Al Qaeda materials found in Iraq!

[FactsOfLife]

So I guess the Al Qaeda links that HAVE been exposed are nothing more than misunderstandings and ficticious lie made up no doubt by our own Government...


You might want to loosen the tin foil on your heads guys...

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


I can't believe this has come up again. The ONLY person who makes any sense is the person I quoted above.

Just because you guys repeat it louder and stronger does NOT make it true. Next you are going to say that Saddam was a fundamentalist muslim.

Not only is there probably Al Queda literature in the countries mentioned above there is probably Al Queda literature HERE. In our very own country......

What really amazes me are Albinonewt and 1stdeadeye who seem to have reasonable and logical minds. Instead of putting their reason and logic towards looking at the very strong evidence that Saddam and Al Queda were not linked they grasp at any tiny straws they can and follow the thread of logic out to erroneous conclusions.....

You keep forgetting, just b/c we have some of this stuff and none of it links to the government does NOT mean that that's the same in Iraq. It's the opposite. As was JUST pointed out, we have a right to free speech and freedom of the press which makes al queada material somewhat a protected thing in the U.S. Whereas in Iraq, if it wasn't liked by Saddam, then it was NOT allowed, PERIOD. BIG difference. You can't compare what goes on in the U.S. to stuff that goes on in a strict and violent dictatorship. What would link the Baathists to Al Queda does NOT link the U.S. to Al Queda b/c of the way our government works.

OY! I've been holding this back, but you liberals have just killed my last reserve of restraint . . . IS THERE ANY OXYGEN ON YOUR PLANET?!?!

[Zygote]

IS THERE ANY OXYGEN ON YOUR PLANET?!?!

Yes, but there would be more if the corporations stopped polluting the air and cutting the rainforests down.

I highly doubt that if the US government found any Al Queda literature in this country they would let freedom of speech stop them from confiscating both the literature and the person that owned it. The point is that Hussein was not omniscient and could not have known about everything that went on inside his borders. Whether he would have agreed with it or not is a separate issue.

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Zygote makes some excellent points.

I think we have to remember that while finding Al-Qaeda materials in Iraq does not conclusively prove a link to Saddam Hussein's government, we have seen nothing to disprove such a link, either. Hussein's party and policies were secular, and thus different from Bin Laden's, but they did agree on their animosity towards the USA, and could be expected to benefit by working together. It's a reasonable suspicion, which has been so far supported by circumstantial evidence.

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Zygote


Yes, but there would be more if the corporations stopped polluting the air and cutting the rainforests down.

Then I better not catch you supporting those evil companies by buying their products or holding a job. Or driving a car.

Or buying anything that uses wood.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


I can't believe this has come up again. The ONLY person who makes any sense is the person I quoted above.

But you didn't quote me, so that makes no sense!

Just because you guys repeat it louder and stronger does NOT make it true. Next you are going to say that Saddam was a fundamentalist muslim.

He wasn't until it suited his purposes and he called for a jihad!

Not only is there probably Al Queda literature in the countries mentioned above there is probably Al Queda literature HERE. In our very own country......

Saddam funded suicide bombers. Is it really that great a leap to believe he would fund other terrorist groups that had the same animosity towards the USA.

What really amazes me are Albinonewt and 1stdeadeye who seem to have reasonable and logical minds. Instead of putting their reason and logic towards looking at the very strong evidence that Saddam and Al Queda were not linked they grasp at any tiny straws they can and follow the thread of logic out to erroneous conclusions.....

Don't call me logical! I never said A + B = C!

There is proof he has funded and supported Palestinian Terrorists. I don't see why it is not logical to believe he would sponsor other terror groups with like goals. It is just that simple! The circumstantial evidence further bolsters that viewpoint!

[Grubel]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye
There is proof he has funded and supported Palestinian Terrorists. I don't see why it is not logical to believe he would sponsor other terror groups with like goals. It is just that simple! The circumstantial evidence further bolsters that viewpoint! [/B]

Yeah but he supported the Palestinian terrorists after 9-11 and after it was decided we were invading, to try and rally support for himself from his neighbors by indirectly supporting the one thing (aside from hatred of America) that the middlle east argrees on: the hatred of Jews.
We may find proof of an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection yet, after the fact. But will it prove there was a connection prior to 9-11?

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by Grubel



Yeah but he supported the Palestinian terrorists after 9-11 and after it was decided we were invading, to try and rally support for himself from his neighbors by indirectly supporting the one thing (aside from hatred of America) that the middlle east argrees on: the hatred of Jews.
We may find proof of an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection yet, after the fact. But will it prove there was a connection prior to 9-11?

Why would there NOT be any connection pre-9-11????

Does anyone think that after 9-11 Saddam woke up and said "Hey! I gotta get me on that Al Qaeda team! Them boys are getting it done!" ???

What is more reasonable to assume here? That both of these guys who hated America could not find a way to work together to achieve the common goal of destroying this country??

Or that, as some would say, they had far to many differences religiously to get along enough to help each other out?

Please, I know which side of that bet to hedge...

[Jeffy-CanCon]

Originally posted by Grubel



Yeah but he supported the Palestinian terrorists after 9-11 and after it was decided we were invading, to try and rally support for himself from his neighbors by indirectly supporting the one thing (aside from hatred of America) that the middlle east argrees on: the hatred of Jews.
We may find proof of an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection yet, after the fact. But will it prove there was a connection prior to 9-11?

Saddam supported the Palestinians before 9-11. I recall reading a newspaper story at the start of the current Intifadeh that he was paying cash to the families of suicide bombers throughiout the 1990's.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by aaron_mag
What really amazes me are Albinonewt and 1stdeadeye who seem to have reasonable and logical minds. Instead of putting their reason and logic towards looking at the very strong evidence that Saddam and Al Queda were not linked they grasp at any tiny straws they can and follow the thread of logic out to erroneous conclusions.....

Here's the thing Aaron.

When it comes to deciding whether or not someone is trying to arm terrorists with biological weapons to sneak into my country for the purpose of killing thousands of citizens it doesn't take much to convince me to send in the marines. It's not that I'm unwilling to look at the other side of the story, I'd just rather be wrong with a dead Saddam then wrong with ten thousand dead Americans.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Grubel
We may find proof of an Iraqi/Al Qaeda connection yet, after the fact. But will it prove there was a connection prior to 9-11?

It doesn't have to. It was a preemptive invasion, designed to pre-empt Saddam making nice with Al Queda and then attacking us. It wasn't just a response to 9/11, it was a strike to put down evil people who may have intended us harm.

[aaron_mag]

Originally posted by Albinonewt


It doesn't have to. It was a preemptive invasion, designed to pre-empt Saddam making nice with Al Queda and then attacking us. It wasn't just a response to 9/11, it was a strike to put down evil people who may have intended us harm.

Alright I'm actually going to be serious here and not just shoot my mouth off and try and incite people.

This is the fundamental difference between our opinions. You support preemptive strikes while I do not. Actually I think preemption is misleading since it implies that we know with reasonable certainty that an attack is emminent.

You believe that we knew with reasonable certainty. I do not. That is why when something like this is posted it goes 7 pages with neither side convincing anyone.

So I for one am going to bow out now...life is too short to rehash the same arguments over and over again. I'd rather move onto another topic where we rehash the same arguments BUT think it is a new argument!!! An important distinction!!!!

[FactsOfLife]

Originally posted by aaron_mag


Alright I'm actually going to be serious here and not just shoot my mouth off and try and incite people.

This is the fundamental difference between our opinions. You support preemptive strikes while I do not. Actually I think preemption is misleading since it implies that we know with reasonable certainty that an attack is emminent.

You believe that we knew with reasonable certainty. I do not. That is why when something like this is posted it goes 7 pages with neither side convincing anyone.

So I for one am going to bow out now...life is too short to rehash the same arguments over and over again. I'd rather move onto another topic where we rehash the same arguments BUT think it is a new argument!!! An important distinction!!!!

After 9-11 I am NOT going to sit around and wait for another attack, so I can say "See? We didn't have preemptive attacks on the bad guys, I feeeeel so much better about myself."

AM I respect your opinion but you're wrong bud. We absolutely can not have another attack take place on our own soil.

[Sir_Brass]

Originally posted by FactsOfLife


After 9-11 I am NOT going to sit around and wait for another attack, so I can say "See? We didn't have preemptive attacks on the bad guys, I feeeeel so much better about myself."

AM I respect your opinion but you're wrong bud. We absolutely can not have another attack take place on our own soil.

Agreed. FOL, just saw this on the D-Day forums and thought this applied PERFECTLY to our side of the arguement. WARNING, evokes strong emotional reactions. Get a tissue ready even if you're the stoic type:

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/email.htm

[-Carnifex-]

Except it offers no proof that routing Saddam was the right choice (Though I think it was).