1 (http://www.iconservatives.org.uk/saddam_and_al_qaeda.htm)

2 (http://www.igl.net/wwwcurr/messages/611.shtml)

3 (http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/fr/fr010919_1_n.shtml)

4 (http://www.tolstoy.com/lonewacko/blog/archives/000285.html)

5 (http://www.aijac.org.au/updates/Mar-02/270302.html)

6 (http://www.foxmarketwire.com/story/0,2933,96825,00.html)

7 (http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/7/28/124731)

8 (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/nightline/DailyNews/alqaeda_iraq020927.html)

9 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110003069)

10 (http://www.theweeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp)

11 (http://www.e-claire.us/archives/000372.html)

:black helicopters:

Originally posted by Mo
:black helicopters:


I am suffering from Axisofevil Fatigue.

that sure is a lot of links,some of them are even non-partisan.

I wonder why the Bush government doesn't tout them like you are?will you answer that?

I do believe those links that claim Al-Queda is operating in Iraq now.Just as in Afghanistan they are moving into the power vacuum in an area rich with recruits.

I question the links from Israeli's,especially the one with the drawn out story about the Kurds being gassed,predictably it fails to even mention where the gas came from but does elude to Al-Queda ties.

There a couple links,like #9 which are just opinions.No actual facts only conclusions drawn from propaganda pieces and more than highly suspect sources.Prisoners of the Kurds for example,who will say anything to try and save their own lives any way they can.

I have to admit a cursory glance has shown a possibility of some kind of link.
I'll ask you again,since I don't think there is a logical answer,Why doesn't Bush use your,purportedly accurate,claim that there was without a doubt ties between Al-Queda and Saddam?
Did you find any government documents that support you opinion?

First let me say that #9, the link you mentioned, is from the wall street journal, and is a high quality review of known facts.


Second, there is a distinction between saying that AQ & Saddam have connections and saying that Saddam was behind the 9/11 plot.

9/11 was clearly an AQ plot and was actually a continuation of the 1993 attack.


Finally, I'm not Bush, so I can't answer for him. But I CAN speculate.

I would guess that:

a) Bush (by "Bush" I am really refering to his entire administration, not just him personally.) knows that the left is ready to pounce on everything he says or does and shred it to pieces. Absent a "smoking gun" he doesn't want to give them more fodder.

b) Bush said that they have no proof that Saddam was connected to 9/11, and by proof they obviously mean a smoking gun that even Ted Kennedy can't attack.
I'm sure they have MUCH more information than what 've presented.
In fact, I know for a fact that they do.
Jokes aside, I really DO have personal connections that I can't talk about.
You might say that I have friends in low places.
But I'd imagine that Bush doesn't see any practical benefit to trying to make the case that saddam & AQ had and continue to have ties. We already "own" Afghanistan and Iraq and most likely he'd prefer to conserve his political capital for more important issues.

Almost forgot...



Originally posted by R O
I question the links from Israeli's, especially the one with the drawn out story about the Kurds being gassed...



You're kidding, right?

nakona,
All I want to say is that the first two articles are right on the money!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The guys did their homework well!!!

1. Short version of article: Since the East German Stasi and KGB supported terror groups, then Iraq must have ties to terror. Based on that premise, I will choose less-than-ephemeral evidence over solid, corraborative evidence backed up by national intelligence estimates.

Nothing new. Conjecture.

2. Based on 'documents' found by Toronto Star reporter. 'Other reports have alleged bin Laden himself traveled to Iraq around that time, or at least planned to.' Czech intelligence officals say that Mohammed Atta 'may' have been in Prague to meet with Iraqis, giving it a 70% probability. The US Justice department gives it a 0% probability, since they were watching him closely in the United States at the time.

Not only are there no new facts, the article basically disproves it's title!

3. More words like 'believe, thinks, allege.' '"We’ve only got scraps of information, not the full picture," admits one intelligence source'

An arm of the Israeli intelligence service, not the Mossad, believes that Hizbollah may have had something to do with 9/11. There's a shocker.

4. A Blog entitled: Lonewacko: I Blogged Acrosss America. Given the content of the above, I didn't waste my time.

5. An Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council reprint of a New Yorker article. Unbelievably long. Apparently, a minor Iranian smuggler provided a link between al Qaeda and Iraq.

No evidence, story from a man tortured by Kurdish officials eager to say anything bad about Iraq.

6. Ummm, there's nothign here. But, I guess one quote that supports the case can be lifted: "Now, the British government, which promised to support the United States in Iraq, did not want the United States bringing in the question of Iraqi links to Palestinian terrorism. The Brits...the British Labour Party were basically supportive of the Palestinians and didn't want anything to color their view of the Palestinian movement. So, the Bush administration essentially acquiesced to the British and did not make the strenuous links that it should have made. "

So basically, the US just gave up making solid Iraq-al Qaeda links because the British like the Palestinians. Stupid opinion. This makes the US look like a slave to the British Labor Party. So we're willing to go to war in Iraq against the will of most Britons, yet we can't upset their view of the Palestinians? Doesn't add up.

7. A lawyer used the Czech Republic's assertions that Mohammed Atta went to the Iraqi embassy in Prague to sue for $64million. A judge said that if the Czech evidence were presented to a jury, they could find a material role between Iraq and 9/11.

This is a tort case making it's way through the courts, where it will be thrown out based on crappy evidence. Just a lawyer taking a chance to make big money.

8. Reprint of #5

9. What this article says is that Saddam and Uday Hussein said "The Tigers of the Gulf have shaken the Saudi throne and made Washington tremble." The article goes on with more propaganda put out by Uday about how he admires al Qaeda, how Iraq should get anthrax, etc. This is not evidence. Why is this link posted? No wonder WSJ put it in their OPINION JOURNAL section. :shaking: It's not news, that's why. :rolleyes:

10. Rehash of #5, which again is refuted by EXTENSIVE US JUSTICE DEPARTMENT EVIDENCE about Mohammed Atta. This story broke in the national news, was hashed over and rehashed, and it's dead. DEAD I SAY!!! NAKONA, NO MORE OF THIS BULLSHIT STORY!!! For fawk's sake. :rolleyes:

11. More info about the Boeing 707 south of Baghdad, and al Zwahiri meeting with Iraqi officals. Really, if those two pieces could just be substantiated, I'd change my mind. But there's nothing new here. A lot of conjecture that the Bush Administration has been wise to leave alone, unless they pick up any more bullshit points.

12. I know there was no 12th link, but I want my 40 minutes back.

Originally posted by rusted

3. More words like 'believe, thinks, allege.' '"We’ve only got scraps of information, not the full picture," admits one intelligence source'

An arm of the Israeli intelligence service, not the Mossad, believes that Hizbollah may have had something to do with 9/11. There's a shocker.




#3 is Janes. A well respected and reliable source, which is why those words are used ;) Come awn :D

Well I think people can read those links for themselves.


More importantly, I was waiting for your post, although I frankly expected Curtis would be the one to make it.


In short, the reason I posted those links was NOT to demonstrate that AQ and Saddam had ties.

Nobody in their right mind thinks they didn't.


The REAL reason I posted those links was to draw out a reaction like yours, which proves my thesis; that some people are so blinded by ideology that it doesn't matter WHAT you say or do or present.

These people are determined to be in complete denial of reality and nothing is going to get through, no matter what you do.


Thank you for proving my thesis.

Originally posted by mike



#3 is Janes. A well respected and reliable source, which is why those words are used ;) Come awn :D

It's a reprint of a foreign article. It's good journalism for Jane's to keep tabs of ongoing controversies, while distancing itself from the bullshit. Which is why it remains Jane's and not The New York Post. Oh, the title of the article.

"Who did it? Foreign Report presents an alternative view"

Now, if Jane's was willing to stake it's reputation and take ownership, that's a different story. So, thanks for backing me up on the that point. :D ;)

This is how I picture you guys...



http://www.baghdadbob.com/images/donothotlink.jpg (http://www.baghdadbob.com/)

NO! There are never connection, Iraq & Bin Laden! Lies! All Lies!

And you are not reading this! No!

Originally posted by nakona
This is how I picture you guys...



http://www.baghdadbob.com/images/donothotlink.jpg (http://www.baghdadbob.com/)

NO! There are never connection, Iraq & Bin Laden! Lies! All Lies!

And you are not reading this! No!

Actually you posted about 3 pieces of information coming from the same, exact sources. You had 3 pure conjecure and/or op/ed pieces. #11 was not bad, but again, that's an old story and I think if there's a provable terrorism/Iraq link, that will be the link.

More lies and distortions.
But, like I said, people can read the links for themselves. They don't need you to interpret.

Not that it matters. I have CLEARLY demonstrated that you've already made up your mind and wont be swayed by mere facts.

Originally posted by nakona
More lies and distortions.
But, like I said, people can read the links for themselves. They don't need you to interpret.

Not that it matters. I have CLEARLY demonstrated that you've already made up your mind and wont be swayed by mere facts.

Well, here's your chance.

One recurring story was the criminal smuggler in Kurdish custody. Let's see something come of that. Keep an eye on that story, and before it breaks let me know and I'll change my mind and state it here.

Zwahiri: Same deal. If something NEW comes up about him, let me know and I'll publicly change my opinion.

In any case, regarding Bush's statements about Iraq, this is all irrelevant. His own intelligence agencies told him there WAS no threat, yet he continued to base his actions on the premise. That makes his statements a lie. There was no evidence of an Iraqi/al Qaeda link before the war. There was no evidence of extant WMD.

Any new info won't change that, but it'll make Bush look better and I like that. Of course, if we don't have to defeat wacko Gore in '04, then I have less qualms about Bush losing office. :shrug:

If there was actual proof of ties then the Bush government would have used that info. as the best reason to invade Iraq.Since there isn't any other than conjecture and wholy unreliable secondhand information they chose the WMD route.

Originally posted by rusted


Well, here's your chance.

One recurring story was the criminal smuggler in Kurdish custody. Let's see something come of that. Keep an eye on that story, and before it breaks let me know and I'll change my mind and state it here.

Zwahiri: Same deal. If something NEW comes up about him, let me know and I'll publicly change my opinion.

In any case, regarding Bush's statements about Iraq, this is all irrelevant. His own intelligence agencies told him there WAS no threat, yet he continued to base his actions on the premise. That makes his statements a lie. There was no evidence of an Iraqi/al Qaeda link before the war. There was no evidence of extant WMD.

Any new info won't change that, but it'll make Bush look better and I like that. Of course, if we don't have to defeat wacko Gore in '04, then I have less qualms about Bush losing office. :shrug:

Furthermore, existing intelligence backs up my assertions before the invasion, and in fact the CIA report could have been lifted from my very posts here:

An invasion of Iraq was far more dangerous than leaving Hussein in power.

*yawn*

AND If there was proof why did Bush go on National T.V. and state there was "no clear evidence of an Iraq / Al-Queda link"? (I think thats the correct quote I'm going off memory.)

Originally posted by DEnd
AND If there was proof why did Bush go on National T.V. and state there was "no clear evidence of an Iraq / Al-Queda link"? (I think thats the correct quote I'm going off memory.)


That's not what he said.

He said they didn't have any evidence that saddam was directly connected to 9/11.

Rusted - I have to agree with Nakona here... you have already made up your mind about this, and you know it.

BTW - Condoleezza Rice says there is enough proof:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-9oct2003-15.htm

ok I got my quote wrong. But it still proves my point if there was no evidence of a direct connect to 9/11 then there is no evidence of a direct connection to Al-Queda. As direct evidence of a link to Al-Queda (at least prior to 9/11) is a direct connection to 9/11.

And an interesting theory on why Saddam dodged the truth about WMD:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=7261

Originally posted by DEnd
ok I got my quote wrong. But it still proves my point if there was no evidence of a direct connect to 9/11 then there is no evidence of a direct connection to Al-Queda. As direct evidence of a link to Al-Queda (at least prior to 9/11) is a direct connection to 9/11.


Are you serious? :shaking:

So you think lack of proof connecting Iraq to ONE terrorist act, means Iraq has no connection to that terrorist group at all?


Mmmmmmkay :rolleyes:

Originally posted by DRM
BTW - Condoleezza Rice says there is enough proof:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-9oct2003-15.htm

So the inspection teams that were on site for months say there is no "smoking gun" but she "claims" that there is and your just going to accept what she says over the actual inspectors?

Out of character for a guy who usually wants "proof":flipoff2:

Now you've got ME agreeing with DRM.

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by DRM



Are you serious? :shaking:

So you think lack of proof connecting Iraq to ONE terrorist act, means Iraq has no connection to that terrorist group at all?


Mmmmmmkay :rolleyes:

ok try to follow this line of reasoning here...

any pre 9/11 support of Al-Queda directly contributed to 9/11.

Originally posted by R O


So the inspection teams that were on site for months say there is no "smoking gun" but she "claims" that there is and your just going to accept what she says over the actual inspectors?




Well, seeing as how I've READ the report, your reply to DRM can only mean one of two things:

1) You're full of shit and you've never read the report.

2) You're an idiot.

Originally posted by DEnd


ok try to follow this line of reasoning here...

any pre 9/11 support of Al-Queda directly contributed to 9/11.


:rolleyes:

Dend.....
Listen carefully...

The President said there is no proof that saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.

That has NOTHING to do with ANY of his OTHER activities.


Do you understand now?

Originally posted by nakona




Well, seeing as how I've READ the report, your reply to DRM can only mean one of two things:

1) You're full of shit and you've never read the report.

2) You're an idiot.

If I accepted your version of what was in the report I would be an idiot:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

From the White House Transcript of a press confrence on Jan 31, 2003:

Q One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030131-23.html

To me a direct link is pre 9/11 support of Al-Queda.

Originally posted by R O


If I accepted your version of what was in the report I would be an idiot:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Yet you seem content to accept OTHER PEOPLE's *opinion* of the report, simple because they align with what YOU ALREADY WANTED TO HEAR...


Are you seeing Nakona's point yet?

Dend -

If you're too dumb to notice that you cited an article from january to support a claim you are making about something the President said in september, then there's no point in talking to you.

No, I used that because I couldn't find a transcript of that press confrence, and that one said (basically) the same thing.

Originally posted by DRM
BTW - Condoleezza Rice says there is enough proof:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/weekly/newsnat-9oct2003-15.htm

See, this is not new evidence. This is Dr. Rice's opinion of the Kay report. Kay himself gave THREE options about WMD, none of which included undeniable proof that Hussein possessed them at the time of invasion.

Nothing in this thread is new. It's the same old stuff. There are intruiging possibilities, which I have outlined above. But until those possibilities pan out, there is no reason to believe the situation has changed. I don't make my mind up about situations, I perceive them. I perceive nothing different from a week or a year ago.

Originally posted by DRM
And an interesting theory on why Saddam dodged the truth about WMD:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=7261

I do believe Kay himself, or perhaps Blix, floated this theory in the media a week ago. It makes sense, if we don't end up finding evidence.

Originally posted by rusted

Kay himself gave THREE options about WMD, none of which included undeniable proof that Hussein possessed them at the time of invasion.


Kay himself said that people who go around saying this either didn't read his report or didn't understand it.


You're busted, rusted.

It's over.

Rob, good job on the links. I was reading them until I saw you replied. Heck the first one alone doesn't even say anything about a link between Iraq and Al Qeada. It just goes on about how the Iraqi press and the Husseins "admired" the way of Al Qeada. Remember, Arnold said he admired Hitler in some ways. Going on Nakona's *PROOF* of evidence that means Arnold is Hitler's son or something :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'll just use words already said here to make a point:

some people are so blinded by ideology that it doesn't matter WHAT you say or do or present.

These people are determined to be in complete denial of reality and nothing is going to get through, no matter what you do.


I can also say:

More lies and distortions.
But, like I said, people can read the links for themselves. They don't need you to interpret.

Not that it matters. I have CLEARLY demonstrated that you've already made up your mind and wont be swayed by mere facts.

Or:

you have already made up your mind about this, and you know it.

It goes both ways.

Now, here's is the ironic part

Rob, RO and I can post links to the State Department, the CIA, the White House, etc. that CLEARLY state there is NO evidence of a link between PREWAR Saddam and Al Qeada, and we are told we're wrong because Janes, the Wall Street Journal and weblogs CONJECTURE there is a link. Hmmmmm . . . I wonder which of these sources would actually know more?

Just an aside. "No evidence" doesn't mean there aren't any, also doesn't mean they never existed or they weren't being worked on. Which, I believe most of you can agree with, given the arguements I've seen you all proliferate. Is there a smoking gun? No. Could there be one sooner or later? It's possible, they've found migs, which are big. WMD's, especially chem and bio are tiny tiny. And also FWIW Jane's has been accepted more than the word of the worlds govts for years ;)

Originally posted by Curtis
you have already made up your mind about this, and you know it.


Curtis, that was a specific comment directed at a specific person, not intended as a general comment. And yes, it *can* be applied to any side (as "both" indocated there are only 2 sides - not so).

Personally, I think Nakona is close to the same position, but he claims to be holding bck some knowledge, and for that - at least - I will give him the benefit of the doubt and take a more "wait and see" attitude with what he has said.

RO and Rusted - both have made it clear their feelings, and have not waiverd a bit since they started. IMHO - their unwaivering insistance that they know all there is to know turns me sour on their opinion on this.

You Curtis - you are sticking to your guns, but there is enough hawk in you that even though you don't *think* there are WMD, if you saw credible evidence to the contrary I know you would not hesitate to adjust your view accordingly.

Me - I am stuck somewhere in the middle. Notice I have posted links from all sides in these threads. I know what I *think* is going on, but I know that I *KNOW* I don't have all the answers, and time is the only cure for that. There are some others hre with a similar view as mine, which - again, IMHO - I consider to be the more reasonable and realistic view.

Anyway - that's my story and I'm sticking to it :p

Mike, I know what you are saying, and I am sure that if you look back at my posts you will see I have always agreed Saddam *HAD* WMD's and that he did support some terrorist groups like Hezbolla. However, I agree with Hans Blix and most foreign governments that Iraq did not have WMD's when we invaded and that Saddam had no ties with AQ (hell, Osama wanted Saddam killed fer christs sake)

Now, did Saddam *want* WMDs? Sure. What world leader doesn't?
Were there scientists in Iraq who knew how to make WMDs? Sure. They didn't all evaporate after 1991 or leave the country. Believe it or not most Iraqis are just as proud to be Iraqi as we are American.
Did Saddam take pleasure in bad things that happened to the US? Sure. He hated the US.
However, we were told he HAD WMDs and was an immenent threat to the USA and the WMDs could be ready to use and unleashed in 45 minutes. THOSE claims are FALSE and THOSE claims are the ones I've ALWAYS disputed and taken issue with.

David, I agree with what you are saying ;)

Curtis and others - I will sum it up like this:


If *I* were leader of Iraq, and I had WMD...


I would NOT have destroyed them, and I would have kept working on them, and trying to advance my research.



Now, apply that same question as if *you* were the leader of Iraq...


And I am quite sure NONE of us in this exchange are anywhere NEAR the merciless, deviant, and power-hungry levels as Saddam... So are you telling me he would back down where you or I would push forward?

Sorry guys - that just defies logic as I see it... and that is just how I feel...

Originally posted by DRM
RO and Rusted - both have made it clear their feelings, and have not waiverd a bit since they started. IMHO - their unwaivering insistance that they know all there is to know turns me sour on their opinion on this.


Incorrect. I merely pointed out that the links presented in this thread didn't contain any new evidence.

*MY* opinion of WMD and terrorism have nothing to do with it.

It's not me that needs convincing anyway. It's the electorate and world opinion that count.

It is true that I *feel* more threatened by the EEOC, BLM, EPA, Kyoto Treaty, gun-controllers, and the radical left than I feel threatened by terrorists and Saddam Hussein. Regardless of either of them, I *KNOW* the forces I listed are trying to hurt me, and I feel their pain every day. What nakona just posted didn't make me feel threatened by Hussein at all.

Originally posted by DRM
Curtis and others - I will sum it up like this:

If *I* were leader of Iraq, and I had WMD...
I would NOT have destroyed them, and I would have kept working on them, and trying to advance my research.

Now, apply that same question as if *you* were the leader of Iraq...

And I am quite sure NONE of us in this exchange are anywhere NEAR the merciless, deviant, and power-hungry levels as Saddam... So are you telling me he would back down where you or I would push forward?

Sorry guys - that just defies logic as I see it... and that is just how I feel...

Okay, I'll play.

I am Saddam and was just SPANKED hard in 1991 and left to live ONLY if I disarm. "Okay guys. Gather around and tell me what we need to do to hide these programs."
"Well leader there will be leaks and people will find out no matter how hard we try to hide them."
"We'll just kill their children so everyone is afraid."
"But sir. If there is ONE leak we are done for and you will be killed."
"Damn. That's no good." Long thoughtful look. "How's about this. Get the lawyers in hear and have them go over these treaties with a fine tooth comb. I want to know EVERY was we can adhere to the demnads yet still examine WMD's because I want them."
Ahh, loop-holes are found. The UN is toyed with as long as can be (until 1998) and "then we get rid of the stuff they KNOW we have. All these thoughts, plans and desires will remain hidden."

That's where I think Kay and his team stepped in. Everything in his report has to do with desire and a clandestine stalled plan to gather WMDs.

Both sides can claim victory now. No WMD's were found. Yes, we found WMD programs and possible dual-use precursers. (Damn my mind just went blank) Anyway, those tonnes of beans that were found. One side says tey are the precursers to VX nerve (or Sarin) gas. The other side says they're for food. Who's right? I'd say the evidence shows they were used for food since they had become a staple of the Iraqi diet under the food for oil program.

Anyway, that's the way I see it going down in Saddam's shoes.

If i was Hussein, and th U.S. and British forces were invading my country to overthrow me, i would unleash every type of weapon that i had in my arsenal.
Given his background for indiscriminate killing, i believe that to be a logical action that he would take.
Would you guys agree? (I'm asking both sides on this one.)


And after reading DRM's posts, i think i am kinda inline with his thinking (which is scary BTW :eek: :eek: ) except that he is just on the opposit side of the fence. I think we are closer to the middle than others though. ;)

DRM -

Forget what I may or may not know.


Based ONLY on public information, it's WAY easy to find evidence on the saddam/AQ connection.

I posted eleven links, I could have posted one HUNDRED and eleven. It just gets ridiculous after a while.


The whole point of the post was to demonstrate that those guys have their minds made up and wont be swayed by inconvenient things like facts or reality.

And I demonstrated it quite conclusively.


So basically, they don't matter anymore. They are the equivilant of "flat-earthers"

Originally posted by DRM


Yet you seem content to accept OTHER PEOPLE's *opinion* of the report, simple because they align with what YOU ALREADY WANTED TO HEAR...


Are you seeing Nakona's point yet?

ummmm yah,that's right but what exactly is the point of it? I looked at as much relative information(both sides) and came to my own conclusion long ago.Of course I agree with others opinions that are of the same ilk.

What does that have to do with you accepting ,at face value Rices's personal opinion over that of the inspection teams that were there?
I suppose that if I had supplied just one link and was unwilling to accept any others he may have had a point.

Were exactly are you coming from anyway?do you really not accept the report from the inspectors?
It's not like I'm the one who is content to accept one persons opinion over the inspection teams findings.I do accept their findings,so where do you get these "other people" that you accuse me of basing my opinion on?

It's not like I'm the one who's ready to accept some politician's opinion that the inspection teams are wrong:flipoff2:

Originally posted by nakona



Kay himself said that people who go around saying this either didn't read his report or didn't understand it.


You're busted, rusted.

It's over.

What he said was that people who will use the failure to find WMD in this time period to terminate the search or draw conclusions that there aren't any are wrong. He has several leads that still need to be investigated.

Kay never said people who use the report saying that he hasn't found any yet WMD to say that he hasn't found any WMD yet are wrong. :laughing: :rolleyes: Now THAT outta piss you off on syntax alone!

Originally posted by R O
What does that have to do with you accepting ,at face value Rices's personal opinion over that of the inspection teams that were there?
I suppose that if I had supplied just one link and was unwilling to accept any others he may have had a point.

Were exactly are you coming from anyway?do you really not accept the report from the inspectors?
It's not like I'm the one who is content to accept one persons opinion over the inspection teams findings.I do accept their findings,so where do you get these "other people" that you accuse me of basing my opinion on?

It's not like I'm the one who's ready to accept some politician's opinion that the inspection teams are wrong:flipoff2:

RO, I will try to make this clear for you:

1. My posting of Rice's opinion does not eman I simply accept it at face value. Notice I also posted a link to an alternate theory - so try to pay attention here.

2. Again, evidence you are not paying attention is your claim that I am accepting ANYONE's opinion. Read my replies, please.

3. I challenge you to actually READ the report. Until then, you are doing EXACTLY what you are chiding me about: accepting someone;s opinion about the report, as if that is the report ITSELF (and we all know, it is NOT).

BTW - I have NOT read the report (tried to find it online yesterday though, to no avail). But then again, I am not trying to use the report as evidence of something, which is what yo are doing - but are ACTUALLY sing OPINIONS about the report as your proof. READ IT if you intend to use it (but I am betting you will NOT read it).

Originally posted by rusted
What he said was that people who will use the failure to find WMD in this time period to terminate the search or draw conclusions that there aren't any are wrong. He has several leads that still need to be investigated.


Rusted, go do a http://news.google.com search for "WMD Kay Report" and see what you find... Story after story of people doing EXACTLY that... Just like you have seen on TV too...

Originally posted by DEnd
ok I got my quote wrong. But it still proves my point if there was no evidence of a direct connect to 9/11 then there is no evidence of a direct connection to Al-Queda. As direct evidence of a link to Al-Queda (at least prior to 9/11) is a direct connection to 9/11.

correct

There seems to be little or no ideology involved with this thread besides nakona's.

There is no new information here.

I'd have to agree with the mock threads about this one. Dead horse until we get some new evidence or a final report from Kay.

But it's so much fun watching the feathers ruffle :cow:

Originally posted by rusted
Dead horse until we get some new evidence or a final report from Kay.


So have you read Kay's report?

Originally posted by DRM



So have you read Kay's report?

I read the entire content of nakona's post here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html).

Yes, I read the entire thing.

Originally posted by rusted


I read the entire content of nakona's post here (http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html).

Yes, I read the entire thing.

That seems to be his verbal comments, not the report itself... Have you read the report?

Also - from reading the link text - do you honestly still think Iraq has no WMD program? :confused:

Originally posted by DRM


That seems to be his verbal comments, not the report itself... Have you read the report?

Also - from reading the link text - do you honestly still think Iraq has no WMD program? :confused:

*These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program.

*, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.

*We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort.

*Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.

*we have not yet found evidence to confirm pre-war reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use CW against Coalition forces.


What I want YOU to do is this: You tell me right now that Iraq had stores of WMD and was about to use them on the United States. Therefore, we had to invade to prevent his imminent attack. Right?

Originally posted by DRM


That seems to be his verbal comments, not the report itself... Have you read the report?

Also - from reading the link text - do you honestly still think Iraq has no WMD program? :confused:

These are not verbal comments, this is testimony before Congress. It's legal testimony.

What Kay DID say was this: If there was WMD present in Iraq before the war, it left the country when we invaded, in the hands of people not neccessarily loyal to the regime.

Which is EXACTLY what I said before the war. I said, specifically, that if there were WMD, then the best way for al Qaeda to acquire them would be for us to invade and create a brief period of anarchy. Therefore, a direct invastion WOULD NOT SERVE OUR STATED INTENTION OF PROTECTING OURSELVES FROM A TERRORIST ATTACK BY WMD.

I *will* be borne out on this, and Kay lends me hope that I was not wrong. This is a simple conclusion I drew from reading about war history. Nothing to do with ideology, simple human behavior.

Without the strong evidence that Saddam actually had WMD and was preparing to give them to terrorists about to attack the US, we could only hurt ourselves with an invasion. Kay backs me up. :D

Please, someone remember what I said before the war started. Gary, mike, DRM *and* nakona all were involved in threads where I stated this.

So Rob, just exactly how exicted are you that folks are still tehre, driving over landmines and being attacked sporatically by terrorists because it proves you're right? ;)

Originally posted by mike
So Rob, just exactly how exicted are you that folks are still tehre, driving over landmines and being attacked sporatically by terrorists because it proves you're right? ;)

As you will remember from previous posts about that exact subject, I'm pretty angry about it. I have already made specific statements to that effect.

What I'm saying Rob is watch the gloating. Sooner or later that's what it'll look like. Thats all :D



IYRC at the time, I said it was bad timing although needed to be done, for more reasons than just WMD. :p

So where are all theses WMDs? They don't exist. They never did.

Originally posted by Bastid
So where are all theses WMDs? They don't exist. They never did.

That's a completely ignorant statement. I got friends suffering from the side effects of WMD's Saddam "never possessed" fuck wad. You can also tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians he gassed

Rusted - I thought it was a simple question, have you read the REPORT, not his testimnoy?

Originally posted by mike
What I'm saying Rob is watch the gloating. Sooner or later that's what it'll look like. Thats all :D



IYRC at the time, I said it was bad timing although needed to be done, for more reasons than just WMD. :p

I have to thank you for bringing it up. Because those who would selectively remember PBB history might actually think I am gloating over those deaths. Which is why I state on regular occassions things that *I* beleive should be assumed. LIke I have my nation's best interests in mind, or that I support my fellow future honorably discharged veterans.

Originally posted by mike


That's a completely ignorant statement. I got friends suffering from the side effects of WMD's Saddam "never possessed" fuck wad. You can also tell that to the Kurds and the Iranians he gassed

I think you have Saddams mystery WMDs confused with the depleted uranium and voodoo immunizations, thank you US Government.

Originally posted by rusted


*These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program.

*, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.

*We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort.

*Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.

*we have not yet found evidence to confirm pre-war reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use CW against Coalition forces.


You wanna pull quotes?

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war..."


You seem to be trying (as was already pointed out, and by your use of quotes pulled to suit your needs) to use this report in just that way. What say ye? :confused:

Originally posted by Bastid


I think you have Saddams mystery WMDs confused with the depleted uranium and voodoo immunizations, thank you US Government.


I'd really like to see you educate me on the realities of the events of the summer of 90 through the spring of 91. I mean I wouldn't know a fucking thing about it, I didn't have much access to CNN. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by mike



I'd really like to see you educate me on the realities of the events of the summer of 90 through the spring of 91. I mean I wouldn't know a fucking thing about it, I didn't have much access to CNN. :rolleyes:


Well its likely you weren't even old enough to be there. I was there. I know. so no..... to use your words, you don't know a fucking thing about it.

Originally posted by DRM



You wanna pull quotes?

"We have not yet found stocks of weapons, but we are not yet at the point where we can say definitively either that such weapon stocks do not exist or that they existed before the war..."


You seem to be trying (as was already pointed out, and by your use of quotes pulled to suit your needs) to use this report in just that way. What say ye? :confused:

Originally posted by rusted


What he said was that people who will use the failure to find WMD in this time period to terminate the search or draw conclusions that there aren't any are wrong. He has several leads that still need to be investigated.


I already posted that David. There is no 'seem' about it here. I am NOT using the report in an indeological sense, as I have already stated what you just quoted. Thank you for making that point perfectly clear. :D

Originally posted by mike
So Rob, just exactly how exicted are you that folks are still tehre, driving over landmines and being attacked sporatically by terrorists because it proves you're right? ;)


they are not being attacked by terrorists sporadically, they are being attacked by guerillas sporadically. they are being attacked by people defending their land the way we should defend ours. they are being attacked because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. iraq was no threat, it had no wmd's. neither does iran and afghanistan was literally a wasteland before we bombed the crap out of it, so they sure as hell didn't have many weapons at all.

a pipeline needed to go through afg, so now it will......

the oil to fill the pipeline needed to be freed from a money grubbing dictator, so now it is............

the only way to accomplish that would be to get everybody behind you like blind loyalists, and so they did, how? by knocking down half of NYC

the romans did the same, hitler did the same, we've done the same before.

the romans burned wood housing and blamed it on someone else

hitler burned the reichstag and blamed it on communists and went after them with a fury

pearl harbor was warned of and still, it happened

9-11 was warned about and took long enough to complete that it almost goes without saying that it could have been stopped and/or prevented, but for the fact that it would boil the blood of the american to rally behind a quest for vengeance against any enemy.


"in the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. when his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot" -Mark Twain

Originally posted by Bastid



Well its likely you weren't even old enough to be there. I was there. I know. so no..... to use your words, you don't know a fucking thing about it.


So I'm assuming you never knew about hte CW depot that was blown with friendlies downwind, or the fact that I got ex infantry and scout friends who never handled DU rounds that have GWS. yeah, it was all depleted uranium. Yeppers, that's it. 100% And he never gassed the Kurds, the Iranians and never EVER possessed anything that could be considered a WMD :rolleyes: Go home troll

Originally posted by fledgling666



they are not being attacked by terrorists sporadically, they are being attacked by guerillas sporadically.


That definition is determined by what side you're on ;)

Originally posted by mike



So I'm assuming you never knew about hte CW depot that was blown with friendlies downwind, or the fact that I got ex infantry and scout friends who never handled DU rounds that have GWS. yeah, it was all depleted uranium. Yeppers, that's it. 100% And he never gassed the Kurds, the Iranians and never EVER possessed anything that could be considered a WMD :rolleyes: Go home troll

Sorry kiddo. You implied he gassed US.... he didn't. Never has.... so stop showboating your crippled friends on the internet.

Originally posted by rusted




I already posted that David. There is no 'seem' about it here. I am NOT using the report in an indeological sense, as I have already stated what you just quoted. Thank you for making that point perfectly clear. :D

Sorry Rob, you ARE using the report to support your views... All dancing and dodging aside :p

Originally posted by fledgling666



they are not being attacked by terrorists sporadically, they are being attacked by guerillas sporadically. they are being attacked by people defending their land the way we should defend ours. they are being attacked because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. iraq was no threat, it had no wmd's. neither does iran and afghanistan was literally a wasteland before we bombed the crap out of it, so they sure as hell didn't have many weapons at all.

a pipeline needed to go through afg, so now it will......

the oil to fill the pipeline needed to be freed from a money grubbing dictator, so now it is............

the only way to accomplish that would be to get everybody behind you like blind loyalists, and so they did, how? by knocking down half of NYC

the romans did the same, hitler did the same, we've done the same before.

the romans burned wood housing and blamed it on someone else

hitler burned the reichstag and blamed it on communists and went after them with a fury

pearl harbor was warned of and still, it happened

9-11 was warned about and took long enough to complete that it almost goes without saying that it could have been stopped and/or prevented, but for the fact that it would boil the blood of the american to rally behind a quest for vengeance against any enemy.


"in the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. when his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot" -Mark Twain


BAAWWHAHAHAHAHAHA

That has to be THE stupidist thing I've EVER seen anyone post here. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Originally posted by mike
What I'm saying Rob is watch the gloating. Sooner or later that's what it'll look like. Thats all :D



IYRC at the time, I said it was bad timing although needed to be done, for more reasons than just WMD. :p

If that was your intention, you would have used a PM. Instead you posted it on the board to make a point.

Originally posted by DRM


Sorry Rob, you ARE using the report to support your views... All dancing and dodging aside :p

Oh, yes, I am using Kay's testimony before Congress to support my view. You are simply mistaken on what my view is, it seems.

I have NOT read Kay's report, I can't even find it? :confused:

I have read Kay's testimony before Congress.

My view is that the war will cause the US more damage than if we had taken another course of action at the time.

I seriously don't know how to make myself any clearer. At this point, it would seem that people are actually looking for targets instead of reading what I say, said, or am saying. You posted a quote and said I selectively left that out, when in fact I specifically stated that very quote earlier in the thread.

This indicates to me that you're not reading what I'm saying, which would exlain your mistaken perception of what I'm doing here.

Originally posted by rusted


If that was your intention, you would have used a PM. Instead you posted it on the board to make a point.


Yep, you're right. Was completely uncalled for and I appologize.

Originally posted by Bastid


Sorry kiddo. You implied he gassed US.... he didn't. Never has.... so stop showboating your crippled friends on the internet.


I call bullshit.

I want to know what unit you were in, where & when you did basic, your rank, and your FULL MOS.

Originally posted by rusted
This indicates to me that you're not reading what I'm saying, which would exlain your mistaken perception of what I'm doing here.

Or, maybe you look around, and see that twice in this thread you have said different people are mininterpreting you, and wonder if the problem lies with the clarity of your own writings here? Just keep it in mind Rusted...

Originally posted by Bastid


Sorry kiddo. You implied he gassed US.... he didn't. Never has.... so stop showboating your crippled friends on the internet.


I call bullshit.

I want to know what unit you were in, where & when you did basic, your rank, and your FULL MOS.

Originally posted by DRM


Or, maybe you look around, and see that twice in this thread you have said different people are mininterpreting you, and wonder if the problem lies with the clarity of your own writings here? Just keep it in mind Rusted...

Or, it is the curse of every genius to be misunderstood. :D



































:flipoff2:

Originally posted by rusted


Or, it is the curse of every genius to be misunderstood. :D

:flipoff2:


So what's YOU'RE excuse? :flipoff2:

Originally posted by nakona



I call bullshit.

I want to know what unit you were in, where & when you did basic, your rank, and your FULL MOS.

Coming from a guy who couldn't make it thru USA basic training, the only bullshit is coming from your underaged mouth kiddo.

Originally posted by Bastid


Coming from a guy who couldn't make it thru USA basic training, the only bullshit is coming from your underaged mouth kiddo.

My neighbor uses the term kiddo. But of course he is an interior designer, with pink flamingos on his lawn who uses it directed at his boyfriend..... but none the less he uses it.

Originally posted by ChevyCaGal


My neighbor uses the term kiddo. But of course he is an interior designer, with pink flamingos on his lawn who uses it directed at his boyfriend..... but none the less he uses it.

whatever you say kiddo ;)

Well, this thread sure went to shit when these other guys showed up. With "friends" like them arguing on my side, I think I'll start believing everything Nakona posts instead :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Curtis
...I'll start believing everything Nakona posts ...


Smartest thing you've said all day. :flipoff2:

Originally posted by SanDiegoCJ



BAAWWHAHAHAHAHAHA

That has to be THE stupidist thing I've EVER seen anyone post here. :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:


won't be so funny some day.

Originally posted by Bastid
So where are all theses WMDs? They don't exist. They never did.

I'm going to bury a quarter in death valley.

I'll only bury it about 6" in teh dirt, to make it easy on you.


I give you 1 year to find it.



If you don't find it, does that mean it doesn't exist?

Originally posted by rusted


*These initiatives did not in-and-of themselves constitute a resumption of the nuclear weapons program.

*, to date we have not uncovered evidence that Iraq undertook significant post-1998 steps to actually build nuclear weapons or produce fissile material.

*We have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile BW production effort.

*Multiple sources with varied access and reliability have told ISG that Iraq did not have a large, ongoing, centrally controlled CW program after 1991. Information found to date suggests that Iraq's large-scale capability to develop, produce, and fill new CW munitions was reduced - if not entirely destroyed - during Operations Desert Storm and Desert Fox, 13 years of UN sanctions and UN inspections.

*we have not yet found evidence to confirm pre-war reporting that Iraqi military units were prepared to use CW against Coalition forces.


What I want YOU to do is this: You tell me right now that Iraq had stores of WMD and was about to use them on the United States. Therefore, we had to invade to prevent his imminent attack. Right?

You know what I read in this?

1) Iraq took SOME steps in establishing a nuclear program.

2) Iraq had SOME level of CW program going on.

But, I guess your just a-ok with that.

To me, this has nothing to do with his present risk to the U.S. He was breaking his agreement after the Gulf War. The UN did shit about it, so we stepped in. I would go so far as to say Hans Blix KNEW about it but was "ok" with it. Which is bullshit... rules are rules. Where did it say "no wmd's, but if you feeling like tinkering with a heath kit WMD thats ok"

Originally posted by fledgling666



won't be so funny some day.

:rolleyes: :shaking: :rolleyes:

Who let you back in here?

Originally posted by Sully


:rolleyes: :shaking: :rolleyes:

Who let you back in here?

:rolleyes: :shaking:
http://www.users.wineasy.se/ludde/pics/341.gif

Originally posted by Travis Waldher


I'm going to bury a quarter in death valley.

I'll only bury it about 6" in teh dirt, to make it easy on you.


I give you 1 year to find it.



If you don't find it, does that mean it doesn't exist?


with 150,000 people looking it shouldn't be too hard.

Originally posted by Sully


:rolleyes: :shaking: :rolleyes:

Who let you back in here?

nobody, door was wide open.

Originally posted by fledgling666



with 150,000 people looking it shouldn't be too hard.

150,000 looking for them? That shows how little you know, besides the fact that you dodged my comment, vs. trying to contest it.

Try closer to a few thousand at best. MOST of those troops are trying to maintain order, track down personel of interest, and do occasionally get tips on caches of weapons, but thus far has been conventional weapons.

Probably because Saddam didn't trust anyone with any of the sensitive stuff.

http://www.vendian.org/mncharity/dir3/iraq_map/

Thats how big Iraq is....


I'm done talking to you now... your too stupid to understand how daunting a task that is, even trying to find WMD's. Well.. either your too stupid, or you want us to fail SO badly that you don't want to see any other angle of the story other than the one you setup in your own mind.