Did Saddam have any connection to 9/11?

I think not. But I'm no republican.

By the way, that survey you're talking about said "Bush supporters", not Republicans, didn't it?

I don't really have proof that he did but I don't have proof that he didn't either. My theory is that there is high probability that he either knew about it or he played an active roll in it.

I'm not a republican either.

Seems to me that the evidence is so strong that he wasn't involved that even Bush and Cheney have begrudgingly admitted it.

But I know there are those who want to believe it...

No more than george bush.....

I doubt he was directly involved with the planning operation leading up to the attacks. Seems very unlikely. I do think he had connections with al Qaeda, to some extent, and he certainly supported terrorism. But I don't know for sure about a connection to 9/11. Even though its doubtful, and there is no evidence that he did ... given the options, I said "I don't know."

Saddam did support terrorist. He has given money families of homicide bombers. He may not have been in on the attack of 9-11, however I would not be surprized that he knew about it in advance. I would also say it is very likely that he provide support to Al Qaeda. Saddam, is / was a terrorist.

No.

Interesting thread, though, McGentrix, I'll refrain from commenting on other posts until there's more of them. Interesting to see them though.

One thing -- is that the way the question was phrased? "Any connection"? It makes it harder to say "no" (which may be your point...) If the question was "Did Saddam have any connection to Kevin Bacon", the answer is probably yes in the strictest sense of "any".

I would say 'no', Saddam didn't specifically know of 9/11. I base that on the idea that most of the hijackers didn't know themselves what the final destination was for the aircraft. If that were the case, I can't see how or why OBL would include Saddam in the planning. Certainly not for the funding. Training was done elsewhere.

I'm sure Saddam knew of AQ activity, but most likely, not 9/11.

My god, the subject of this thread is such an open ended question that it's impossible to answer it. But before we label Saddam as a terrorist, let's try to understand how America defines a terrorist:





I could argue that the Israeli government is just as much a sponsor of terrorism as Saddam. Afterall, who paid those Israeli soldiers and pilots who had already bombed and shot THOUSANDS of innocent Palestinians? And didn't Saddam give the money to the families only AFTER they lost their sons or daughters in a suicide bombing?

Why is it that Saddam was NOT considered a terrorist when he gassed his own people back in 83 when Cheney and the first Bush looked the other way?

Why was China never considered a terrorist nation for killing hundreds, if not thousands, of THEIR own people during the democratic uprisings at Tianamen Square (sp?).

If Saddam is a terrorist and was developing chemical weapons as far back as '91, why didn't he use them on Israel during the first Gulf War? And let's not forget why we went after Saddam in '91. It wasn't because of WMD's.

Why does the Bush administration hardly talk about the most horrible terrorist of them all, bin Laden? Wasn't Bush hellbent on capturing him dead or alive?

According to the rightwing nutjobs like Ann Coulter, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and many other neoconservatives, just about EVERYBODY who doesn't agree with this failed administration is considered either a Saddam apologist or terrorist sympathesizer.

And this all basically belies the point McGentrix tries to make in this thread (if there is one).

It's impossible to answer this question, really, but it's entertaining to watch those who will try.

Bush and his cronies have had just as much of a "connection" to 9/11 by their complicit acts of obvuscating, as much as possible, the potential for a clear and thorough vetting of the events leading up to, during, and after 9/11.

It's really a simple question Dookie. Your desire to complicate it is interesting. I might suggest you start a new thread discussing these points you have brought up.

Actually, it isn't a simple question whatsoever, and I just pointed that out. Therefore, it isn't necessary to start another thread.

Besides, I try to avoid knee jerk threads that ask extremely ambiguous questions for the sake of political partisanship.

No, it is a simple question.

Yes, a connection. Involved in direct planning--doubtful. Foreknowledge, possibly. Indirect funding--probably. Training, haven and support of terrorists, some of whom were directly involved--yes.

It's not a simple question because it's not direct enough.

My answer is that he had no direct involvement in 9/11, but he shared a hatred with the terrorists who did it, and probably has given comfort and aid to terrorists along the way. Since we created the Taliban and the Saddam Hussein regimes in the first place when it was convenient for us to do so, one could say we were involved in the terrorist attacks on our own country.

I have to agree with Dookie that it is a complicated question and there is no simple answer, but if what you are actually asking is the question was Saddam Hussein directly involved in the 9/11 attacks I would answer a resounding no.

We did not create the Taliban or Hussein regimes. We supported them when if fit our goals during the cold war, but we hardly created them.

I assume both you and Dookie responded "yes" to the question above then?

An excellent point, although I'm not as sure about the Taliban. But then again, Bush gave them $43 million to fight the Poppy trade (presumably). Imagine that? They had tortured, beaten, and murdered innocent Afghanis citizens while Bush looked the other way. Sound familiar?

We've certainly created PLENTY of oppressive regimes who in turn have terrorized their own people. If it takes a terrorist to make a terrorist, then what does that make us? And are we indirectly involved with 9/11 by training those terrorists we helped create years ago?

Like I said; it is not a simple question, and it never will be.

Yes, it is. The complication is in your own head.

I will then have to answer "no" to the posted question because those who actually carried out the horrible deed on 9/11 were SAUDIS. And bin Laden is, as we all know, a SAUDI. You know, those guys who we do lots business with and yet look the other way when they torture their citizens, teach their kids to hate us, execute adulterers, etc.