The usual suspects were on the bandwagon all along

Nimh, when I'm replying in an active thread such as this, I try answering every question on one reply. I had read your post, several times as I always do just to make sure I understand and I'm not getting any details wrong. I may not point to you and say, "And to your question is my reply..." But, my answers are there. I don't default to anyone. I'm not afraid to argue the issues at any level. I just got tired of answering the same questions over and over. It does get a bit annoying and it makes you feel as if the people who want to argue with you have no idea what you have said prior.

Furthermore, I've been putting great thought into my replies on this thread. I haven't just been throwing them together. I've been looking for sources to back me up. And in my last post, the only thing anyone wants to address is one small piece of Czech information people most love to discard and one common sense argument offered as just a last thing to think about. Nothing else I say matters, because of the selectivity in what people will and will not address. That means to me that the rest of what I say must have strong credibility because no one will touch it.

One strong point I made that people overlooked is the fact of what statements people will believe and what they won't believe. One persons says no link exists and the media is all over it. Another person says they know of a link, their voice is hardly heard, their story is hardly told and after answering the same questions over and over, they might finally admit to a small adversity to their original statement and the media is finally all over it. A person captured in a time of war is likely to lie for loyalty to his cause, but the media is so ready to believe the denial of a link by an Iraqi intelligence officer or plotters of the terrorist attack. While Czech intelligence gets downplayed and when possibly coerced into denying a link, we'll believe that statement, not the one they made prior. We believe what we want to believe. But, I served in the Marine Corps from 1988 to 1993 and with what I experienced, I would just about stake my life on it that a link exists between Saddam and Osama and it's not based on the ideological hatred they have of us. It's just something to think about. Common objects drive forces together.

Stories of a meeting with Osama and Saddam's henchmen are played one time on the news and gone. No more speak of it. Stories of a swap between financing and training between Osama and Saddam are downplayed and swamped with some notion that WMDs were our only objective to go to war and how Bush made another grammatical error in a speech. I can't find the real stuff anywhere, but I have to read about Atta being possibly gay. Is that really something I have to learn. No. It's just a distraction to fill the newspapers and keep the news I want to hear out of them.

I find this kind of play absolutely hilarious. Not because of the content, but the methods. Especially when I'm being accused of the same stuff people are doing in retort to my posts.

Michael, there is nothing out there that supports a link between al-Quaeda and Iraq. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Sorry, that's just how it is. Iraq ceased to be an active "player" in international terrorism after GWI. After that, its role was limited to financial support to suicide bomber's families,and funding to the PFLP and Hamas. The Saudis, on the other hand, are neck deep in the bath witth al-Quaeda, as are Pakistan and (possibly) Algeria. Just becasue you believe something does not make it so.

*cough* Yassir Arafat *cough*

In other news: Still waiting for that evidence.

The seven terrorist organizations appearing on the State Department list from October 5th, 2001, which receive Syrian sponsorship and support are:

Hamas ("Islamic Resistance Movement")


...
...
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command (PFLP - GC, Jibril faction)


Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP, George Habash faction)


...
...

State Sponsored Terrorism

Dr. Reuven Ehrlich, an expert on Syrian and Lebanese affairs and currently the manager of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Center for Special Studies (C.S.S.), and a Research Fellow at the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism (I.C.T.) at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, Israel


In August 1990, Iraq seized Kuwait, but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait's liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions over a period of 12 years resulted in the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
CIA data on Iraq

Translation: Iraq did not comply with UN Security Council requirements to scrap all weapons of mass destruction...

I will continue if there are still people confused.

I don't know what you want.

Saddam Hamas Al-Qaeda

Even the leaders of the terrorist group PFLP talk about Saddam's link to Al-Qaeda so nonchalantly that it seems to be common knowledge of terrorist groups supported by Syria.

Let me ask this, why would such a thing be so hard to believe that Saddam is linked to Osama Bin Laden in some way?

Why, because there is no evidence !!! So Hussein dealt with Hamas. Hamas is not al-Quaeda! I realize that some people have a vested interest in believeing that all "Moooslimses" are "in it together." This is, however, not the case. Hamas, and other groups, receive funding from many sources. I doubt that there is a "Hamas Booster Club" where these sources meet and compare their golf scores! Just because Iraq contributes funds to an organization that interacts with al-Quaeda does not imply that Iraq interacted with al-Quaeda. Are you aware of the animosity bin-Laden and most other Islamic fundies felt toward Hussein? They were more likely to order his assisnation that to assist him.
You brought this up:

I don't doubt it. Military training was one of the ways Hussein made his living during the 1990s. But, if you do the research, you will find that al-Quaeda trained its people exclusively in Afghanistan. Not even Iran has assisted al-Quaeda in thraining operatives, and depsite its Shi'ite leadership, Iraq's Revolutionary Council is more likely to have ideological commonalities with bin-Laden than Hussein's secular regime, which actively repressed religious fundamentalists.


How nice. I was an eagle scout! So there! Unless you tell us what your being a marine has to do with anything, this seems like an attempt to add authority to a statement that you realize is weak.
For the benefit of certain others, I am not "arguing with you for the sake of arguing," I am disagreeing wiht you and asking you to provide more evidence that supports your position.

State sponsored terrorism and Hamas?

The U.S. of A's very best friend in the Middle East, Israel, funded Hamas directly and indirectly for years in the seventies as a counter to the PLO. It was registered in Israel in 1978 as a charitable institution. Israel's support of Hamas continued even after its military wing, emulating the Iran backed Hezbollah, began to perpetrate terrorism in an attempt to end Israel's occupation of Lebanon.

The thinking by some Israeli hardliners was that if Hamas gained control from the PLO, they would most certainly oppose any kind of peace process with Israel, thereby leaving Israel as the only reactionary presence in the Middle East with which the US could deal with.

So Michael, why, given all of this information about links between Iraq and al Qaeda, did Bush say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?

I'm at a loss. I don't know what you will find as acceptable. I think I've provided reasonable proof.

Throwing the idea that I think all Muslims are involved in terrorist activities is just ridiculous. I never said that and would never defend that. But, that's what we all have to deal with when we're getting close to the truth, someone who wants to make such extreme remarks as that for the sake of hype and propaganda.

But, congratulations on that Eagle Scout thing!

Ah, you know him. Always flubbing up somehow.

BTW, I'm aware of the animosity shared between Osama and Saddam. The last time I heard any report about it though was that Al-Qaeda leaders were, at best, standoffish to Saddam's representatives. Common objectives attract forces. They may not like each other, but they can help each other out.

A report by the National Intelligence Council compiled in the CIA's database, "Strong rhetoric notwithstanding, a US-led move against Iraq will not be seriously opposed by Arab allies. A persuasive case must be made, but not for Saddam Hussein's culpability in sponsoring terrorism. Sufficient grounds exist on the WMD front alone to fit the bill, and no one in the Middle East, even at the street level, harbors any illusions about the tender mercies of Saddam toward his own people. What Arab capitals will require is a persuasive case that the drive against Baghdad will be carried through to successful conclusion."
NIC - Impact of the War on Terror

We don't even need to use the fact that Saddam sponsors terrorism, his WMDs are enough to persuade Arab allies.

And anyone who disputes Iraq's WMDs programs or capabilities, consult Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction ProgramsIraq - Al-Qaeda linkRobert S. Mueller, III Director of FBI

And further stating that, "Our particular concern is that Saddam may supply al-Qaeda with biological, chemical, or radiological material before or during a war with the US to avenge the fall of his regime. Although divergent political goals limit al-Qaeda's cooperation with Iraq, northern Iraq has emerged as an increasingly important operational base for al-Qaeda associates, and a US-Iraq war could prompt Baghdad to more directly engage al-Qaeda."

No, Michael. We're serious. Your Commander-in-Chief says you have it wrong. What's it going to take to make you give up this specious and unfounded belief?

Joe, don't you know that conservatives are smarter than the rest of us? Just ask them-they'll tell you.

Watch it Wilso, don't you know I'm thinking about becoming one of them?
It could be harder than they make it look though, so I'm being cautious. There, see? That's why I'm having such a hard time becoming a neo-con, I have too much capacity for making inquiries rather than just swallowing unfounded notions whole! I've got to work on that.

Conservatives
I actually respect some conservatives. I disagree with most of what they espouse. It's the ones that love Duby that I have a prob with because he is not a conservative. He is not anything but a shallow, opportunist.

Don't forget Nazi, and right hand man of God.

These people are trying to cover up the fact that we arnt after the terroists. Too close to the Saudi Arabians who are and have been the Bushes oil buddies. As long as they keep the spotlight on Iraq most of the american public dosent notice that we arnt after Ben Laden and his terroist organization. By the way, the newspaper in my area has started to print the casualities we are suffering on page nine.

On this thread, all it's going to take is for people to quit asking me for evidence. Which besides providing photos and taped phone conversation, I'm not sure what it will take anyway.

I've provided quotes from Bush that says he believes a link exists. I'd like to read something to the extent of him denying one so I can actually address it seriously. These days, I've been pretty much ignoring everything he says.

As far as being conservative, I'm not really all that conservative. I have liberal beliefs, but I don't feel that a government should enforce them. Things like charity. I'm charitable, but I don't like when a government takes money out of my pocket for charitable purposes. And business in another example. I like the idea of having free opportunity and skies the limit on my success. Telling me what to do with my company, who I will hire!! and who I'll promote!! and how much success I can achieve is just a little too much government in my face about my business. But, that's a different thread altogether. One I'd jump on if anyone started it. Hmmm, idea.

I don't doubt it and I didn't mean to suggest you had.



Well, basically, Michael, its up to those who want to wage a war to provide convincing proof on why to do so. If you would like the US to wage war against, say, Paraguay, you'd better come up with some convincing argument on what danger it poses to us, and with some corroborated proof on your allegation. It's not up to us to prove that we shouldn't wage war against Paraguay - you want the war, you'd better have some damn good reason. And yes, that makes our job a little easier than yours - all we get to do is shoot stuff down, whereas you have to do all the digging. But then it's not we who are proposing to send hundreds of men to their death in our name.

Bush laid out very clearly what danger he thought Iraq posed to us / the US. It had WMD. It might well give those WMD to terrorists. And since 9/11, we can't take such risks anymore - we can't wait until they attack us in order to counterattack legally, we have to act pre-emptively. Plus: we have to do it right now, straight away, there's no time for the further inspections half of our allies insist on: the threat is acute.

Now to argue such a case - that Iraq poses an immediate threat, too acute to allow for further diplomatic niceties - you need the proof for it. Not suspicions, not plausibilities, not, "well, the Czechs first said there was a link, and then that there wasn't, one never can know, better act now" (and I'm going to use the Czechs in this post as a pars pro toto for all such unconfirmed, later retracted allegations). War is too serious a thing to consider on mere suspicions and semi-trustworthy accusations. "Czech intelligence might possibly have been coerced into denying a link" - Pakistan might own flying pigs. This is all utter speculation. We can't start going to war on hunches. Going to war shouldn't be about what we "believe" - this is a bottom line - it should be about what we know. When we would start wars because all kinds of conflicting evidence suggests there might well be something going on there - or not - there'd be an awful lot of countries to attack. We wisely do not.

You argue that we are more likely to buy into the denials than into the affirmations when it comes to Saddam/Osama links, but the thing is - what we dont buy into is a case thats riddled with such ambiguities and contradictions - not when its war we're talking about, thousands of deaths, ruptured world relations, possible dangerous backlashes around the Arab world. (The latter didnt materialise in the end (yet), the former did). With the Weekly Standard's raw data suggesting there is a link, but others showing that half of the data is provably erroneous, and the government saying neither that it is, nor that it isnt true, there is, in the end, just ambiguities and contradictions. You may say that that should be enough to at least be alarmed and want to know more - and you'd be right. But to say that this jumble of ambiguities and contradictions - the Czechs say yes, the Czechs say no - is actual legitimate grounds for WAR ... is irresponsible.

You say that we're not willing to believe the Czech suggestion of a link (still using the Czech thing as a pars pro toto here), but we're all too willing to believe its denial of the link later on. Well, first, there's a duh-factor included there. Of course one believes the retraction of a statement rather than the original statement itself, once it is retracted - it came last. If the local newspaper writes that Micheal Allen is a pedophile, and later writes that, no, they mixed up the names, sorry, mistake, then I'm going to believe the retraction, not the original thing, obviously - it's an admission of error, after all. Likewise, if Bush first says there is a link, and later admits that "there is no proof of a link", then I assume that what he said last more reflects the most recent state of intelligence. I.e., he did believe it, but - they couldnt find anything.

Secondly, it's not that any one of these episodes of the reported/alleged/retracted cycle suddenly changes everything around, however worth it is to try confirm or debunk it. You bring up question marks. We're saying one shouldnt go to war on question marks. That's where we're talking past each other. Atta was not in Prague, but Al-Qaeda guy X once had an operation in Baghdad, but the Telegraph's scoop on the Iraqi Qaeda training camp was a hoax, et cetera, ad infinitum -- as long as there is no officially confirmed proof that Iraq did indeed pose an immediate threat to the West, through the dangerous weapons it supposedly had and could supposedly any moment give to Al-Qaeda - there is no case for a supposedly "defensive" war. Period. No amount of ambiguities and contradictions is going to make that case, however interesting they are to speculate about - they in fact make the case to not go to war. If the government doesn't come out officially with confirmed proof of actual, current co-operation between Saddam and Al-Qaeda that put our lives at risk, there was no such case. It hasn't. I think that says something.