Saddam and Al Queda - here's your direct ties :)

[CHARLESMANSON]

Smurphy-----this one's for you buddy....since you tried to mess with Manson yesterday..... :nono: ...it would be cool to get your input on this.

Since you liberals are still crying about your hero Saddam's overthrow and think there was never any ties between Saddam and Al Queda...this Bud's for you----- :clap:

-----------------------------
A memorandum dated 10/27/03 was sent from Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith to Sens. Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller (chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee)

The 16-page memo comes from a variety of domestic and foreign agencies, the FBI, the Defnse Intell Agcy, the CIA, and the Natl' Security Agency. The evidence is detailed, conclusive, and corroborated by multiple sources.

The numbered passages in the memo contain straight, fact-based intelligence reporting, which in all the cases includes an evaluation of the credibility of the source.....remember that.

The relationship began shortly before the first Gulf War. Bin Laden sent "emissaries to Jordan in 1990 to meet with Iraqi government officials." In early 1991 "Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish a "partnership" with Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda." The outreach went in both directions..... According to a June 1993 CIA report cited in the memo, "Bin Laden wanted to expand his organization's capabilities through ties with Iraq."

Okay...so u liberals want a source???.....lol........cool.......The primary go-between throughout these early stages was Sudanese strongman Hassan al-Turabi....(yes...look it up and enjoy) ...He was a leading member of Al Queda. Numerous sources have confirmed this, just let me know if you want sources ok???........One defector reported that al-Turabi was "VERY instrumental" in arranging the Saddam-al Qaeda relationship. Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan, to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq. In return, Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors."

Here's just one such confirmation from the memo folks....................

4. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Iraqi deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Anyone want me to back this shit up just let me know ok???........I dare any liberal to challenge me on this one.......... :clap:


:bigear:

 

[kosar]

:welcome:

 

[smurphy]

I said "the Al Qaeda of 9/11". We all know Al Qaeda in general seeked relationships with Iraq, same with basically every nation in the Middle East. There was nothing special about Iraq in this sense. I guess we should be invading everybody, if the relationships you list are the standard.

Everything you list would explain, if anything, that we should have been going after countries like Saudi Arabia and Syria before Iraq. Much more affiliation with Al Qaeda.

Give me one real connection between Al Qaeda'a 9/11 operation (you know - the one that was the actual attack on the US - the one who's top perpertrator is still out there and nobody cares) and anything Iraq or Saddam. That connection is not there.

Look - it's all moot anyway. I try not to bring up "would haves" and "could haves". I'll let it all go if you do. Where we are now is where we are now. I want us to put every effort and spare no expense to complete the mission in Iraq at this point. It's always been about strategy with me - not a Liberal or Conservative argument. It's funny, if you think invading Iraq was a mistake - you are simply labeled a "Liberal", instead of perhaps just a person who didn't think was a good idea.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Kosar - if your little smiley holding a sign is the best you can come up with then I can only laugh. The truth is annoying isn't it?? You say it's "last week" but nobody in here has ever brought this particular info to the table and it's most certainly more valuable and informative than anything you've provided so far. - I give facts with sources and you give me a personal insult or a cartoon.

SMurphy - The Al Queda that attacked on 9-11 is the same Al Queda referenced at the top of my post........read it again buddy and wake up. As you can see the relationship dates way back 15yrs. *Weather or not Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 is totally irrellevant. That isn't even the point!! You keep sidestepping the issue. We went into Iraq for many reasons and the main reason was to overthrow what John Kerry and John Edwards both referred to as "a grave threat with WMDs that needs to be dealt with"..... AlQueda wasn't responsible for filling 400,000 mass graves and violating 22 UN resolutions and deceiving the weapons inspectors and firing anti aircraft ordinance at U.S. fighter jets patrolling the no-fly zones either, Saddam was. That doesn't mean we should have allowed Saddam to stay in power.

You guys are in flat-out DENIAL and it's funny to watch you back-pedal and try and squirm around all the evidence. Keep in mind I'm the one providing evidence and sources to back my shit up, not you. So far Murphy all of your comments have been nothing but "opinion" and my comments have been FACTS.

Now you say......... "I'll let it go if you do?" ...whatever man if you can't debate me I understand.

 

[smurphy]

I used to constantly present facts with all sorts of links and all that shit - and I would even weed out any "Liberal" sources But they were always ignored - so I simply don't do it anymore. We have differing opinions about what your facts mean. To me, they mean Iraq was no greater at all than any other nation in the ME regarding talks or connections or suppoosed ties with Al Qaeda. To this day - there is no connection between Iraq and 9-11. This is a fact. This is what I mean when I say "Al Qaeda of 9/11". This not backpedaling. You want backpedaling, just go through the timeline of stated reasons by the administration for invading Iraq.

I don't have the effort - and I really must be more productive, so I concede this argument, since it's moot anyway. It just goes round and round. Let's just be thorough in Iraq now - that's ALL THAT MATTERS.

So - you win. I'm on board. Let's shut up and go in for the winning score!

 

[kosar]

Kosar - if your little smiley holding a sign is the best you can come up with then I can only laugh. The truth is annoying isn't it?? You say it's "last week" but nobody in here has ever brought this particular info to the table and it's most certainly more valuable and informative than anything you've provided so far. - I give facts with sources and you give me a personal insult or a cartoon.

That information that you posted was reported two years ago. It's not exactly a 'scoop'.

Yes, there were a few sporadic meetings between Iraqi officials and Al-Q. That's been known forever and means absolutely nothing.

That was the best they could come up with after they (Rice, Cheney) made comments about 9/11 Iraqi connections. It was weak then and it's weak now.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Murph no prob bud....we shall both live another day to debate Thanks for being sensible instead of flippant (like some other losers in here lol)

Kosar how can you say Iraq-AlQueda meeting meant NOTHING!!!?? LOL...what do you think they were doing, sharing cake recipes? WAKE UP!!

there's nothing "weak" about all the info I posted. You're just downplaying it because you know I'm right. You make it sound like it was all "common knowledge" but I highly doubt you even knew who Hassan al-Turabi was.

Was it weak that.....
1. Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish a "partnership" with Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda?

Was it weak that....
2. Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq?

Was it weak that...
3. Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors?

Was it weak that....
4. Iraqi deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri met SEVERAL times in Sudan?

Was it weak that....
5. After 9-11, Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes?

Call it weak all you want Kosar....facts are facts. You can downplay them all you want most American's know better.

 

[spibble spab]

I can picture "Terror" from the fordham baldies saying
"now there you go again, hurtin our feelings"

 

[kosar]

There was no meaningful relationship between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Period. All they could dig up is what you cited above and yes, it's weak. As smurphy mentioned, compared to the other Middle Eastern countries, Iraq's ties with Al-Qaeda's were virtually non-existent. Fundamentalists and secular leaders aren't usually the best of friends, as was the case here.

 

[kosar]

I can picture "Terror" from the fordham baldies saying
"now there you go again, hurtin our feelings"

Oh wow, where have you been? Your Mansonesque garble has been missed.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Whatever Kosar....glad you so eloquently avoided and ignored my 5 questions posted to you.

You just totally ignore the evidence and just write it all off by saying "There was no meaningful relationship. Period."

.....you're like the Iraqi official who stood there at a press conference while Baghdad was being bombed to smitherines and said "We are not under U.S. attack....the American's are on the run!!!"....

lol...just forget my 5 questions...I didn't expect an educated answer from you anyways

 

[spibble spab]

missed you too kosar. I can only take this messageboard in small
doses. Kinda like PCP

 

[kosar]

Was it weak that.....
1. Iraq sought Sudan's assistance to establish a "partnership" with Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda?

Sought? he also 'sought' a super raygun. Yes, weak.

Was it weak that....
2. Iraq sought al Qaeda influence through its connections with Afghanistan to facilitate the transshipment of proscribed weapons and equipment to Iraq?

Sought? Weak.

Was it weak that...
3. Iraq provided al Qaeda with training and instructors?

I think we found one training camp in Northern Iraq that at first we tried to attribute to Al-Qaeda, but failed to substantiate it and the story faded away. Weak.

Was it weak that....
4. Iraqi deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri met SEVERAL times in Sudan?

Yes, extremely weak.

Was it weak that....
5. After 9-11, Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes?

Vague and weak.

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Kosar- semantics is the best argument you can come up with??? You didnt even answer the questions!!!! LOL You didn't even address the content. You just let it go in one ear and out the other and typed "weak"....lol....You know what just forget it, I don't think you're sharp enough for this debate. This has been a patern with you so I don't even know why I bother.

None of this is weak at all. If it was weak why was all of this info presented to the Senate Intellegence Commitee??

I wish you could spare me the "opinions" and give me some facts with sources for once.

 

[spibble spab]

kosar, just out of curiousity:

are you disagreeing just to disagree or are you going
to show some substance in your posts. some things
never change. personally, I could care less about
patty cake that murderers play with each other
in the sandbox. We're having our way and the democrats
are still throwing an extended temper tantrum
Either there's a link or not
We still got the vote to go into the sandbox, sweetheart :clap:

 

[kosar]

I did answer the questions. You asked 'was it weak' and I answered.

What 'facts' are you interested in?

 

[kosar]

kosar, just out of curiousity:

are you disagreeing just to disagree or are you going
to show some substance in your posts. some things
never change. personally, I could care less about
patty cake that murderers play with each other
in the sandbox. We're having our way and the democrats
are still throwing an extended temper tantrum
Either there's a link or not
We still got the vote to go into the sandbox, sweetheart :clap:

Do you mean 'substance' like starting a thread with 2 year old information that actually goes against his attempted point and acting like it is some watershed event?

 

[CHARLESMANSON]

Just let it go Spibble Spab....you could tell this guy the earth is round and he'd argue with you about it.

He's just playing word games now because he knows he's wrong.

Like you say it's nothing but a prolonged leftist temper tantrum.

 

[kosar]

Just let it go Spibble Spab....

Talking to yourself again Manson?