Don't worry about this

[Invert]

Something that will get ignored on this forum anyway... It's not news the truth always gets ignored on this forum.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/IraqCoverage/story?id=1734490&page=1

[Adron]

Well, it sounds dull. Apparently a long time ago, Saddam Hussein approved of broadcasting a speech from one of bin Laden's supporters. Such speeches have been broadcasted in many places, including extracts broadcast in American channels since then?

And the Iraqi made investigations into the possibility of al Qaeda operating from Iraqi soil in august 2002. Sounds like a clear indication that Saddam Hussein was not colluding with al Qaeda, but that they might possibly have been operating secretly inside Iraq. Were these documents available to the US before the war?

[MyndFyre]

It also demonstrates that Iraq had contingency plans for disposing of evidence of illegal weapons in the event of a UN inspection.

[Invert]

When people on these forums were screaming about how there were no connections between Iraq and al Qaeda it was exciting as soon as those people realize that they were wrong it becomes dull. Some people are so mulish that they can't even accept the reality of being wrong and come up with ridiculous replies to proof.

Please read.

"A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein."

[Adron]

Particularly read:

"Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia."

"Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio"

Oooooh, dangerous, Saddam agreed to air some lectures of a radical Saudi preacher!


Continue onward to a conclusion for the last document: "This document indicates that the Iraqis were aware of and interested in reports that members of al Qaeda were present in Iraq in 2002"

Aware of reports and interested in them! Do you think the Iraqi would have had to investigate reports of al Qaeda presence if they were actively cooperating with al Qaeda?

[dxoigmn]

I very much doubt (at least I'm reasonably sure I never said this or anyone else) anyone had unilaterally denied there was a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda. What people have been saying is there is no proof to prove this. That is a very different stance and perhaps the wisest one. Furthermore, the people who are generally determined to be "liberal" (by your definition, I for one do not call myself a liberal), are more "liberal" in being corrected. That is, until you can provide substantive proof that Saddam and Osama were colluding, then I'm going to take the "conservative" approach and not believe they were colluding until proof affirms they were. If such proof comes into existence, then I'm all open to being "corrected" (for lack of a better word).

Perhaps the most telling of these documents are the editor's notes:

The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship.

[iago]

When people on these forums were screaming about how there were no connections between Iraq and al Qaeda it was exciting as soon as those people realize that they were wrong it becomes dull. Some people are so mulish that they can't even accept the reality of being wrong and come up with ridiculous replies to proof.

Please read.

"A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that one of your higher ranking guys (Rumsfeld, maybe?) met with bin Laden back in the 80's.  If that happened, then would that not be the same situation?


And incidentally, phrasing the whole start of a thread in a sarcastic way does not help your credibilty.  I'd suggest being a lot less condescending, and you might actually find that people take your seriously.  Just some advice. 

[CrAz3D]

When people on these forums were screaming about how there were no connections between Iraq and al Qaeda it was exciting as soon as those people realize that they were wrong it becomes dull. Some people are so mulish that they can't even accept the reality of being wrong and come up with ridiculous replies to proof.

Please read.

"A newly released pre-war Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995 after approval by Saddam Hussein."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that one of your higher ranking guys (Rumsfeld, maybe?) met with bin Laden back in the 80's.  If that happened, then would that not be the same situation?


And incidentally, phrasing the whole start of a thread in a sarcastic way does not help your credibilty.  I'd suggest being a lot less condescending, and you might actually find that people take your seriously.  Just some advice. 

i think osama waas good in the 80s, or was tha the 70s?

[iago]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that one of your higher ranking guys (Rumsfeld, maybe?) met with bin Laden back in the 80's.  If that happened, then would that not be the same situation?

And incidentally, phrasing the whole start of a thread in a sarcastic way does not help your credibilty.  I'd suggest being a lot less condescending, and you might actually find that people take your seriously.  Just some advice. 

i think osama waas good in the 80s, or was tha the 70s?

I'm not sure if he was good, but he was on the same side as the Americans.  I guess that qualifies as good

[CrAz3D]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that one of your higher ranking guys (Rumsfeld, maybe?) met with bin Laden back in the 80's.  If that happened, then would that not be the same situation?

And incidentally, phrasing the whole start of a thread in a sarcastic way does not help your credibilty.  I'd suggest being a lot less condescending, and you might actually find that people take your seriously.  Just some advice. 

i think osama waas good in the 80s, or was tha the 70s?

I'm not sure if he was good, but he was on the same side as the Americans.  I guess that qualifies as good

yeah, "good" is what I should've said.  the lesser of 2 evils @ the time

[Grok]

Is my memory bad or did the United States actually train and fund OBL?  And we're saying that because Saddam Hussein approved a radio broadcast from the same person, that means we're justified in doing what?

Every major active country has official representatives that meat with unsavory characters around the world.  The USA is no exception.  I just don't get what you're trying to say should be justified to happen to countries that engage in that practice.  If collaborating with OBL is a captal offense, no one has given him more money than the USA.

Now I think that really sucks, because we thought he was our friend.  He fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and helped us win the cold war.  We knew he was extreme but we thought we could control him.  If the USA cant control him, why should we think that Saddam Hussein can do any better?  OBL is the enemy and needs to be assassinated.  For the good of the world.  He's making war through terrorism in countries all around the globe.  Bravo to the USA for leading the attack on him, but let's not get crazy about attacking everyone with any association with that terrorist and manipulator, or we'll have to start with ourselves.

[iago]

It may or may not be accurate, but I just saw a routine by Bill Maher where he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, on September 11, 2001, America was attacked by a squad of Saudi Arabians working out of Germany, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. And by that I mean we were attacked by Iraq."