Iraq and al-Qaeda link found

[Cosmos Jack]

I know a lot of people on this forum were totally against the idea of Saddam Hussein and Bin-Laden having any ties against America. Some even said it was stupid, because of Saddam's stricked separation of church and state, and Bin Laden's ideas.

 

As I said before the war the enemy of my enemy is my friend and that seems to have held true in this case...

 

I'm sure alot of US bashers on here are going to say it's fake, but whatever.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/04/26/sprj.irq.britain.iraq.ap/index.html

[Reborn Outcast]

Interesting, very interesting. But I'm not gonna fully believe it until Bush or someone makes an official announcement. Otherwise, it IS the press that first put this out and we all know what they can do...

[Cosmos Jack]

Yes, but better the Press than the President. If the government said they found it would be called fake.

[C'jais]

Does it really change anything?

 

The American public is impatiently waiting for proof of WMDs, because if they're found they feel it'll redeem USA in front of the world. It'll all of a sudden show USA as the good guys because they were supposedly right, and that their cassus belli for going to war was perfectly legit.

 

But it won't. It won't change a thing. Fact is, you invaded another country before they had done anything. It's no mean feat for USA to find a jurisdictional loophole somewhere that legally allows you to invade another country, but it doesn't give them the moral high ground no matter what. You wanted to invade Iraq, it's as obvious as it's tragic. How many countries have got WMDs? How many have got terror connections in the middle east? What makes your nation so superior that it's allowed not only to have WMDS, but also to commit terrorism, when others can't? That's bullsh*t.

 

Finding WMDs might justify the weak loophole you exploited to attack, but it'll by no means justify the attack itself. And rest assured, those WMDs will be found - it doesn't matter if it'll be by planted evidence or not. As for the documents mentioned on CNN, I have zip trust left for the administration of USA after their scandalous use of forged evidence in this war.

[El Sitherino]

Originally posted by C'jais

Does it really change anything?

 

The American public is impatiently waiting for proof of WMDs, because if they're found they feel it'll redeem USA in front of the world. It'll all of a sudden show USA as the good guys because they were supposedly right, and that their cassus belli for going to war was perfectly legit.

 

But it won't. It won't change a thing. Fact is, you invaded another country before they had done anything. It's no mean feat for USA to find a jurisdictional loophole somewhere that legally allows you to invade another country, but it doesn't give them the moral high ground no matter what. You wanted to invade Iraq, it's as obvious as it's tragic. How many countries have got WMDs? How many have got terror connections in the middle east? What makes your nation so superior that it's allowed not only to have WMDS, but also to commit terrorism, when others can't? That's bullsh*t.

 

Finding WMDs might justify the weak loophole you exploited to attack, but it'll by no means justify the attack itself. And rest assured, those WMDs will be found - it doesn't matter if it'll be by planted evidence or not. As for the documents mentioned on CNN, I have zip trust left for the administration of USA after their scandalous use of forged evidence in this war.

what he said. plus they didnt find WMD's in the places they showed on their "evidence" they were grounded missle silo's on those pictures.

[Cosmos Jack]

All this from the guy that doesn't hate America...

 

I could care less about WDMs the Al-Qaeda link to Saddam was justification enough for me. That is resign enough.

 

WDMs is just icing on the cake. Majority of the people in the US agree with the whole thing. Saddam needed taking out. I have not met 1 person not 1 person in person that has said they thought it was a bad idea to go to war with Iraq.

 

"C'jais" you are so found of listing all the bad things the USA has done in the past, but you don't bother to mention any other country. Let’s try Saddam why don't you look up all the bad things he did. It really doesn’t matter why the USA took him out of power, because it was a good and just thing regardless.

 

I personally think you have a fetish for Oppressive Murderous Dictators. All the crap you wine about you never stop to think how horrible this guy was. Just that the US illegally invaded a country bla bla bla crap all the time.

 

Here is why we invaded Iraq and not some other screwed up country... The Gulf War we weren't at war with any other country but IRAQ... The terms of that war ending were never met. "Resolution 1441". We could have gone to war years ago. The UN didn't want to. When Iraq 1st kicked the Inspectors out they were in violation of "Resolution 1441." Thus that atherized force than to make Iraq comply. Iraq has been going back and forth ever since. The resign the US went to war now and not than is simply the nature of the President in office. The talking thing to people like Saddam doesn't work.

 

Saddam kicked the inspectors out back than for a resin and let them back in for a resign. What do you think that resign was? I honestly don't think they will ever fine WMDs in Iraq they have long since gone.

 

The difference in Iraq having WDMs and other countries having them is few of them are going to use them unless provoked. Saddam used them on Iranians and Kurds in his own country. The real resign is the title of this thread above. We knew he was dealing with Al-Queada we know he had WDMs that doesn't make a great combination. Al-Queada is after the USA and Saddam hated the USA. Do you really have to think about the possibilities? There are lots of countries in the world that hate the USA few would dare to attack or even contribute to an attack, but a terrorist would. Saddam knew this because he himself couldn’t do it.

 

The simple and plain truth whether you want to admit it or not. Is that the world is never going to be a good and peaceful place. Not for a long time to come. All the hoping, praying, and being pacifistic isn't going to change a thing. There are still going to be people like Hitler, Stalin, and Saddam. Hell most of the leaders in the Middle East and around the world need to be removed. As long as countries with the power to change things set back and watch while real illegal acts happen against humanity. People like Saddam will keep popping up. He should have been removed 13 years ago.

 

After I read the little paragraph below. It is obvious that you have a deep jealously for what Americans feel for their country. That's your own problem not mine. Why don't you spend as much time thinking about your own country as you do about this one?

Originally posted by C'jais

I've got nothing against USA, or the ideals for which it stands. Those are beatiful. But I cannot for the life of me get why so many are so proud to be American instead of a foreigner. It's as if America has the patent right for doing good things, and can never do bad. I hate that attitude, but I still like the people.

By the way I'm Proud to be American and not a foreigner are you going to bann me for it?

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Cosmos Jack

The difference in Iraq having WDMs and other countries having them is few of them are going to use them unless provoked. Saddam used them on Iranians and Kurds in his own country.

 

In his own country? Maybe because he was at war with Iran. Both Iraq and Iran shelled Halabja in effort to control the area. It wasn't a simple case of Saddam commiting genocide because he felt like it.

 

When Iraq used WMDs, he was allowed to. USA practically persuaded him to use the weapons they sold him. Are you saying that no country is allowed to use WDMs at all? Or is it just illegal after your country has said so? Look at your country's history and notice the irony of this.

 

We knew he was dealing with Al-Queada

 

No you didn't. You suspected it.

 

Are you implying that it's alright to invade another country, if you suspect they're dealing with terrorists? In that case, USA should have been invaded a decade ago. It doesn't hold up.

 

You can always use this excuse to attack something - "Oh, we think Russia is dealing with terrorists, let's invade them and make a regime change". It's not a valid excuse.

 

The simple and plain truth whether you want to admit it or not. Is that the world is never going to be a good and peaceful place. Not for a long time to come. All the hoping, praying, and being pacifistic isn't going to change a thing.

 

On that you are right. When England and France didn't interfere with Hitler, it was proven beyond a doubt that pacifism is the road to ruin.

 

But there's a difference between being a pacifist, and trying to pick the right fights. Saddam was no Hitler. He hadn't done anything, and you attacked him, because you "knew" he had terror connections. The terror connections you used as proof of this were invented. You hadn't found proof of WMDs, and you still haven't.

 

After I read the little paragraph below. It is obvious that you have a deep jealously for what Americans feel for their country. That's your own problem not mine.

 

Yeah, it's never really your problem is it? The USA can just go f*cking the rest of the world if it so desires, because it doesn't owe anyone anything, right?

 

I'm going to say this nice: Shut up. Shut the f*ck up, Jack. Stop putting words in my mouth, stereotyping me, insulting me and deliberately trolling this forum. Improve your tone and you may find yourself still posting here 10 days from here. I have a very high tolerance for flaming compared to most other moderators, but if they were to see you behave like this on their forums, you'd be out in no time. Strangely, I keep getting reported posts from you, and several people are annoyed by you, and you alone. Everywhere you post, a sh*tstorm follows in your wake, and I've got a sneakin' suspicion as to why - you love to stir sh*t up, and have no problem admitting it.

 

Stop it.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

WDMs is just icing on the cake. Majority of the people in the US agree with the whole thing. Saddam needed taking out. I have not met 1 person not 1 person in person that has said they thought it was a bad idea to go to war with Iraq.

A good deal of people in my school think it's a bad idea. Adults too.

 

A majority started to agree with it when the USA went into its little neo-McCarthyism phase prior to the war, and when it became necessary to support the troops. Polls from about a year ago and earlier shows that the majority disagreed with the war.

 

Saddam kicked the inspectors out back than for a resin and let them back in for a resign. What do you think that resign was? I honestly don't think they will ever fine WMDs in Iraq they have long since gone.

Well, they have found WMDs in Iraq.

 

Here is why we invaded Iraq and not some other screwed up country... The Gulf War we weren't at war with any other country but IRAQ... The terms of that war ending were never met. "Resolution 1441". We could have gone to war years ago. The UN didn't want to. When Iraq 1st kicked the Inspectors out they were in violation of "Resolution 1441." Thus that atherized force than to make Iraq comply. Iraq has been going back and forth ever since. The resign the US went to war now and not than is simply the nature of the President in office. The talking thing to people like Saddam doesn't work.

Many countries do things that violate rules. I could probably find lists of stuff that Norway, USA, and Russia broke. I could even find a list of rules that "perfect" Canada broke. But that doesn't give you a reason for invading them.

 

The thing here is this: About every dictatorship *and democracy* out there break rules and do bad things. North Korea, for example, are breaking the treaty following the Korean War(?) saying that they are not to make nuclear weapons. Now, rather than invading North Korea, the United States talk with them. Why? Kim Jong Il treats his people even worse than Saddam Hussein treats his people.

 

Look at the hostage crisis in Moscow, Russia, where Vladimir Putin ended up ordering the gassing the theater and killing 100+ innocent people. The whole world, especially Americans, thought it was too drastic, right? That's how the whole world feels about the USA invading Iraq. Yes, it works. And yes, Saddam is falling -no big surprise there-. And I agree, there was a huge amount of deception from Iraq before the war. But could it not have been solved in another way?

[C'jais]

http://www.observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,944586,00.html

 

"The find coincides with the capture of former Mukhabarat head of operations Farouk Hijazi near the Syrian border on Friday. Washington has said Hijazi was Iraq's key link man with al-Qaeda, and that he travelled to meet him at Kandahar in Afghanistan.

 

Remarkable though it is, the find is unlikely to be the 'smoking gun' the US and Britain are looking for.

 

Representatives from the Mukhabarat are known to have travelled to Kandahar in the late Nineties to build links with al-Qaeda. Most analysts believe, however, that the ideological differences between the Iraqis and the terrorists were insurmountable.

 

The talks are thought to have ended disastrously for the Iraqis, as bin Laden rejected any kind of alliance, preferring to pursue his own policy of global jihad , or holy war. "

 

Paying for an al-Qaeda member's hotel room doesn't equate to funding 9/11. Not by a long shot.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=400805

 

The case for invading Iraq to remove its weapons of mass destruction was based on selective use of intelligence, exaggeration, use of sources known to be discredited and outright fabrication, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

 

A high-level UK source said last night that intelligence agencies on both sides of the Atlantic were furious that briefings they gave political leaders were distorted in the rush to war with Iraq. "They ignored intelligence assessments which said Iraq was not a threat," the source said. Quoting an editorial in a Middle East newspaper which said, "Washington has to prove its case. If it does not, the world will for ever believe that it paved the road to war with lies", he added: "You can draw your own conclusions."

 

UN inspectors who left Iraq just before the war started were searching for four categories of weapons: nuclear, chemical, biological and missiles capable of flying beyond a range of 93 miles. They found ample evidence that Iraq was not co-operating, but none to support British and American assertions that Saddam Hussein's regime posed an imminent threat to the world.

 

On nuclear weapons, the British Government claimed that the former regime sought uranium feed material from the government of Niger in west Africa. This was based on letters later described by the International Atomic Energy Agency as crude forgeries.

 

On chemical weapons, a CIA report on the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction was partially declassified. The parts released were those which made it appear that the danger was high; only after pressure from Senator Bob Graham, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was the whole report declassified, including the conclusion that the chances of Iraq using chemical weapons were "very low" for the "foreseeable future".

 

On biological weapons, the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, told the UN Security Council in February that the former regime had up to 18 mobile laboratories. He attributed the information to "defectors" from Iraq, without saying that their claims – including one of a "secret biological laboratory beneath the Saddam Hussein hospital in central Baghdad" – had repeatedly been disproved by UN weapons inspectors.

 

On missiles, Iraq accepted UN demands to destroy its al-Samoud weapons, despite disputing claims that they exceeded the permitted range. No banned Scud missiles were found before or since, but last week the Secretary of State for Defence, Geoff Hoon, suggested Scuds had been fired during the war. There is no proof any were in fact Scuds.

 

Some American officials have all but conceded that the weapons of mass destruction campaign was simply a means to an end – a "global show of American power and democracy", as ABC News in the US put it. "We were not lying," it was told by one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis." American and British teams claim they are scouring Iraq in search of definitive evidence but none has so far been found, even though the sites considered most promising have been searched, and senior figures such as Tariq Aziz, the former Deputy Prime Minister, intelligence chiefs and the man believed to be in charge of Iraq's chemical weapons programme are in custody.

 

Robin Cook, who as Foreign Secretary would have received high-level security briefings, said last week that "it was difficult to believe that Saddam had the capacity to hit us". Mr Cook resigned from the Government on the eve of war, but was still in the Cabinet as Leader of the House when it released highly contentious dossiers to bolster its case.

 

One report released last autumn by Tony Blair said that Iraq could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes, but last week Mr Hoon said that such weapons might have escaped detection because they had been dismantled and buried. A later Downing Street "intelligence" dossier was shown to have been largely plagiarised from three articles in academic publications. "You cannot just cherry-pick evidence that suits your case and ignore the rest. It is a cardinal rule of intelligence," said one aggrieved officer. "Yet that is what the PM is doing." Another said: "What we have is a few strands of highly circumstantial evidence, and to justify an attack on Iraq it is being presented as a cast-iron case. That really is not good enough."

 

Glen Rangwala, the Cambridge University analyst who first pointed out Downing Street's plagiarism, said ministers had claimed before the war to have information which could not be disclosed because agents in Iraq would be endangered. "That doesn't apply any more, but they haven't come up with the evidence," he said. "They lack credibility."

 

Mr Rangwala said much of the information on WMDs had come from Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC), which received Pentagon money for intelligence-gathering. "The INC saw the demand, and provided what was needed," he said. "The implication is that they polluted the whole US intelligence effort."

 

Facing calls for proof of their allegations, senior members of both the US and British governments are suggesting that so-called WMDs were destroyed after the departure of UN inspectors on the eve of war – a possibility raised by President George Bush for the first time on Thursday.

 

This in itself, however, appears to be an example of what the chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix called "shaky intelligence". An Iraqi scientist, writing under a pseudonym, said in a note slipped to a driver in a US convoy that he had proof information was kept from the inspectors, and that Iraqi officials had destroyed chemical weapons just before the war.

 

Other explanations for the failure to find WMDs include the possibility that they might have been smuggled to Syria, or so well hidden that they could take months, even years, to find. But last week it emerged that two of four American mobile teams in Iraq had been switched from looking for WMDs to other tasks, though three new teams from less specialised units were said to have been assigned to the quest for "unconventional weapons" – the less emotive term which is now preferred.

 

Mr Powell and Mr Bush both repeated last week that Iraq had WMDs. But one official said privately that "in the end, history and the American people will judge the US not by whether its officials found canisters of poison gas or vials of some biological agent [but] by whether this war marked the beginning of the end for the terrorists who hate America".

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Wow.

C'Jais, not to imply anything, but are you sure that paper site is credible? Just making sure.

[C'jais]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Wow.

C'Jais, not to imply anything, but are you sure that paper site is credible? Just making sure.

 

The Independant?

 

Absolutely.

[SkinWalker]

The problem with looking for the "smoking gun" should be obvious. If this were a case of a policeman arresting a crook because he "knew" he was guilty, then went around searching his home, job, shaking down his friends and family, and basically making a case after the arrest, it would clearly end with a judge ordering the suspect's release, regardless of whether or not he was a crook.

 

It's about due process. The policeman must build a case and find compelling evidence in order to get a warrant for arrest or search.

 

So too, should the U.S. have built a legitimate case first. I've argued this many times, here and elswhere. It's been weeks since the fighting stopped in Iraq. Still we have no evidence of WMD's that is compelling. Still, we have no evidence of al Qaeda links that is compelling (a few documents with Bin Laden's name whited out.... that speak of a meeting which may or may not have taken place).

 

I don't dispute that Iraq's government may have had an interest in al Qaeda for at least the reason that their missions could buy Iraq some time from being the focus of attention.

 

I don't dispute that Iraq probably had some WMD's squirreled away in the form of Nerve/Mustard gas. I would place my next years salary on a bet that there is NO NUCLEAR program.

 

What I take issue with is the precedent that my country sets by attacking a nation that is NOT A VALID OR IMMEDIATE THREAT to us.

 

I take issue with pissing off the rest of the world and basically squandering the good will that was earned after the 9/11 attacks.

 

I take issue with playing to the emotions and nationalism that Americans had following 9/11 in order to justify military action in Iraq.

 

I take issue with the true motivation, which is most likely economic control or influance of the region.

 

I also take issue with all of the so-called "patriots" that belittle Americans who speak out against our current regime. These "Americans" get into lock-step behind the right-wing republican rhetoric without question, reminescent of Hitler's early following. These "Americans" can only challenge liberal viewpoints by making accusations of "bashing the U.S." and "unamerican" and "traitor," rather than engage in reasonable conversation and explore facts as they relate to past human nature.

 

Our real enemy is the corporate-government alliance that is being forged between the Bush administration and industries of energy, defense, and pharmecautics among others. And they're all to happy to see their citizens squabble over who is "patriotic" and who is "anti-American." That way the attention is focused away from their greedy activities.

 

The questions we should be asking is "who will benefit most from the Iraqi regime change?" "Who will help the Iraqis rebuild?" "What transnational corporations are involved?"

 

The irony is: if no WMDs are found, then UN sanctions can be lifted since the sanctions will no longer be valid. Once sanctions are lifted, the Food-For-Oil program is over and oil can be sold without the profits going into trust. Wonder who will see to it that the Iraqi people have their money safeguarded?

[Cosmos Jack]

Looks like this thread has turned into a battle of opinions. Did the USA legally or illegally invaded Iraq....

Iraq should have been invaded when it kicked the inspectors out the first time no ifs ands or buts. That was the deal and the UN never met its side of it...

 

As I said before nobody here cares that the guy was a freaking loon and should have been taking out just for that.

Originally posted by C'jais

Paying for an al-Qaeda member's hotel room doesn't equate to funding 9/11. Not by a long shot.

That's your opinion..... If they bought there tickets to the US that wouldn't be funding them ether ? What is the limit to funding terrorist can you make the call are you that qualified?

[Dagobahn Eagle]

That's your opinion..... If they bought there tickets to the US that wouldn't be funding them ether?

Yes, it's funding them. Is it enough grounds to invade a country? Definetly not.

What is the limit to funding terrorist can you make the call are you that qualified

Can you make that call? Are you qualified?

[munik]

What exactly is legal, or illegal, regarding foreign relations? Is there some world law that I haven't heard of? As for this being uncalled for, or an unprovoked war, who cares? The States will do what they want to do. There is no punishment, there will be no retribution.

 

What's the use of arguing whether it is right or not? Regardless of the answer, the outcome is still the same. No one is going to do a damn thing about it, except complain. The U.S. would act differently in situations like this if there was a reason to. We can make up excuses of WMD all we want, if we never turn any up what is going to happen? Nothing.

 

There is no higher power to regulate the States. There is no counter force to the U.S. All there is going to be is talk, and protest, etc. No actions. All bark, no bite.

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by munik

What exactly is legal, or illegal, regarding foreign relations? Is there some world law that I haven't heard of? As for this being uncalled for, or an unprovoked war, who cares? The States will do what they want to do. There is no punishment, there will be no retribution.

 

What's the use of arguing whether it is right or not? Regardless of the answer, the outcome is still the same. No one is going to do a damn thing about it, except complain. The U.S. would act differently in situations like this if there was a reason to. We can make up excuses of WMD all we want, if we never turn any up what is going to happen? Nothing.

 

There is no higher power to regulate the States. There is no counter force to the U.S. All there is going to be is talk, and protest, etc. No actions. All bark, no bite.

Thanks thank you very much! ! ! The king has left the building....

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Yes, it's funding them. Is it enough grounds to invade a country? Definetly not.

If someone puts a gun to your head and says "Give me your Wallet" is that grounds to file a robery report. Definetly not huh? By your resioning they can give them bombs, guns, and nukes, but that's still not grounds to take them out. Here are the facts. Its over with, done, history. Now get over it.

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

Can you make that call? Are you qualified?

If I had made the call there would be a little creater where Iraq once was. Saddam Insane would be burning in the ashes of Bagofdirt Iraq..

[Dagobahn Eagle]

If someone puts a gun to your head and says "Give me your Wallet" is that grounds to file a robery report.

Yes. And I never said anything else. The gunman in question is the one who's actually commiting the crime, like the Talibans were the ones who flew those airliners into the WTC buildings. Bad analogy.

 

9/11 would still have happened if they didn't pay for that hotel room. If the Talibans were fanatical enough to kill 3,000 people and attempt to kill Bush in the name of their sick interpretation of the Q'uran, they would probably have nothing against sleeping on the street instead of in a hotel room in the name of Allah.

 

By your resioning they can give them bombs, guns, and nukes, but that's still not grounds to take them out. Here are the facts. Its over with, done, history. Now get over it.

I'm going to have to agree with C'Jais: You'd be a lot more popular if you didn't stereotype and put words in peoples' mouths. You know I didn't mean that.

[Cosmos Jack]

Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle

I'm going to have to agree with C'Jais: You'd be a lot more popular if you didn't stereotype and put words in peoples' mouths. You know I didn't mean that.

LOL that would mean sometihng maybe if you didn't make a art of.

[ShadowTemplar]

The problem with the Iraqi war was not that the US kicked Hussein's butt. Neither was it the civilian casualties (if the regime had been allowed to stand, then the bodycount had no doubt been higher). The problem was the fact that a precedence of preemptive strikes was set. I could probably even look past that, if it hadn't been for the fact that the UN wasn't backing it.

 

The problem wasn't, and isn't, the war, but the backstabbing and sundering of the UN and the current world order that preceeded it.