The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

sixate · 04-26-2003, 09:13 PM

LINKY

Quote:

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.

The documents show that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qa'eda based on their mutual hatred of America and Saudi Arabia. The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.

The papers will be seized on by Washington as the first proof of what the United States has long alleged - that, despite denials by both sides, Saddam's regime had a close relationship with al-Qa'eda.

The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan, where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents.

One paper is marked "Top Secret and Urgent". It is signed "MDA", a codename believed to be the director of one of the intelligence sections within the Mukhabarat, and dated February 19, 1998. It refers to the planned trip from Sudan by bin Laden's unnamed envoy and refers to the arrangements for his visit.

A letter with this document says the envoy is a trusted confidant of bin Laden. It adds: "According to the above, we suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [Iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden."

The letter refers to al-Qa'eda's leader as an opponent of the Saudi Arabian regime and says that the message to convey to him through the envoy "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him."

According to handwritten notes at the bottom of the page, the letter was passed on through another director in the Mukhabarat and on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service.

It recommends that "the deputy director general bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with bin Laden". The deputy director general has signed the document. All of the signatories use codenames.

The other documents then confirm that the envoy travelled from Khartoum to Baghdad in March 1998, staying at al-Mansour Melia, a first-class hotel. It mentions that his visit was extended by a week. In the notes in a margin, a name "Mohammed F. Mohammed Ahmed" is mentioned, but it is not clear whether this is the the envoy or an agent.

Intriguingly, the Iraqis talk about sending back an oral message to bin Laden, perhaps aware of the risk of a written message being intercepted. However, the documents do not mention if any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials.

The file contradicts the claims of Baghdad, bin Laden and many critics of the coalition that there was no link between the Iraqi regime and al-Qa'eda. One Western intelligence official contacted last night described the file as "sensational", adding: "Baghdad clearly sought out the meeting. The regime would have wanted it to happen in the capital as it's only there they would feel safe from surveillance by Western intelligence."

Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

A Downing Street spokesman said last night: "Since Saddam's fall a series of documents have come to light which will have to be fully assessed by the proper authorities over a period of time. We will certainly want to study these documents as part of that process to see if they shed new light on the relationship between Saddam's regime and al-Qa'eda.

oane · 04-26-2003, 11:35 PM

Urm, there are plenty of "proof" about US supporting terrorist organizations also. Different countries have their own national interest in minds when they engage in such behaviour. There is no such thing as a good terrorism(led by CIA) or bad terrorism(Arab, Muslim etc.)

I also like that this evidence was found by a newspaper. Am I to believe that the CIA is that incompetent?

EDIT: This is getting predictable. Where have I seen it before!

KillerYoda · 04-27-2003, 10:04 PM

Must...resist...urge...to...post...picture...of...

fuck it, here's Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands once again!
<img src="http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg">

Dragonlich · 04-27-2003, 11:28 PM

I had hoped you had resisted that urge... it's so useless and pointless. After all, it's not like Rumsfeld meeting Saddam in the 80s has *anything* to do with Saddam meeting Al-Qaida guys in the 90s.

But I suspect you just don't care about logical debates...

smooth · 04-27-2003, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
... it's so useless and pointless.

Yeah, KillerYoda, please stop trying to infuse a historical context into our debates

.

Phaenx · 04-27-2003, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
Yeah, KillerYoda, please stop trying to infuse a historical context into our debates .

The context of Saddam not being such a problem at that time. This was taken while we were persuing diplomatic relations with Iraq, before Kuwait, illegal weapons and years and years of belligerence. It's about the same as equating someone with a Nazi if one were caught shaking hands with Schroeder. That was, obviously, a different situation 20 years ago.

smooth · 04-27-2003, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
The context of Saddam not being such a problem at that time. This was taken while we were persuing diplomatic relations with Iraq, before Kuwait, illegal weapons and years and years of belligerence. It's about the same as equating someone with a Nazi if one were caught shaking hands with Schroeder. That was, obviously, a different situation 20 years ago.

How is that different from the context of Al-Queda not being such a problem at the time? Do you remember where they learned the effective cell structure and military strategies from initially? "That was, obviously, a different situation 10 years ago."

Notice, historical hindsight begins and ends where one chooses--not according to objective socio-historical occurences.

KillerYoda · 04-28-2003, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
I had hoped you had resisted that urge... it's so useless and pointless. After all, it's not like Rumsfeld meeting Saddam in the 80s has *anything* to do with Saddam meeting Al-Qaida guys in the 90s.

But I suspect you just don't care about logical debates...

From 1985 to 1987 Saddam's bioweapons program got some assistance from US companies and the US government. The Centers For Disease Control and the Manassas, Virginia based company, American Type Culture Collection sent strains of anthrax, gas gangrene, and the bacteria that produces botulinum toxin to Saddam Hussein's bioweapons sites.
Also, the United States supplied satellite intelligence and military advice to Saddam Hussein during the 10-year war that followed his 1980 invasion of Iran.

Might not be Al-Qaeda, but has something to do with all the shit that's going on in the desert. Oddly enough, he seems to be shaking hands in the 80's too.

As far as Al-Qaeda, in 1979, the CIA launched a covert operation that supported the war of certain Muslim states against the Russians, most notably Afghanistan, which the Russians had invaded. Both Saudi Arabia and the United States supported the defense of Afghanistan, giving money, and more importantly arms. Oddly enough, the Taliban and our good friend Osama received this diplomatic gesture.

If you want me to, I'll stop reading history and put a flag sticker on my car like everyone else.

Dragonlich · 04-28-2003, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
How is that different from the context of Al-Queda not being such a problem at the time? Do you remember where they learned the effective cell structure and military strategies from initially? "That was, obviously, a different situation 10 years ago."

Hmm, and you assume the CIA must have foreseen that Al-Qaida would one day threaten the USA, and fly planes into the WTC?

More importantly, should the CIA *not* have trained Osama and his merry men? You know, so that Russia might still have been in Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union might not have suffered a humiliating defeat that pretty much ensured it's own downfall?

Sometimes one has to support some not-so-nice people to get rid of an even greater problem at that time. Just like the whole US-supporting-Iraq thing. Of course, everyone seems to forget that it wasn't just the US supporting Iraq, but that pretty much *everyone* supported Iraq in it's war against the huge threat in Iran... How about France's Chirac giving Saddam a guided tour of a nuke plant, German companies building chemical weapons factories, and Russian and French companies selling huge amounts of weapons to Iraq?

If you look at the "historical context", one has to look at *everything*, not just the things that support your side in a debate...

KillerYoda · 04-28-2003, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
More importantly, should the CIA *not* have trained Osama and his merry men? You know, so that Russia might still have been in Afghanistan, and the Soviet Union might not have suffered a humiliating defeat that pretty much ensured it's own downfall?

Never was a big fan of the whole "end justifies the means" theory. It was a Soviet ideal, if I remember correctly.

Daval · 04-28-2003, 05:23 AM

grin, that picture of rumsfeld and hussein always makes me chuckle

smooth · 04-28-2003, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dragonlich
If you look at the "historical context", one has to look at *everything*, not just the things that support your side in a debate...

I was going to respond to you point by point but I'll just sit back and enjoy the irony of this statement.

maximusveritas · 04-28-2003, 09:27 AM

This is old news. We knew about this stuff 4 years ago.
Here's a quote from this FoxNews article:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85274,00.html

Quote:

However, a Western intelligence source said: "There have been contacts between bin Laden's people and Iraq's people in the past, but fleeting contacts and we have never seen that as a strong institutional link. Even if there was a visit it does not amount to an ongoing institutional relationship."

boatin · 04-28-2003, 01:07 PM

It’s not quite this simple, but this is how this thread reads so far:

Person A posts a link saying: “Here is ‘proof’ of a link between Al Qa-eda and Hussein. Game, set, match.”

Person B posts a picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein, suggesting that links don’t mean much. S/he might even have been implying that 'links' don’t equal ‘proof’. Person A says: “That isn't relevant, because the geo-political situation was different back then.”

Then Person B says: “But when your ‘proof’ occurred, it was a different geo-political situation also, just like the picture of Rumsfeld/Hussein.

Person A says: "That's different. And quit arguing things that support only your side".

Ye gods…

boatin · 04-28-2003, 01:08 PM

In other news:

"two leaders might have talked. Let's go to war!"

I'm sure the US is much safer now from terrorists.

KillerYoda · 04-28-2003, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by boatin
It’s not quite this simple, but this is how this thread reads so far:

Person A posts a link saying: “Here is ‘proof’ of a link between Al Qa-eda and Hussein. Game, set, match.”

Person B posts a picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein, suggesting that links don’t mean much. S/he might even have been implying that 'links' don’t equal ‘proof’. Person A says: “That isn't relevant, because the geo-political situation was different back then.”

Then Person B says: “But when your ‘proof’ occurred, it was a different geo-political situation also, just like the picture of Rumsfeld/Hussein.

Person A says: "That's different. And quit arguing things that support only your side".

Ye gods…

Badass, I'm Person B!

Lebell · 04-28-2003, 03:12 PM

Give it up, Dragonlich.

They demand proof and when you provide it, they brush it off or bring up unrelated topics to counter.

There is no bunkerbuster that will ever get through to them.

boatin · 04-28-2003, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Give it up, Dragonlich.

They demand proof and when you provide it, they brush it off or bring up unrelated topics to counter.

There is no bunkerbuster that will ever get through to them.

s'funny. That's how I feel. How can both be true? They so obviously are...

Do you recognize that we are the same that way? At least there is something.

Lebell · 04-28-2003, 04:27 PM

To quote the Bare Naked Ladies,

"Well I guess that's one thing we got."

smooth · 04-28-2003, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
Give it up, Dragonlich.

Consensus growing

.

Lebell · 04-28-2003, 06:32 PM

For his sanity, not yours smooth.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking I'm on your side in this.

SaltPork · 04-28-2003, 06:47 PM

What's really funny is that at one time (early 80's) everything the US was doing was "alright" by many people's standards-of course we probably knew a lot less then too.

Now, however, we know quite a bit more. As informed people with all sorts of information at our fingertips, we find some of the acts of the US government distasteful. You know what? Feel free to disagree, it's your right. Feel free to bitch and moan, that's also your right. One thing you have to ask yourself is, are you glad you know more now then you did then?

Dragonlich · 04-28-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
I was going to respond to you point by point but I'll just sit back and enjoy the irony of this statement.

Because I'm not a quitter... How is my statement ironic? I acknowledge that Rumsfeld met Saddam. I acknowledge the US did some pretty bad stuff. Hell, I'll even acknowledge that Pakistan got it's nukes partly because of Dutch nuclear scientists (Woo!!!).

It seems to me that I look at the whole picture, while some other people here deem it necessary to only point at one side (the US) and their faults.

What some people seem to forget, is that without some of those US "faults", the world would be very different than it is today. We cannot know *how* different, but I'm willing to bet that most of you wouldn't like that world.

Just as an example: if the US (along with the rest of the world) had not supported Iraq, it would have lost the Iran-Iraq war. Iran would then have conquered ("liberated") most of the other countries there, which would have led to one big fundy Muslim state in the middle-east... that would have meant either a *huge* oil crisis and accompanying blackmail, or a very bloody west-versus-east war to secure the oil. If Iran was then allowed to do as it pleased, this would also have led to the destruction ("liberation") of Israel, and the murder of many of it's inhabitants.

Now, you can agree with this scenario or not, but that's the kind of scenario world leaders have to deal with on a daily basis. How would you have reacted to such things?

Bob Biter · 04-29-2003, 06:39 AM

Dragonlich, attempts at precognition are not a good way to support an argument. You could say "what if" for just about any situation and extrapolate like it's going out of style, but this isn't concrete evidence and so it doesn't support your point.

Any action has short-term and long-term impacts. The latter are obviously more difficult (if not impossible) to determine. By providing weapons and training to help push back Russia all those years ago, the US knew what the short-term impacts would be. Did they know about 9-11 or the current war? Of course not, since these things could not be predicted. They also could not have happened, but they did. Cause and effect can be extremely tricky, but while certain key events may certainly produce others, I think it's foolish to claim to know the future with any kind of certainty.

Dragonlich · 04-29-2003, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Biter
Dragonlich, attempts at precognition are not a good way to support an argument. You could say "what if" for just about any situation and extrapolate like it's going out of style, but this isn't concrete evidence and so it doesn't support your point.

Any action has short-term and long-term impacts. The latter are obviously more difficult (if not impossible) to determine. By providing weapons and training to help push back Russia all those years ago, the US knew what the short-term impacts would be. Did they know about 9-11 or the current war? Of course not, since these things could not be predicted. They also could not have happened, but they did. Cause and effect can be extremely tricky, but while certain key events may certainly produce others, I think it's foolish to claim to know the future with any kind of certainty.

Ah, thanks for (accidentally?) supporting my cause...

You're saying that it's impossible to predict the future effects of your actions today, are you? Then why are *some people* here saying that the US shouldn't have done this, and shouldn't have done that, etc? At the time, they seemed good ideas, after all...

The reality of high-level crisis meetings is as I described it: something happens (Iraq attacks Iran, Iran strikes back, seems to be winning). Military and political figures then produce a series of potential scenarios of what might happen. They suggest a series of potential solutions to prevent the bad scenarios from coming true. The president and his staff then decide what to do, based on these scenarios and solutions. As they cannot foresee the future, there are always potential side-effects they hadn't thought of. However, they cannot do *nothing*, because the results could (would?) be nasty.

With hindsight, one might say that certain actions were wrong, and that the positive effects do not outweigh the negative, but at the moment that you make those decisions, you try to do what you think is right. Politicians make mistakes; after all, even with all their information, they're just as blind as the rest of us, stumbling along from one crisis to the next. Blaming them for the consequences of their decisions isn't really fair if those consequences couldn't have been foreseen.

Or does anyone think the CIA could have known that Osama and his fellow Afghani mujahideen would end up fighting a holy war against the USA, for example? If you do, I think you're giving these guys too much credit; after all, they weren't even able to prevent 9-11; how then would they be able to look 20 years into the future?

Bob Biter · 04-29-2003, 08:52 AM

Dragonlich,

I wasn't attempting to be on your side or against you. I was just saying that using hypothetical scenarios (your own, not the military's) as examples was a poor way to build an argument, since these are based on assumption, not concrete evidence.

Dragonlich · 04-29-2003, 09:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bob Biter
Dragonlich,

I wasn't attempting to be on your side or against you. I was just saying that using hypothetical scenarios (your own, not the military's) as examples was a poor way to build an argument, since these are based on assumption, not concrete evidence.

I know that... but it does a great job of illustrating my statements.

And my scenarios weren't just made up on the spot. They were a summary of the scenarios that were widely used back in the days of the Iran-Iraq war, used as justification for supporting Iraq.

Mr. Mojo · 04-29-2003, 09:39 AM

For KillerYoda and his supporters –

New York Times 1986: "Chirac has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein."

<img src="http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Apr/20034295032925940918315.jpg">

<img src="http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Apr/20034293973815364805104.jpg">

StratFor.com -
"In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, “Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.” France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein’s visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq’s nuclear capability today.

Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.

During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac’s attempt to return to the premiership, the French official “has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.” In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was “truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974.” Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don’t linger the way Chirac did."

The reason i posted this, is to show that all world leaders deal with scum.

Nowlookit · 04-29-2003, 09:56 AM

So- Now we have more documents siting proof of a tie between Osama and Co. and Saddam Hussein.

1. The first sterling silver, bullet- proof link between our two antagonists was found just before Colin Powell spoke to the Security Council the second time, grasping for any sort of support.
This smoking gun was discovered by British Intelligence, and dekunked entirely within 24 hours. In fact, it was shown to have been plagiarised, (typos and grammatical errors included) from 3 different sources, one being a ten year old grad-thesis.

2. Ok fast forward to 3 weeks ago. Ari Fleischer tells the planet that they found proof that Iraq was working on Nuclear wmd. Saddam imported 70 tons uranium from Nigeria. Within 20 hours of release, the documents were shown to be the weakest of sophistic forgeries.

So, based on the administrations justifications for this war so far, and their "proof", logic would dictate an healthy dose of skepticism, perhaps?

Dragonlich · 04-29-2003, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nowlookit
So, based on the administrations justifications for this war so far, and their "proof", logic would dictate an healthy dose of skepticism, perhaps?

yes, but at what point does healthy skepticism turn into blind dismissal of any evidence that supports the US claims?

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Mojo
For KillerYoda and his supporters

For Mr. Mojo, who apparently missed this thread: http://tfproject.org/tfp/showthread....&threadid=3070

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
There you go:
<img src="http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/weasels/chirac_saddam_1976.jpg">
Never said I loved the French.

And also:

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Mojo

The reason i posted this, is to show that all world leaders deal with scum.

But it's completely fine when we do it. I still don't understand the whole logic behind the "well, the French are doing it" completely negating the fact we did it theory. Just accept the fact that we supported terrorists and Saddam, and by showing the French did it too doesn't make us any better. All you're really doing is saying we're the same as the French. And I hate the French, so don't do that.

Mr. Mojo · 04-29-2003, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
For Mr. Mojo, who apparently missed this thread: [url]
But it's completely fine when we do it. I still don't understand the whole logic behind the "well, the French are doing it" completely negating the fact we did it theory. Just accept the fact that we supported terrorists and Saddam, and by showing the French did it too doesn't make us any better. All you're really doing is saying we're the same as the French. And I hate the French, so don't do that.

I never saw that other thread – I stand corrected. Please allow me to partake in your French bashing <a target=new href="http://www.strangecosmos.com/jokes/pictures_category_view.adp?picture_category_id=60"> with this link </a>.

I hate that photo of Rummy as the fact that people, not saying you, like to blame the US for all the problems in the world. Every nation has some responsibility for Saddam being in power. And I never said its "ok when the US does it" – That’s just world politics of 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'. Most time this policy blows up in your face down the road. But the world thinks short term.
If we're responsible for supporting Saddam, isn’t it our responsibility to take him out? Righting a old wrong.

KillerYoda · 04-29-2003, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Mojo
If we're responsible for supporting Saddam, isn’t it our responsibility to take him out? Righting a old wrong.

I agreed with that back in the first Desert Storm, but not now since he's not attacking anyone.

And thanks for the link.

04-26-2003, 11:35 PM	#2 (permalink)
oane Insane	Urm, there are plenty of "proof" about US supporting terrorist organizations also. Different countries have their own national interest in minds when they engage in such behaviour. There is no such thing as a good terrorism(led by CIA) or bad terrorism(Arab, Muslim etc.) I also like that this evidence was found by a newspaper. Am I to believe that the CIA is that incompetent? EDIT: This is getting predictable. Where have I seen it before! __________________ Make me Mad. Make me Sad. Make me feel Alright. Last edited by oane; 04-26-2003 at 11:38 PM..

04-27-2003, 10:04 PM	#3 (permalink)
KillerYoda The Original Emo Gangsta Location: Sixth Floor, Texas School Book Depository	Must...resist...urge...to...post...picture...of... fuck it, here's Rumsfeld and Hussein shaking hands once again! <img src="http://www.msnbc.com/news/1639839.jpg"> __________________ "So you're Chekov, huh? Well, this here's McCoy. Find a Spock, we got us an away team."

04-28-2003, 05:23 AM	#11 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	grin, that picture of rumsfeld and hussein always makes me chuckle __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

04-28-2003, 03:12 PM	#17 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Give it up, Dragonlich. They demand proof and when you provide it, they brush it off or bring up unrelated topics to counter. There is no bunkerbuster that will ever get through to them. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-28-2003, 04:27 PM	#19 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	To quote the Bare Naked Ladies, "Well I guess that's one thing we got." __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-27-2003, 11:28 PM	#4 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	I had hoped you had resisted that urge... it's so useless and pointless. After all, it's not like Rumsfeld meeting Saddam in the 80s has anything to do with Saddam meeting Al-Qaida guys in the 90s. But I suspect you just don't care about logical debates...

04-28-2003, 01:07 PM	#14 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	It’s not quite this simple, but this is how this thread reads so far: Person A posts a link saying: “Here is ‘proof’ of a link between Al Qa-eda and Hussein. Game, set, match.” Person B posts a picture of Rumsfeld and Hussein, suggesting that links don’t mean much. S/he might even have been implying that 'links' don’t equal ‘proof’. Person A says: “That isn't relevant, because the geo-political situation was different back then.” Then Person B says: “But when your ‘proof’ occurred, it was a different geo-political situation also, just like the picture of Rumsfeld/Hussein. Person A says: "That's different. And quit arguing things that support only your side". Ye gods…

04-28-2003, 01:08 PM	#15 (permalink)
boatin Psycho	In other news: "two leaders might have talked. Let's go to war!" I'm sure the US is much safer now from terrorists.

04-28-2003, 06:32 PM	#21 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	For his sanity, not yours smooth. Don't ever make the mistake of thinking I'm on your side in this. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

04-28-2003, 06:47 PM	#22 (permalink)
SaltPork Everything's better with bacon Location: In your local grocer's freezer.	What's really funny is that at one time (early 80's) everything the US was doing was "alright" by many people's standards-of course we probably knew a lot less then too. Now, however, we know quite a bit more. As informed people with all sorts of information at our fingertips, we find some of the acts of the US government distasteful. You know what? Feel free to disagree, it's your right. Feel free to bitch and moan, that's also your right. One thing you have to ask yourself is, are you glad you know more now then you did then? __________________ It was like that when I got here....I swear.

04-29-2003, 06:39 AM	#24 (permalink)
Bob Biter Non-smokers die everyday Location: Montreal	Dragonlich, attempts at precognition are not a good way to support an argument. You could say "what if" for just about any situation and extrapolate like it's going out of style, but this isn't concrete evidence and so it doesn't support your point. Any action has short-term and long-term impacts. The latter are obviously more difficult (if not impossible) to determine. By providing weapons and training to help push back Russia all those years ago, the US knew what the short-term impacts would be. Did they know about 9-11 or the current war? Of course not, since these things could not be predicted. They also could not have happened, but they did. Cause and effect can be extremely tricky, but while certain key events may certainly produce others, I think it's foolish to claim to know the future with any kind of certainty. __________________ A plan is just a list of things that don't happen.

04-29-2003, 08:52 AM	#26 (permalink)
Bob Biter Non-smokers die everyday Location: Montreal	Dragonlich, I wasn't attempting to be on your side or against you. I was just saying that using hypothetical scenarios (your own, not the military's) as examples was a poor way to build an argument, since these are based on assumption, not concrete evidence. __________________ A plan is just a list of things that don't happen.

04-29-2003, 09:39 AM	#28 (permalink)
Mr. Mojo Addict Location: NYC	For KillerYoda and his supporters – New York Times 1986: "Chirac has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein." <img src="http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Apr/20034295032925940918315.jpg"> <img src="http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Apr/20034293973815364805104.jpg"> StratFor.com - "In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, “Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.” France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein’s visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq’s nuclear capability today. Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil. During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac’s attempt to return to the premiership, the French official “has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.” In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was “truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974.” Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don’t linger the way Chirac did." The reason i posted this, is to show that all world leaders deal with scum. __________________ When I jerk off I feel good for about twenty seconds and then WHAM it's right back into suicidal depression Last edited by Mr. Mojo; 04-29-2003 at 09:41 AM..

04-29-2003, 09:56 AM	#29 (permalink)
Nowlookit Upright	So- Now we have more documents siting proof of a tie between Osama and Co. and Saddam Hussein. 1. The first sterling silver, bullet- proof link between our two antagonists was found just before Colin Powell spoke to the Security Council the second time, grasping for any sort of support. This smoking gun was discovered by British Intelligence, and dekunked entirely within 24 hours. In fact, it was shown to have been plagiarised, (typos and grammatical errors included) from 3 different sources, one being a ten year old grad-thesis. 2. Ok fast forward to 3 weeks ago. Ari Fleischer tells the planet that they found proof that Iraq was working on Nuclear wmd. Saddam imported 70 tons uranium from Nigeria. Within 20 hours of release, the documents were shown to be the weakest of sophistic forgeries. So, based on the administrations justifications for this war so far, and their "proof", logic would dictate an healthy dose of skepticism, perhaps?