FBI confirms that Saddam hated Al Qaeda

[JeffWartman]

Wow. We went to war because Alucard said so? I'm impressed.

Just how many "main" reasons are there? That Saddam had ties to al Qaeda was "a" reason. Having ties and trust, respect, mutual goals, etc are not mutually inclusive.

The reasons changes whenever the old ones got discredited. First it was Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Then, after that was found to be untrue, it was WMD. Then we found out there were no WMD. Then it became a liberal Wilsonian "spreading Democracy". What will it be next?

Anyone with half a brain could see that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's ideologies opposed one another, and that Saddam would consider militant, extremist Islamics a threat to his regime.

Funny that Bush and the NeoCons used our emotions after 9/11 to start the wheels of war turning.

 

[Gunny]

The reasons changes whenever the old ones got discredited. First it was Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Then, after that was found to be untrue, it was WMD. Then we found out there were no WMD. Then it became a liberal Wilsonian "spreading Democracy". What will it be next?



Funny that Bush and the NeoCons used our emotions after 9/11 to start the wheels of war turning.

We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11.

We removed Saddam from power for various reasons, WMDs being one, but 9/11 NOT being one.

 

[DeadCanDance]

We removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11.

We removed the Taliban because they were harboring Al Qaeda. There's no evidence that the Taliban knew about, or were involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack.

We removed Saddam from power for various reasons, WMDs being one, but 9/11 NOT being one.

Bush said al qaeda was an ally of saddam, and that saddam was aiding them. Which is the same reason given, essentially, for removing the taliban.

 

[Alucard]

Yeah, well tell that to the families of the dead soldiers ass-hole.

Same deaths and maiming different day. Al Quaeda attacks US. We attack Iraq. What a bunch of crap. If we sit back quiet, we let the shit heads win.

Very few investigations have actually taken place. The powers in charge are stopping any real work. Like Gonzo or Mukasey are really investigating anything. We can't even get information on Cheney's frigging energy meetings.

If the Dems take over and turn out to have more balls and courage than they are showing now, all the shit will hit the fan.

There are so many things that I believe have happened that are criminal and should be prosecuted. Hell, Bush admits we have waterboarded, spied on US and broken FISA. Your side would want Clinton in prison for that kind of criminal activity. Talk about hippo crits.

Do I expect the other side to agree, hell no.

Time will tell. They can't hide this kind of crap forever. It won't just nicely go away and make the righties feel okay.

You sir... are a true coward... And a disgrace to the USMC...

 

[Gunny]

We removed the Taliban because they were harboring Al Qaeda. There's no evidence that the Taliban knew about, or were involved in the planning of the 9/11 attack.



Bush said al qaeda was an ally of saddam, and that saddam was aiding them. Which is the same reason given, essentially, for removing the taliban.

The Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden, and his operational group is al Quaeda. They refused to turn him over. I never said the Taliban had a thing to do with 9/11. The Taliban's removal from power however was a result of 9/11.

Your second paragraph is twisted logic, at best. Do you think Zawahiri was hospitalized in Baghdad with wounds received in Afghanistan without Saddam's knowledge? Was Saddam applauding the result of 9/11 photoshopped?

There were enough facts at the time for Bush to claim there was a connection.

 

[DeadCanDance]

The Taliban was harboring Osama bin Laden, and his operational group is al Quaeda. They refused to turn him over. I never said the Taliban had a thing to do with 9/11. The Taliban's removal from power however was a result of 9/11.

Your second paragraph is twisted logic, at best. Do you think Zawahiri was hospitalized in Baghdad with wounds received in Afghanistan without Saddam's knowledge?[/i]

Yes, according to our own intelligence services:

"-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi"

Was Saddam applauding the result of 9/11 photoshopped?

There were enough facts at the time for Bush to claim there was a connection.

Please tell me we didn't invade a nation, at the cost of a trillion dollars, because some moron was applauding al qaeda.

Your president said the Saddam was training, aiding, and harboring al qaeda. Which is the same reason given for overthrowing the taliban.

The only difference is, it wasn't true. Saddam was not aiding or training al qaeda, and in fact considered their fundamentalist ideology to be a threat to his own socialist, secular dictatorship.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You sir... are a true coward... And a disgrace to the USMC...

Based on the tone of most of your posts, I will consider that a compliment. Calling someone a coward you have never met or served with is about what I have come to expect from you. FU

Please point out how I am a disgrace to the Corps besides the fact that I don't agree with you.

Your responses are typical of those who would whitewash this stupid fiasco that has killed REAL AMERICAN PATRIOTS for the frigging sake of money and power.

If you don't like to deal with the facts, you use the same shit and say we heard that all before. That may be true, but you and yours haven't done a thing about correcting it. So you can expect to continue to hear about it.

In your own words, stop your "whining"

PS: I don't remember US destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan. Aren't they doing pretty damn good right now attacking US? Maybe if we had concentrated on finishing that one instead of going into Iraq, we would have a stable Afghanistan today.

 

[maineman]

Senate Bipartisan Report on Iraq Intelligence, September 2006 ?


So whats your point....?
===============================================

Page 128 of 9/11 Commission Report
First Indictment of OBL (1998)
The original sealed document had added that AQ had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq etc....
...............1998...............
----------------------------
Now If you wanted to explain to us why in 1998, the Clinton Admin. thought it reasonable to include in this first indictment of OBL, the charge....
that AQ had reached an understanding with the government of Iraq ...

I would be mildly interested.....


And point out that in a later indictment this issue was dropped because of lack of proof

I would again be mildly interested....,

or if you were pointing out that this 1998 indictment was the first connection made, and suspections voiced about cooperation between AQ and Iraq

I would again be mildly interested....

But really....WHAT IS your point..????????

what part of "lack of proof" do you not understand? The FACT is: the strategic mission of Al Qaeda was the destruction of the nation state of Iraq - and all other secular nation states in the region. There were those of us who knew about wahabbism long before 9/11 and who always thought that the administration's suggestions of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda was absurd. We were laughed at by bozos like YOU, write...and YOU were wrong...and WE were right... write.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Some folks will never be able to admit that the war was based on a vast set of mis-statements, fear mongering, and outright lies. It would challenge the very core of their convictions.

 

[DeadCanDance]

Some folks will never be able to admit that the war was based on a vast set of mis-statements, fear mongering, and outright lies. It would challenge the very core of their convictions.

that's the bottom line, isn't it?

Some people are so emotionally invested in their support of the war, in their vote for Bush, and in the republican party, that it makes it nearly impossible for them to admit that a trillion dollars and 35,000 dead and wounded americans might have been a tad to high of a price to pay, given what we know now about Iraq.

 

[rayboyusmc]

It ain't anything new.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable feeling between those around you that may result from having conflicting thoughts or beliefs (cognitions) at the same time or engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs. More broadly, it also refers to attempts to reduce the discomfort of conflicting thoughts, beliefs and actions.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs. In detailed terms, it is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, where "cognition" is defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.

Social psychologist Leon Festinger first proposed the theory in 1957 after the publication of his book When Prophecy Fails, observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, purportedly sent by aliens to a woman in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy: that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

 

[Gunny]

Yes, according to our own intelligence services:

"-Conclusion 5: Postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi"






Please tell me we didn't invade a nation, at the cost of a trillion dollars, because some moron was applauding al qaeda.

Your president said the Saddam was training, aiding, and harboring al qaeda. Which is the same reason given for overthrowing the taliban.

The only difference is, it wasn't true. Saddam was not aiding or training al qaeda, and in fact considered their fundamentalist ideology to be a threat to his own socialist, secular dictatorship.

What intelligence source? I don't see a link, nor an agency named. You're telling me Zawahiri stayed in a Bahgdad hospital and Saddam couldn't find him? Or are you trying to mix apples and oranges and use intelligence from when Zawahiri had an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq and try to blanket cover each and every time he was there?

OUR President (whether you like it or not) said Saddam was supporting terrorism; which, he most assuredly was. Unless you call paying money to families of suicide bombers something other than that.

Whether or not AQ's ideology conflicted with Saddam's is irrelevant. There are a lot of people in our military and government who posess confliciting ideologies, but up until recently, we always put the nation ahead of that.

Arabs will side with Arabs against the West, regardless their ideologies. They can get back to killing each other whenever they please.

 

[maineman]

What intelligence source? I don't see a link, nor an agency named. You're telling me Zawahiri stayed in a Bahgdad hospital and Saddam couldn't find him? Or are you trying to mix apples and oranges and use intelligence from when Zawahiri had an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq and try to blanket cover each and every time he was there?

OUR President (whether you like it or not) said Saddam was supporting terrorism; which, he most assuredly was. Unless you call paying money to families of suicide bombers something other than that.

Whether or not AQ's ideology conflicted with Saddam's is irrelevant. There are a lot of people in our military and government who posess confliciting ideologies, but up until recently, we always put the nation ahead of that.

Arabs will side with Arabs against the West, regardless their ideologies. They can get back to killing each other whenever they please.

Saddam saw AQ as HIS enemy. He would no more give them weapons than he would fly. ANd supporting palestinian nationalists is not the same thing as supporting wahabbists. If we were to say that supporting palestinian paramilitary organizations was cause for America to invade, conquer and occupy a country, we'd have to go after after every single country in the Arab League AND Iran.


p.s. you're getting Zarqawi and Zawahiri mixed up....

and yes... I think it is quite possible for Zarqawi to be in and out of a Baghdad hospital before Saddam knew he was there. Think about how long the 9/11 hijackers trained in America and we never caught on.

 

[DeadCanDance]

What intelligence source? I don't see a link, nor an agency named. You're telling me Zawahiri stayed in a Bahgdad hospital and Saddam couldn't find him? Or are you trying to mix apples and oranges and use intelligence from when Zawahiri had an al Qaeda training camp in Iraq and try to blanket cover each and every time he was there?

Yes, that's what I'm telling you, and that's what our own intelligence agencies have concluded. Iraq may have been a dictatorship, but it wasn't a closed society like Stalinist North Korea. Thousands of arabs from across the middle east travel to iraq every day. From Jordan, from Syria, from Saudi Arabia. It wouldn't have been the crime of the century for Zarqawi to travel to a bagdad hospital under a fake passport or assumed name. The point is, Saddam was trying to track him down, and capture him because he considered zarqawi and his ilk enemies of the Bathiists.

OUR President (whether you like it or not) said Saddam was supporting terrorism; which, he most assuredly was. Unless you call paying money to families of suicide bombers something other than that.

Those are palestinian nationalists. Not global jihaddists. They've never attacked america. And israel is quite capable of defending itself.

Whether or not AQ's ideology conflicted with Saddam's is irrelevant. There are a lot of people in our military and government who posess confliciting ideologies, but up until recently, we always put the nation ahead of that.

Please don't compare democratic and republican rivalries, with shia versus sunni, or persian versus arab blood rivalries. You're making yourself look uninformed.

Arabs will side with Arabs against the West, regardless their ideologies. They can get back to killing each other whenever they please.

Its fool hardly to lump all muslims together, let alone all arabs together. Muslim and arab society has been split along national and sectarian fault lines for centuries by blood feuds , sectarian divisions, and national interests. A SMART president would exploit those divisions, and play them off against each other, to further our interests.

 

[Gunny]

You sir... are a true coward... And a disgrace to the USMC...

I don't agree with the Col's politics nor the way he expresses them, but this is uncalled for. I never met a 46 pilot that wouldn't charge Hell in his bird if he thought a Marine was in trouble and needed a ride.

And if you've ever SEEN or RIDDEN on a CH-46, you wouldn't consider questioning the bravery of the psycho flying it.

 

[maineman]

I don't agree with the Col's politics nor the way he expresses them, but this is uncalled for. I never met a 46 pilot that wouldn't charge Hell in his bird if he thought a Marine was in trouble and needed a ride.

And if you've ever SEEN or RIDDEN on a CH-46, you wouldn't consider questioning the bravery of the psycho flying it.

bravo Gunny!

 

[jillian]

bravo Gunny!

Ditto that!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Based on the tone of most of your posts, I will consider that a compliment. Calling someone a coward you have never met or served with is about what I have come to expect from you. FU

Please point out how I am a disgrace to the Corps besides the fact that I don't agree with you.

Your responses are typical of those who would whitewash this stupid fiasco that has killed REAL AMERICAN PATRIOTS for the frigging sake of money and power.

If you don't like to deal with the facts, you use the same shit and say we heard that all before. That may be true, but you and yours haven't done a thing about correcting it. So you can expect to continue to hear about it.

In your own words, stop your "whining"

PS: I don't remember US destroying the Taliban in Afghanistan. Aren't they doing pretty damn good right now attacking US? Maybe if we had concentrated on finishing that one instead of going into Iraq, we would have a stable Afghanistan today.

YET YOU have no problem calling Bush a coward. DID YOU SERVE WITH HIM? Have you met and spent time with him? You have called a Fighter pilot that flew the most dangerous aircraft in service with the air force at the time a coward. A man that flew said aircraft more often and longer then he was required to do. A man that VOLUNTEERED to serve in Vietnam.

Then you have the BALLS to make this statement .....

Calling someone a coward you have never met or served with is about what I have come to expect from you

Hippo crit is your new favorite phrase, try applying it to YOURSELF.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Some folks will never be able to admit that the war was based on a vast set of mis-statements, fear mongering, and outright lies. It would challenge the very core of their convictions.

And yet no one can actually prove anyone lied. I wonder why that is?

 

[jillian]

And yet no one can actually prove anyone lied. I wonder why that is?

So what was it, creative storytelling?