THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Why don't you just call them (freedom fries) CHIPS like the rest of the English speaking world?

And what you call chips CRISPS like the rest of the English speaking world?

Or would this cause too much confusion for the average American?

You have nowhere provided demonstrable proof of Iraqi support of or training of AQ personnel.

demonstrable proof

demonstrable proof

Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:41 am Post: 787813 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ican711nm wrote:

First, ignoring the horror of Saddam's continuing murder of his own citizens, Saddam was providing financing, training facilities, and equipment to terrorists: most notably to Al Qaeda and Palestinian Terrorists in non-formal ... relationships. Secondly, he was providing (but not formally) ... sanctuary to some of those Al Qaeda who fled Afghanistan.

There is not a shred of these specioius contentions for which you have provided credible evidence--and i doubt that you can.

I and many many others provided a tad more than a shred of evidence in the preceding forum VI.

a tad more than a shred of evidence

You have nowhere provided demonstrable proof of Iraqi support of or training of AQ personnel.

demonstrable proof

a tad more than a shred of evidence

demonstrable proof

What does one generally mean when one concludes something is probably true? I think one means that one judges it better to act as if that something were true than to act if that something weren't true.

Facts shown in boldface black.
Nimh questions shown in boldface violet.
ican answers shown in boldface blue.

1. Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian terrorists
- How does the fact that Saddam financed Palestinian terrorists imply that he "was secretly financing and equipping" Al Qaeda around the world"? The fact that Saddam helped finance and equip Palestinian Terrorists implies he probably financed other terrorists as well; that in turn implies that Al Qaeda was probably among those other terrorists that Saddam financed, because he had no reason not to help and lots of reason (e.g., hatred of Americans) to help Al Qaeda.

2. Osama declared Saddam an infidel prior to 9/11/2001 but did not terrorize Saddam (or any member of his government or any Iraqi citizen) as a consequence. - How does the assumption that al Qaeda "did not terrorize Saddam" mean Saddam must therefore have financed and equipped them? The fact that Osama declared Saddam an infidel but did not terrorize him or his people implies that Osama's declaration was probably made to mislead Americans into thinking Osama and Saddam had nothing to do with each other; this in turn implies that Saddam probably had lots to do with each other; that in turn implies that Saddam probably secretly helped Osama in some ways to murder Americans.

3. A Boeing 727 fuselage and training site was discovered in northern Iraq [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that this training site existed in Iraq implies that Saddam probably helped aid Osama train some of his Al Qaeda people in Iraq; that in turn implies that Saddam probably helped Osama train some known murderers of Americans; that in turn implies these contacts probably amounted to something.

4. Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and distributed $billions of Iraqi oil revenue to both secret and non-secret accounts all around the world. - How does the fact that Saddam defrauded the UN Oil-for-Food Program and siphoned off the loot to his secret accounts mean that he must have been financing Al Qaeda with it (as opposed to, say, stuff his own pockets with it, like every other dictator)? The fact that Saddam sent much of that revenue to secret accounts as well as non-secret accounts all around the world implies that he was probably using some of that money for purposes other than stuffing his own pockets; that in turn implies that he probably wanted those other purposes kept secret; that in turn implies that he was probably financing terrorist organizations including Al Qaeda.

5. Some members of Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan after the US entry into Afghanistan, and through Iran entered Iraq to join up with other Al Qaeda in Iraq who were there prior to the US entry into Afghanistan and Iraq. [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that many Al Qaeda fled Afghanistan for Iraq after the US 10/2001 entry into Afghanistan and prior to the US 3/2003 entry into Iraq implies that Saddam probably provided them sanctuary in Iraq; that in turn implies that Osama and Saddam probably had working agreements in place prior to the US entry into Iraq; that in turn implies that Osama and Saddam probably were working together to murder Americans and that work probably did amount to something.


6. More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq. - How does the fact that "More Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the US entry into Iraq" - i.e., when Saddam wasn't even in power anymore - imply that he must have been equipping them? The fact that more Al Qaeda went into Iraq after Saddam's removal implies that the Al Qaeda probably did that in their attempt to restore the Oil-for-Food revenues lost to them when Saddam was removed.

7. Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001 [The commission] concluded that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything. The fact that Al Qaeda members met with members of Saddam's government prior to 9/11/2001 implies that their contacts were probably deliberate and productive and did amount to something.

8. Osama and Saddam hated Americans and did not willingly share intelligence with the US -- In other words, they tried to keep secrets from the US (we too late learned of when they succeeded). - How does the fact that "Saddam did not willingly share intelligence with the US"- he kept secrets from us! - mean that he must have been financing Al-Qaeda (Hint: most countries in the world do not willingly share intelligence with states they disagree with).? The fact that Osama and Saddam probably shared secrets with each other but not with other governments implies that Saddam was probably aiding Osama accomplish his objectives of murdering Americans; that in turn probably explains why this secrecy led the 9/11 Commission to falsely conclude that there were contacts, but that they never led to anything .

Again, what does one generally mean when one concludes something is probably true? I think one means that one judges it better to act as if that something were true than to act if that something weren't true.