9/11 Commission finds no Credible link between Al Qaeda and Saddam

POSTED BY: Zoriah
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 7, 2004 14:06
VIEWED: 22022
PAGE 3 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

GHOULMAN

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Succatash:

You can prove that something happened, but how do you prove that something didn't happen?

That's how "conspiracy of silence" works.

"When they came for the gypsies, I did not speak, for I am not
a gypsy. When they came for the Jews, I did not speak, because I
wasn't a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I did not speak, for I
am not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was no one left to
speak."

GHOULMAN

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
I think you forgot to mention the evil zionist plot to take over the nation through the usage of the media and the AIDs virus, which is tied into the alien conspiracy to control the northern hemisphere by using mind control on the leaders of the known world!

I got my tin foil hat Ghoulman, (its the only way to block the signals) do you have yours?

By the way, comparing the current situation in Iraq to Vietnam is exceptionally uninformed, in my opinion anyways. The only similarities I can see would be the use of guerilla warfare, and perhaps some vague notion that the "freedom" fighters over there could be compared to the Vietcong by their ability to blend in with the populice. Other then that the two aren't even remotely similar.

I don't care, I'm still free.

You are not free. You don't live in a democracy.

The Pentagon Papers were proof of the White House complicity (over decades) in war. Notice that Dick Cheney comes from the same governement (Dick Nixen) that escalated the Vietnam war.

Same shit, different pile.

Search for "the Pentagon Papers"... there are loads of sites, many official or right from Universities.

Americans need to understand that a right wing crowd has gained complete control and will do whatever is in thier interests... NOT THE PEOPLES.

And the White House has murdered over 10,000 Iraqi citizens over it with no regard for law (Gods or even their own)... or history. I guess they figured America is watching TV.

JCOBB

Thursday, June 17, 2004 8:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ghoulman:

You are not free. You don't live in a democracy.

The Pentagon Papers were proof of the White House complicity (over decades) in war. Notice that Dick Cheney comes from the same governement (Dick Nixen) that escalated the Vietnam war.

Same shit, different pile.

Search for "the Pentagon Papers"... there are loads of sites, many official or right from Universities.

Americans need to understand that a right wing crowd has gained complete control and will do whatever is in thier interests... NOT THE PEOPLES.

And the White House has murdered over 10,000 Iraqi citizens over it with no regard for law (Gods or even their own)... or history. I guess they figured America is watching TV.

Erm, I do hate to rain on your parade but it was Nixon that DEescalated in Vietnam. It was Johnson and Kennedy that esclated. You are either terribly ignorant, or terribly misinformed.

And, quite frankly, I am glad I don't live in a democracy. I live in a Constitutional Republic and couldn't be more pleased about it. I don't think the average Joe is capable, (nor willing) to have direct control in the government, (though I do subscribe to the policy that the government that governs best, governs least) though that does NOT mean that our own "form" of democracy is for the complacent, (it is not). Democracy, or even our constitutional republic, is an active process, for all citizens, (or at least those that wish to be involved). This involves discussions, protesting, (if you think its nessecary) gathering with those of similar thoughts or ideals, running for office, or helping campaign for others that run for office.

Furthermore, while 10,000 Iraqi's maybe dead, (perhaps you aren't aware, but people DIE in war, its why war is so terrible) estimates of the number Saddam has killed, or led to be killed, can go as high as a million. Does that justify the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi citizens, (how many of those were combatants?) I don't think so. I find it very hard to justify death in general. Does that mean that it would've been better to appease Iraq? Perhaps had your country benefitted from Saddam.

Anyways, I hope your tin foil hat is secured around your head. Its when you sleep that they get you!

EDIT

Also, could you please explain how you equate whether or not the governmental system I current live under directly impacts my level of freedom? I can live under a benevolent dictator and have as much freedom, if not more, then any democracy could provide for me. I want to think you don't believe that democracy automatically equals freedom, but I can't help but think that is what you mean.

I don't care, I'm still free.

ZORIAH

Friday, June 18, 2004 12:51 AM

Mindseye:

Ummm, Actually - I was going from the PDF files of the preliminary commission report downloadable from the BBC News page. It is from the Staff Statement 15 - Named Overview of the Enemy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

Page 5 of the 12 page report (which is also available here (thanks for the link): http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_15.pd
f)

Has actual statements in there such as "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," and "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

Maybe YOU might want to read that document and then come back to me on this, I was NOT just going by some reporter's 'opinion' and it is clear the journalists weren't just talking out of their collective asses either.

RUE

Friday, June 18, 2004 2:26 AM

As usual I read through all major documents.

Colin Powell's UN speech.
UN resolution 1441.
Bush's State of the Union Addresses.
David Kay's report.
White House and State Department official releases (available on repective websites.)
And the most recent 9/11 Commission reports.

To show you what kind of nut-case I am for facts, I read through all availble testimony at the Justice Department website on the Microsoft trial.

I've decided facts irritate a lot of people who like their opinions unadulterated.

So here are my opinions, sans pesky facts:

The spin in US media plain sucks. The UK Independent is the best English-language website I've come across, even better than the BBC. But, as easy as it is to get real news, most people in the US would rather not. It interferes with a smug self-serving mind-set.

The US actually sold Hussein the chemicals, know-how, and equipment to gas the Kurds and Iranians. (The US wasn't alone it this - other countries were also willing to make a buck selling weapons.) The US also provided post-gassing 'ground truth' so Iraq could adjust its techniques. Rumsfeld met with Hussein to reassure him that the UN resolution re: the use of CW agents wouldn't go anywhere, and wouldn't affect the good working relationship the US had with Iraq. Yup, Hussein sure was evil.

JCOBB

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:23 AM

That much is definately true. We did sell chemicals to Iraq, but that was more to help determine the course of the Iran/Iraq war, not to gas Kurds. (That was due to Saddam and Chemical Ali, not so much US involvement.)

I don't support the usage of chemical weapons, nor, in an ideal world war in general, but at the time Saddam was the lesser of two evils. (Again, not trying to defend the actions of Saddam or the US.) The facts are Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlavi was making rather substantial, (relatively speaking) social reforms, in much the right direction. Granted, he wasn't a saint himself, but a much "better" leader, at least im my opinion, then the fundamentalists that took his place. I don't know if Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini sending thousands of young men to clear an Iraqi minefield is exactly the sign of a man who has the interest of his people in mind. Destablization in the region was inevitable under Khomeini. Under Saddam it was at least somewhat stable, and considering the still fresh memory of Vietnam I doubt America, or much of the rest of the "free" world was willing to risk troops to help the peoples of both countries, (nor nessecarily did many in the countries want to be helped).

Again, I don't support the usage of chemical weapons in the Iran/Iraq conflict, but thats not to say I don't see WHY they were used. (However, the gassing of Kurds and other dissidents, done without US knowledge or consent AFAIK was an outrage.)

I don't care, I'm still free.

RUXTON

Friday, June 18, 2004 9:00 AM

Concerning Saddam's supposed gassing, it's not as clear-cut as the Bush administration would have us believe.

This link:
"britons4peace.org.uk/articles/raju2.html" (put "www" in front of it)
gives more details on the gassing, which was not as simple as we have been led to believe.

Extracts:
"...all we know for certain is that Kurds were bombarded with poison gas that day at Halabja. We cannot say with any certainty that Iraqi chemical weapons killed the Kurds...

"I am in a position to know because, as the Central Intelligence Agency's senior political analyst on Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.... In addition, I headed a 1991 Army investigation into how the Iraqis would fight a war against the United States; the classified version of the report went into great detail on the Halabja affair.

"...the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was IRANIAN gas that killed the Kurds, NOT Iraqi gas." [Emphasis added.]

The above is from "New York Times," January 31, 2003, in a piece entitled: "A War Crime or an Act of War?" By Stephen C. Pelletiere.

.......Ruxton

JCOBB

Friday, June 18, 2004 12:42 PM

http://hnn.us/articles/1242.html

I think I might have to go with the professional historian on this one.

Though in the same breath...

http://hnn.us/articles/862.html

I don't care, I'm still free.

GHOULMAN

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCobb:
Erm, I do hate to rain on your parade but it was Nixon that DEescalated in Vietnam. It was Johnson and Kennedy that esclated. You are either terribly ignorant, or terribly misinformed.

Yea... Nixon was innocent. Say, wasn't it the Nixon Administration that sent more and more troops to Vietnam and drafted more and more American kids to die in the jungle?

*sigh* I give you the REASON Nixon was forced to end the Vietnam war - and you use that to say I'm wrong and ignorant?

Yeaaaaa...

All I'm saying is that the current War isn't motivated by anything new. It's the same Empirical agenda the Nixon White House always had. Ask Kissinger. Ask Dick Cheney.

About the rest of what you say... I'm getting a tin-foil hat after all.

GHOULMAN

Friday, June 18, 2004 4:38 PM

Getting onto the topic... am I the only one weirded out that the US airspace is run by guys who call up NORAD and say things like; "uuuuh, yea, well, we need a little help from you guys." Really weird eh?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE