no evidence of cooperation. It did warn of the possibility of terrorist attacks on coalition forces in Baghdad.

-Butler Report, www.butlerreview.org.uk...

There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report,Saddam Hussein�s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

-The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 66

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting,Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. 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.

-Id.

It's patently obvious that whatever miniscule ties Iraq had with AQ they were nothing compared with the ties AQ had with our great allies, the Saudis, who AQ still apparently does have a "collaborative operational relationship" with. Or, for that matter, the Pakistanis, whose ISI chief himself ordered the payment of Mohammed Attah.

Face it, Iraq was the wrong war, and had nothing to do with terror.

-koji K.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by koji_K]

Originally posted by koji_K
It surprises me that people posting here think their research is more valid or extensive than the research of the very governments with the most to lose by their not being a connection between AQ and Iraq, but they've said it themselves.

Face it, Iraq was the wrong war, and had nothing to do with terror.

-koji K.

Very good link and points, But did nt the 911 report also show that there was a little bit more contact than that? Seemed to me what I read was bit more in depth.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Apparently, there is NO credible evidence either way..
So MY MIND, as you put it, uses non-partisan common sense..

Non-partisan common sense? I'm sorry, do you really believe this opinion of yours is non-partisan?

Why would Iraq be empty of terrorists? It just makes no sense..

Again, we were discussing alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. And the available credible evidence still doesn't support it. And trust me on this; nothing will change about this if you keep saying 'there was a connection' enough times. It simply doesn't work that way.

Originally posted by edsinger
Thanks for the link, I will be reading this one for sure, a bit long at 48 pages but I will read it. Did you read the 12 page one that I posted?

YOur is from a Senator, so it shoudl ahve some creditiblity but in this day and age, we cant even trust them. It is his committee membership that grabbed my eye.

Again thanks

My pleasure, edsinger. And yes, I did read your link. The problem here though, as you probably appreciate, is that experience have shown us that we have to be very critical of any claims pertaining to this issue. So the sources used becomes an ever more important issue.


[edit on 23-10-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden

Again, we were discussing alleged ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida. And the available credible evidence still doesn't support it. And trust me on this; nothing will change about this if you keep saying 'there was a connection' enough times. It simply doesn't work that way.

Where have you been asleep rip van winkle. The proof lies in part in this simpelest point possible if they didnt have an agreement their presence in Iraq would be a threat to an excitable and vicious dictators rule....They wouldnt have been on the scene as soon as we hit the ground in Iraq if they didnt have already stnding relations and a base there when we got there.....

drbryankkruta, the vast preponderance of actual credible evidence still doesn't support any actual ties between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Assertions doesn't cut it.


[edit on 23-10-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
drbryankkruta, the vast preponderance of actual credible evidence still doesn't support any actual ties between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein. Assertions doesn't cut it.

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Durden]

Yet the Goverment themselves in an effort to save themselves from the damage of the Iraq fubar that found no WMD turned up evidence from intelligence gathered from agencies out side their own inner intelligence.

Intelligence mind do you that is confirmed by SOP evidence provided by at least 3 sources on the ground.

SO ok the US may have lied about this too, but why would a people who objects to our presence over and over again say on tv no less that the presence of the terrorist cells were nothing new and that they were not actively pursued by a dictator who by his own acounts killed his own people as a point of supreme power to prove that no authority exists but his own.

Allowing terrorists to stay and spread there own self motivated means...Which undoughtedly was on more than one time or another the case....

To be so close minded that the evidence is as simple a seeing it with the eyes God gave you is bewildering to me. I however respect your opinion,
But respectfully I dont agree there is proof just look at the background of Saddam and the background of AlQuaeda and tell me how they coexisted in the same small country.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
SO ok the US may have lied about this too, but why would a people who objects to our presence over and over again say on tv no less that the presence of the terrorist cells were nothing new and that they were not actively pursued by a dictator who by his own acounts killed his own people as a point of supreme power to prove that no authority exists but his own.

Allowing terrorists to stay and spread there own self motivated means...Which undoughtedly was on more than one time or another the case....

Respectfully drbryankkruta, and I respect your opinion as well, but the precense of terrorist cells can be found all over the world, and that alone can not be accepted as proof of actual cooperation between the terrorist group in question and the leadership of said nation.

To be so close minded that the evidence is as simple a seeing it with the eyes God gave you is bewildering to me. I however respect your opinion,
But respectfully I dont agree there is proof just look at the background of Saddam and the background of AlQuaeda and tell me how they coexisted in the same small country.

This is not a question of close-mindedness; it's a question of seriously scrutinizing any claims made to support attacking another nation with military force. As to how these two groups coexisted, your guess is as good as mine. However guesswork can hardly be - nor should it ever be - considered credible evidence.


[edit on 23-10-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden
Respectfully drbryankkruta, and I respect your opinion as well, but the precense of terrorist cells can be found all over the world, and that alone can not be accepted as proof of actual cooperation between the terrorist group in question and the leadership of said nation.

But else where in the earth the are openly saught unless it is one of their allies.....That is a key point that was missed

This is not a question of close-mindedness; it's a question of seriously scrutinizing any claims made to support attacking another nation with military force. As to how these two groups coexisted, your guess is as good as mine. However guesswork can hardly be - nor should it ever be - considered credible evidence.

they coexisted because Saddam and them shared a common goal....thats what often makes for good bedfellows and allies.....thats why they were allowed to coexist in a peace that by all accounts must have been uneasy but existant all the same.....so to seriously scrutinize the situation you have to do the math 1 dictator plus one terrorist group equals a stronger force of resistance that was supposed to work but somewheres Saddam failed to be prepared or the allies he trusted set back and let him fall due to the hopes that the US would defeat him essentially handing them the country

Let's face the inevitable: I think, there was some kind of contact between Iraq and the Al Qaeda. Mohamed Atta was in contact with the Iraqi secret service, and he announced them that "Binladen will blow up the Pentagon and the White House". He was searching for informants there...!

Let's face the inevitable: I think, there was some kind of contact between Iraq and the Al Qaeda. Mohamed Atta was in contact with the Iraqi secret service, and he announced them that "Binladen will blow up the Pentagon and the White House". He was searching for informants there...!

Originally posted by Vertu
Let's face the inevitable: I think, there was some kind of contact between Iraq and the Al Qaeda. Mohamed Atta was in contact with the Iraqi secret service, and he announced them that "Binladen will blow up the Pentagon and the White House". He was searching for informants there...!

I dont know about there plans per say but I would put it past them.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
they coexisted because Saddam and them shared a common goal....thats what often makes for good bedfellows and allies.....thats why they were allowed to coexist in a peace that by all accounts must have been uneasy but existant all the same.....so to seriously scrutinize the situation you have to do the math 1 dictator plus one terrorist group equals a stronger force of resistance that was supposed to work but somewheres Saddam failed to be prepared or the allies he trusted set back and let him fall due to the hopes that the US would defeat him essentially handing them the country

To claim actual connections and a cooperation between these two are assumptions; not fact supported by the available credible evidence. Doing math based on guesswork and assumptions is hardly an acceptable method to support nor excuse an all-out attack on another nation. It simply isn't.


[edit on 23-10-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden

My pleasure, edsinger. And yes, I did read your link. The problem here though, as you probably appreciate, is that experience have shown us that we have to be very critical of any claims pertaining to this issue. So the sources used becomes an ever more important issue.

[edit on 23-10-2004 by Durden]

Well, wow what a turn of events. We finally agree on something. That 12 page paper was very well done and although you dont agree with it, it expresses my viewpoint on the war and WMD. I will read yours this weekend. 48 pages might take a bit...

Originally posted by Vertu
Let's face the inevitable: I think, there was some kind of contact between Iraq and the Al Qaeda. Mohamed Atta was in contact with the Iraqi secret service, and he announced them that "Binladen will blow up the Pentagon and the White House". He was searching for informants there...!

What about these:

-The Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer.
-The Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event.
-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.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Durden
To claim actual connections and a cooperation between these two are assumptions; not fact supported by the available credible evidence. Doing math based on guesswork and assumptions is hardly an acceptable method to support nor excuse an all-out attack on another nation. It simply isn't.

I tryed to explain that at least 3 on the ground sources where question on more then one occasion they warned of the presence of and trade of weapons between the two groups and infact post saddam investigations netted more reports from other individuals who were close to the fallen regime in one way or another and these independant reports also divulged the locations on weapon caches and holdouts that were filled with Iraqi and US hardware....it seems to present denseness that a person refuses to accept evidence both provided by a Goverment that in fact has been harmed by their own reports and people who dont give a damn wether the US does anything more there than they have already done by removing the resime

[edit on 23/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

What gets me is that the 911 report does admitt connections just no proof of collaberation on 911. Thats all, they knew they had connections. Thats why Cheney was spot on.

"the reason I claim al qaeda had connections with Saddam was because saddam had connections to al qaeda"

Yet the left still claims no connections..go figure.

Originally posted by edsinger
What gets me is that the 911 report does admitt connections just no proof of collaberation on 911. Thats all, they knew they had connections. Thats why Cheney was spot on.

"the reason I claim al qaeda had connections with Saddam was because saddam had connections to al qaeda"

Yet the left still claims no connections..go figure.

Plausable Deniability sums it all up the world knows the truth but the left was left out so they could be used to deny