Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zar · 04-28-2003, 11:21 AM

The Guardian: Al-Qaida links still dubious

Times Online: Saddam link to al-Qaeda in doubt

TealVeal · 04-28-2003, 11:28 AM

Double post.

TealVeal · 04-28-2003, 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
Nice try but the documents in question were found by journalists NOT by any "administration".
Unless you want to claim that EVERY document indicative of complicity between Iraq and al Qaeda is ipso facto a "forgery". In which case, get me out of here: the paranoia is so thick even Mulder can't buy it........

Cheers!

Found after the building had been combed through by intelligence officers who missed it. Gotta love the thoroughness of our men. I thought they had plenty of proof prior to the war to damn Saddam? Now they have to rely on journalists to do a triple check (I am assuming they checked more than once, should I give them that much credit?) for evidence? Every other justification has been shown to be wrong, it's stupid to jump yet again at the merest hint that something could conect the two. I prefer not to be a mindless sheep, thank you very much.

vixenell · 04-28-2003, 01:33 PM

Bin Laden hated Saddam! They clashed majorly on religious issues. Bin Laden even encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam.

These documents are a little too sketchy. White-out? Come on, give them a little more credit. And how on earth would US Intelligence miss something like that, but some sleazy journalist just happens across it?

If it was even close to true, wouldn't it be all over CNN by now?

Farren · 04-28-2003, 02:01 PM

No, I think it might be true or someone would have called them on it, but you should read Zar and S2Focus's posted links above.

The alleged contact took place over 5 years ago, when Bin Laden wasn't public enemy number one, and was considered a fleeting contact by british intelligence, who refuse to endorse the idea of a long term relationship and say the document doesn't move things along in any way.

Remember 8-10 years ago the CIA was dealing with this man. "When" is a very important issue.

Loren Pechtel · 04-28-2003, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TealVeal
Found after the building had been combed through by intelligence officers who missed it. Gotta love the thoroughness of our men. I thought they had plenty of proof prior to the war to damn Saddam? Now they have to rely on journalists to do a triple check (I am assuming they checked more than once, should I give them that much credit?) for evidence? Every other justification has been shown to be wrong, it's stupid to jump yet again at the merest hint that something could conect the two. I prefer not to be a mindless sheep, thank you very much.

Note the degree of mess, though. I doubt they could possibly have read everything there.

leonarde · 04-28-2003, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Every other justification has been shown to be wrong, it's stupid to jump yet again at the merest hint that something could conect the two.

MEREST HINT????? A document (or more than one?) is found NOT BY THE US/UK military but by 3rd parties (ie journalists) who are professionally committed (at least in theory) to objectivity. The document is found at IRAQI MILITARY HQ. It carries signatures of the pertinent Iraqi leaders and indicates DIRECT DEALINGS with al Qaeda. If this is only the "merest hint" for you, you'd better pack it in; you aren't going to get a "gun" any "smokinger" than that.....

Cheers!

matthias j. · 04-28-2003, 04:03 PM

The finding is as to yet not confirmed by a third party, MI6 even denies it as posted higher. You can also hardly call somebody working for the Telegraph a comitted, professional journalist.

Farren · 04-28-2003, 04:07 PM

Leornarde, please read this

Al-Qaida links still dubious

Quote:

"We are aware of fleeting contacts [between Baghdad and al-Qaida] in the past, but there were were no long-term official contacts," a well-placed source told the Guardian yesterday. "The documents do not take things further forward"

British security and intelligence agencies have persistently dismissed attempts by hawks in the White House to link Saddam's regime with al-Qaida, a link which would help London and Washington to argue that Iraq had posed an imminent threat.

Don't you get it? The alleged SINGLE MEETING was FIVE YEARS ago. Bin Laden wasn't even on America's most wanted list and most in the intelligence community feel this is as relevant as discussing Bin Laden's long association with the CIA during the Soviet Era.

Once again, neocon apologetics clutching at straws without more than a surface appraisal of the facts.

TealVeal · 04-28-2003, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by leonarde
*snip*

THe US had direct dealing with terrorist organisations as well. Oh noes wes bes the bad guys.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-28-2003, 11:21 AM	#21
Zar Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Chicago, IL USA Posts: 3,477	The Guardian: Al-Qaida links still dubious Times Online: Saddam link to al-Qaeda in doubt

04-28-2003, 11:28 AM	#22
TealVeal Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: WM Posts: 208	Double post.

04-28-2003, 01:33 PM	#24
vixenell Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Sweet Briar, VA Posts: 157	Bin Laden hated Saddam! They clashed majorly on religious issues. Bin Laden even encouraged the Iraqi people to rise up against Saddam. These documents are a little too sketchy. White-out? Come on, give them a little more credit. And how on earth would US Intelligence miss something like that, but some sleazy journalist just happens across it? If it was even close to true, wouldn't it be all over CNN by now?

04-28-2003, 02:01 PM	#25
Farren Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: South Africa Posts: 2,194	No, I think it might be true or someone would have called them on it, but you should read Zar and S2Focus's posted links above. The alleged contact took place over 5 years ago, when Bin Laden wasn't public enemy number one, and was considered a fleeting contact by british intelligence, who refuse to endorse the idea of a long term relationship and say the document doesn't move things along in any way. Remember 8-10 years ago the CIA was dealing with this man. "When" is a very important issue.

04-28-2003, 04:03 PM	#28
matthias j. Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Belgium/Ghent Posts: 191	The finding is as to yet not confirmed by a third party, MI6 even denies it as posted higher. You can also hardly call somebody working for the Telegraph a comitted, professional journalist.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.