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

Originally posted by edsinger
It stated that there were connections but no meaningful collabration could be found, but they didnt say it didnt exist.

According to the 911 Commission, the evidence simply doesn't support any collaboration - period.
What do you mean by them not saying it didn't exist? Dude, I'd love to see you pull the same nonsense during a crime case in a court of law.

I still believe that saddam had some type of connections with Al Qaeda from the early 90's on....but saddam was not stupid either, he would have kept them quiet.

I would say belief is the key word here, edsinger. However the available credible evidence doesn't support this notion. But this really is of no value to you, is it? Truly amazing. Truly.

Look, the evidence that they told us about is one thing, the evidence that they CANT tell us is another, although they would have had to word it different.

As you say "What the report did conclude was that there was no proof of any collaboration. Period."

Well there was no PROOF OJ did it, or so the court said. Proof is what we all want, but sometimes it isnt availiable for different reasons. It did not say there was none, it said there was no proof there was some.

Yet there was PROOF of connections, but just how far did they go?

What about circumstantial evidence? It was enough to convict OJ in a civil trial was it not?

Originally posted by edsinger
Look, the evidence that they told us about is one thing, the evidence that they CANT tell us is another, although they would have had to word it different.

The horse is dead and buried. Let it go already. You don't have a viable argument at this point.

As you say "What the report did conclude was that there was no proof of any collaboration. Period."

Exactly.


[edit on 25-10-2004 by Durden]

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by edsinger
Look, the evidence that they told us about is one thing, the evidence that they CANT tell us is another, although they would have had to word it different.

The horse is dead and buried. Let it go already. You don't have a viable argument at this point.

As you say "What the report did conclude was that there was no proof of any collaboration. Period."

Exactly.


[edit on 25-10-2004 by Durden]

So we dismiss it altogether? There is a shotpile of circumstantial evidence that says they did? By the sheer amount of which, just because some CIVILIAN committee cant find it, I am not yet 100% convinced, sorry. IF the CSN article goes anywhere , well whole new ballgame, but that kind of died didnt it?

Originally posted by edsinger
So we dismiss it altogether?

What are you suggesting here, edsinger? Go with assumptions, supported - not by the vast preponderance of credible evidence available - but by hearsay and lose claims, as opposed to that which can actually be proven? The fact that you can't seem to grasp the foolishness and madness behind such reasoning is disturbing, quite frankly.

There is a shotpile of circumstantial evidence that says they did?

There is a shotpile of circumstantial B.S. which isn't supported by the actual evidence available and simply doesn't bear serious scrutiny. But by all means, keep posting your links. No harm in that. But a piece of advice though, it's only healthy to read up on your own links as well as question their sources before posting them. Thus far, you really seem to be doing neither.

By the sheer amount of which, just because some CIVILIAN committee cant find it

Is this an attempt to discredit the 911 Commission now, edsinger? You're really picking and choosing, aren't you? Still you have no problems whatsoever posting sources - you haven't even read up on - in this attempt to find support of your views on this issue.

I am not yet 100% convinced, sorry.

You know, it sure seems to me you are very much 100% convinced of your own view on this issue. However you really don't care if this is disproven - many times over. You'll just run off to drudge or any other 'source' of such kind and find your own evidence. Screw scrutiny, right?

Well, here's a link for you. Enjoy.


[edit on 26-10-2004 by Durden]