How long before we hear the claims?

[garyd]

The only one looking desperate is you doggie. You have made allegations and have yet to provide a scintilla of proof that said allegations are correct. And you believe that Saddam wouldn't lie about a connection to a group when he had reason to believe that such a connection would certainly put his regime at risk precisely why?

Saddam wouldn't be the first politician to lie under such circumstance and most certainly won't be the last.

 

[DiveCon]

Why is it outrageous? Because you don't think it can be done? Maybe it can't but anyone can allege memos probing they actually exist is another matter.

By the way there is also no evidence to speak of the Saddam hated Al qeada and vice versa. Given that Both were Sunni Muslims there is far more reason to suspect that they might, given time, have made common cause against a common enemy, to wit us.

Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(2003) 4 February, London, UK: Saddam Hussein gives an interview with former Labour MP Tony Benn for Channel 4 News where he flatly denies supporting al-Qaeda. "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda and we believed in that relationship," he said, "we wouldn't be ashamed to admit it."[170]

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Saddam denies links to terrorists

and Saddam also claimed to have massive levels of WMD

 

[Si modo]

I have no burden to support your claims at all. I have no burden to answer any questions with respect to your claims at all. That's just the way it is in logic.

Just curious, did anyone ever teach you critical thought or did you ever take the initiative to learn it on your own? I recommend you do. You look foolish so often.

No need to answer, just ponder it if you are at all interested in improving your argument.

This isn't debate Modo, this is where you either put up or shut up. Right now you're hemming and hawwing and not answering my questions. If you're so confident in your answer, why not give it?

Your deflections by moving into personal insults doesn't change the situation or help you. Concern troll you are looking mighty desperate.

If you wish to engage me, then I expect logic, not your temper tantrums.

You don't want to debate, fine. Don't engage me. Put me on ignore. I really don't care.

I expect logic.

I will engage you with it.

And, I will continue to engage you with it whenever your tantrums toward me or another are illogical.

I find it humorous that you openly admit that you have no interest in logic (that's what debate is, btw). I hope others will take note of that.

 

[Modbert]

and Saddam also claimed to have massive levels of WMD

That was a bluff. Which is understandable because if the Iranians knew how weak Saddam actually was, they would of toppled his ass faster than dominos.

 

[DiveCon]

and Saddam also claimed to have massive levels of WMD

That was a bluff. Which is understandable because if the Iranians knew how weak Saddam actually was, they would of toppled his ass faster than dominos.

he was a liar
why would you believe him when you know he was a liar

 

[garyd]

And his statement concerning AQ appears to have been a lie for much the same reason. Oh and a bluff is just another gentler word for a lie.

 

[DiveCon]

and Saddam also claimed to have massive levels of WMD

That was a bluff. Which is understandable because if the Iranians knew how weak Saddam actually was, they would of toppled his ass faster than dominos.

yet they couldnt do that when they were at war with him

 

[Modbert]

The only one looking desperate is you doggie. You have made allegations and have yet to provide a scintilla of proof that said allegations are correct. And you believe that Saddam wouldn't lie about a connection to a group when he had reason to believe that such a connection would certainly put his regime at risk precisely why?

Saddam wouldn't be the first politician to lie under such circumstance and most certainly won't be the last.

Interrogator Shares Saddam's Confessions - 60 Minutes - CBS News

The U.S. ejected Saddam from Kuwait, leaving the dictator with no love lost for the Bush family. "He didn't like President [George W.] Bush. He would have liked meeting President Reagan. He thought he was a great leader. Honorable man. He liked President Clinton. But he did not like President Bush, the first or the current," Piro says.

The U.S. ejected Saddam from Kuwait, leaving the dictator with no love lost for the Bush family. "He didn't like President [George W.] Bush. He would have liked meeting President Reagan. He thought he was a great leader. Honorable man. He liked President Clinton. But he did not like President Bush, the first or the current," Piro says.

The subject of weapons of mass destruction was the most important mystery Piro was trying to answer. It would take him five months to bring up the question.

Piro debriefed Saddam for the Iraq Survey Group, the people President Bush sent to figure out what had happened to the weapons of mass destruction. Piro's goal was to sit with Saddam month after month to tease out the truth over time and it dawned on Piro that Saddam fancied himself quite a writer: he wrote poetry every day, and in Saddam’s pride of authorship Piro found an opening.

And of course, the WMDs:

"And what did he tell you about how his weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed?" Pelley asks.

"He told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the '90s. And those that hadn't been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq," Piro says.

"So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?" Pelley asks.

"It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq," Piro says.

Before his wars with America, Saddam had fought a ruinous eight year war with Iran and it was Iran he still feared the most.

"He believed that he couldn't survive without the perception that he had weapons of mass destruction?" Pelley asks.

"Absolutely," Piro says.

"As the U.S. marched toward war and we began massing troops on his border, why didn't he stop it then? And say, 'Look, I have no weapons of mass destruction.' I mean, how could he have wanted his country to be invaded?" Pelley asks.

"He didn't. But he told me he initially miscalculated President Bush. And President Bush's intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 under Operation Desert Fox. Which was a four-day aerial attack. So you expected that initially," Piro says.

Piro says Saddam expected some kind of an air campaign and that he could he survive that. "He survived that once. And then he was willing to accept that type of attack. That type of damage," he says.

"Saddam didn't believe that the United States would invade," Pelley remarks.

"Not initially, no," Piro says.

"Once it was clear to him that there was going to be an invasion of the country. I mean, did he actually believe that his armies could win?" Pelley asks.

"No," Piro says. "What he had asked of his military leaders and senior government officials was to give him two weeks. And at that point it would go into what he called the secret war."

"The secret war. What did he mean?" Pelley asks.

Oh, and of course his opinion of Osama:

"Didn't think of Bin Laden as an ally in his effort against the United States in this war against the United States?" Pelley asks.

"No. No. He didn't wanna be seen with Bin Laden. And didn't want to associate with Bin Laden," Piro explains.

Piro says Saddam thought that Bin Laden was a threat to him and his regime.

Saddam's story was verified in interrogations with other former high-ranking members of his government. One striking theme that emerged was just how little we knew about Saddam and how little he knew about us.

 

[Modbert]

he was a liar
why would you believe him when you know he was a liar

Read what I just posted. That's why I believe what I do.

 

[DiveCon]

he was a liar
why would you believe him when you know he was a liar

Read what I just posted. That's why I believe what I do.

Zarqauwi was in Iraq, fled there from Astan
he was receiving assistance from Saddam
Saddam didnt like Al Qaeda, but he did help them
remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
and old Arab proverb

 

[Modbert]

Zarqauwi was in Iraq, fled there from Astan
he was receiving assistance from Saddam
Saddam didnt like Al Qaeda, but he did help them
remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
and old Arab proverb

So now you're saying Saddam tricked the FBI? AFTER he had been captured and broken mentally? AFTER he knew that there was no way out of this?

Not like it means much, but I'm pretty sure that proverb is an Chinese one.

Also, the whole problem with your story of Zarqauwi is this:

He did not swear a loyalty oath to Osama Bin Laden until OCTOBER of 2004. Long after the war had started.

 

[DiveCon]

Zarqauwi was in Iraq, fled there from Astan
he was receiving assistance from Saddam
Saddam didnt like Al Qaeda, but he did help them
remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
and old Arab proverb

So now you're saying Saddam tricked the FBI? AFTER he had been captured and broken mentally? AFTER he knew that there was no way out of this?

Not like it means much, but I'm pretty sure that proverb is an Chinese one.

Also, the whole problem with your story of Zarqauwi is this:

He did not swear a loyalty oath to Osama Bin Laden until OCTOBER of 2004. Long after the war had started.

and that matters how?
you think he needed to swear that oath before he could fight?

 

[Si modo]

Zarqauwi was in Iraq, fled there from Astan
he was receiving assistance from Saddam
Saddam didnt like Al Qaeda, but he did help them
remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend
and old Arab proverb

So now you're saying Saddam tricked the FBI? AFTER he had been captured and broken mentally? AFTER he knew that there was no way out of this?

Not like it means much, but I'm pretty sure that proverb is an Chinese one.

Also, the whole problem with your story of Zarqauwi is this:

He did not swear a loyalty oath to Osama Bin Laden until OCTOBER of 2004. Long after the war had started.

Some date of some loyalty oath is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam was assisting Al qaeda - before the invasion. Zarqawi fled to Iraq in 2002 from the Taliban and received assistance from Saddam at that time.

 

[Modbert]

Some date of some loyalty oath is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam was assisting Al qaeda - before the invasion. Zarqawi fled to Iraq in 2002 from the Taliban and received assistance from Saddam at that time.

Except he wasn't. He was operating in the Northern Kurdish area which was out of Saddam's control. In fact, the U.S had control of the area from the air. It was under the regular "no fly zone" activities.

The Nation - Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11 - He cites declassified data in linking the group to global terror. Experts challenge his assertions. (page 3) - Los Angeles Times

Bush said the founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the late Abu Musab Zarqawi, merged his organization with Al Qaeda and pledged allegiance to it.

Some experts and former U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that the Iraq group had always had its own agenda, as evidenced by a public fallout between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman Zawahiri, over Zarqawi's killing of Shiite Muslims in Iraq.

So it's obvious that he was not working for Al Qaeda before the merge. It has become apparent that he was not in Saddam's controlled area.

So my question is, where does the assistance from Saddam come in? You also have to prove that.

 

[Modbert]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

CIA Questions Saddam's Ties to Al Qaeda - ABC News

I think that disproves that myth.

 

[DiveCon]

Some date of some loyalty oath is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam was assisting Al qaeda - before the invasion. Zarqawi fled to Iraq in 2002 from the Taliban and received assistance from Saddam at that time.

Except he wasn't. He was operating in the Northern Kurdish area which was out of Saddam's control. In fact, the U.S had control of the area from the air. It was under the regular "no fly zone" activities.

The Nation - Bush ties Al Qaeda in Iraq to Sept. 11 - He cites declassified data in linking the group to global terror. Experts challenge his assertions. (page 3) - Los Angeles Times

Bush said the founder of Al Qaeda in Iraq, the late Abu Musab Zarqawi, merged his organization with Al Qaeda and pledged allegiance to it.

Some experts and former U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday that the Iraq group had always had its own agenda, as evidenced by a public fallout between Zarqawi and Al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman Zawahiri, over Zarqawi's killing of Shiite Muslims in Iraq.

So it's obvious that he was not working for Al Qaeda before the merge. It has become apparent that he was not in Saddam's controlled area.

So my question is, where does the assistance from Saddam come in? You also have to prove that.

you NEVER have "control" from the air

 

[Si modo]

Some date of some loyalty oath is irrelevant to the fact that Saddam was assisting Al qaeda - before the invasion. Zarqawi fled to Iraq in 2002 from the Taliban and received assistance from Saddam at that time.

Except he wasn't. He was operating in the Northern Kurdish area which was out of Saddam's control. In fact, the U.S had control of the area from the air. It was under the regular "no fly zone" activities. ....

He set up cells in Baghdad - Saddam's control - before the war as well.

Zarqawi set up Iraq sleeper cells: U.K. report
Updated Thu. Jul. 15 2004 11:56 PM ET

Associated Press

LONDON -- Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi set up "sleeper cells" in Baghdad before the Iraq war to attack American forces occupying the country, according to a British intelligence report.
....

CTV.ca | Zarqawi set up Iraq sleeper cells: U.K. report

.... So it's obvious that he was not working for Al Qaeda before the merge. It has become apparent that he was not in Saddam's controlled area.

So my question is, where does the assistance from Saddam come in? You also have to prove that.

I just did.

 

[Modbert]

you NEVER have "control" from the air

I love how you only point that out supposedly. Sure you can have "control" from the air. Especially when you can continue to bomb the shit out of the air until it's been to the stone age if you so damn well pleased.

My 2nd post, the last one puts the nail in the coffin to what you and Modo have been saying.

 

[DiveCon]

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed (washingtonpost.com)

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.

The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, "but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.

CIA Questions Saddam's Ties to Al Qaeda - ABC News

I think that disproves that myth.

again, that does NOT disprove anything

 

[Modbert]

CTV.ca | Zarqawi set up Iraq sleeper cells: U.K. report I just did.

Except you didn't. From your own link:

Ousted President Saddam Hussein didn't have any control over the Kurdish zone in northern Iraq. And British analysts believed there was no active cooperation between Saddam and al Qaeda, Butler's report said.

Your own link just disproved your claims.

The Butler report also said there was no evidence to back up suggestions Iraq may have trained some al Qaeda terrorists since 1998.

Did you even bother to read your own link?