The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

Originally posted by edsinger

Originally posted by Otts
Edsinger - about the Iraqis greeting the American soldiers... I have no doubt it indeed happened.

So you think that the great majorty of iraqi's miss saddam and hate the US? I would like to see the results of that poll in both Iraq and Iran.

You might be surprised.

It's sort of like if someone took out Dubya right now. Many of us would be happy, and others wouldn't be so happy, but all of us would wonder why in the hell another country thinks it's their duty or right to interfere. We'd all fear that they're going to put someone we don't particularly like in our commander seat, would we not?

Well the US does not support international terrorism, now I know that some will cry "what about Isreal?".

Well Isreal does not target civilians on purpose unless they are in the crosshairs after an attack.

The Isreali's offered the Palestinians damn near everything, and yet they wanted more terror, so I would say they had their shot. Maybe now, after Arafat, they might re-think thier position.

Ever wonder how Arab Israeli citizens are treated? Not bad, they can even vote!

I have found some more information and provided the links so you can read the articles, I wonder why we are not looking into this connection more intensely, as it would help inform the American public.

Please goto the first page/top.

Originally posted by edsinger
I have found some more information and provided the links so you can read the articles, I wonder why we are not looking into this connection more intensely, as it would help inform the American public.

Yet again you post material which you clearly haven't properly looked into, edsinger. Over and over, through the use of the credible information available, I've argued why the material you've posted thus far in this effort to find support of your views doesn't bare careful scrutiny. Not only that, we've covered the exact same material - many times over, as far as I can see simply because of your apparent ignorance to the acutal content of the sources you're spamming this board with.

I've asked you to at least look into the material you're about to use before posting it - but that's just not going to happen - is it?

To my recollection this is the second thread of yours in which I've been active, where you've changed and added to the initial post as well as the thread topic - when the thread has already run quite a few pages (in this case; 10). You may or may not realize this, but in doing so you make it quite impossible for someone who just now notices this thread to follow it and know what's already been discussed and what hasn't. It's also the second time that you've added a link to a book (plugging again?) - which you clearly haven't read or properly looked into yourself. Now what exactly is the point of this? How does doing so add to this discussion?

In light of your complete dismissal of the content of what I've presented thus far when refuting your arguments, it's clearly quite pointless for me to keep educating you about the obvious errors of your information. Now I'm not saying you shouldn't keep looking for material concerning this issue, but one last thing as to this particular link. Read up on the sources of Mr Stephen F. Hayes (the author of this book) and make an effort to educate yourself about those sources as well as the other available information on this issue. It'll cost you some of your time but I promise it won't hurt and it may just be a refreshing experience.


[edit on 17-11-2004 by Durden]

Durden, just as you refuse to believe certain sources of information, I choose to believe some of what I find.

You know that CIA guy that wrote that book on the anon label? Now that he is out of the CIA I am reading this book.

Saddam and Al Qaeda had more than a 'passing' relationship.

You say you have debunked all my information, yet I feel you havent. These sources are just as legit as some you post. Now I will admitt the 911 commision said no Saddam/911 connections, but I ahve not seen the US government admitt that WTC1 had Iraq ties, so what do you do in this case. You get as much information as possible and try to make the best picture you can. In some cases we are very similar in our approach, we just start from a different frame of mind m8.

Originally posted by edsinger
Durden, just as you refuse to believe certain sources of information,

This is what you just don't seem to comprehend, edsinger. This is not about me simply refusing to believe your sources. That's false. This is about how the information you've presented thus far doesn't bare serious scrutiny (i.e. it's not supported by the vast preponderance of available credible evidence).

I choose to believe some of what I find.

And this is what amazes me. You choose to believe information that's not supported by credible evidence and even contradicted by it.

You know that CIA guy that wrote that book on the anon label? Now that he is out of the CIA I am reading this book.

I'm glad to hear you're reading. Just make sure you also read up on the sources used in all that you read.

Saddam and Al Qaeda had more than a 'passing' relationship.

That's just an incredibly vague comment, and you know it. By now, you should also be aware that according to the credible information presented; the extent of that 'relationship' was far from being collaborative.

You say you have debunked all my information, yet I feel you havent.

I've never said I'd by definition 'debunked' your information. What I have done, is shown that your information isn't supported by the vast preponderance of credible evidence.

These sources are just as legit as some you post.

I'm sorry edsinger, but this comment is simply ridiculous and you know it. It merely shows that you haven't actually looked into my sources at all. Come to think of it - have you even read my posts thouroghly?

Now I will admitt the 911 commision said no Saddam/911 connections, but I ahve not seen the US government admitt that WTC1 had Iraq ties, so what do you do in this case.

Well actually, senior officials of the Bush Administration, including President Bush and Vice President Cheney, did at times allege that Iraq and al-Qaeda were allies, that there was a close connection and cooperative contacts between Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda, which also included a meeting between an Iraqi intelligence officer and the lead hijacker in the 9/11 attacks on the United States (Mohammed Atta) just a few months prior to the attacks. Now you tell me what was implied by these claims (which btw as we now know, have been shown to not be supported by credible information - quite the contrary).

You get as much information as possible and try to make the best picture you can. In some cases we are very similar in our approach, we just start from a different frame of mind m8.

Well see this is the real difference in how you and I approach this issue. I'm not trying to make any picture here. I'm merely interested in finding and reviewing as much information as possible and make my judgement based on that which can be considered credible. I'm not looking to prove an opinion that I've already firmly decided upon - see the difference?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

�I have not seen smoking gun, concrete evidence about the connection, but I do believe the connections existed,� he said.

So, Mr.Powell, being that there is no "concrete" evidence of a connection, then how do you possibly believe a connection exists? Let me guess, Bush insinuated a "gut" instinct; being that he's a visceral dog.

Deep

Durden, you keep stating "vast preponderance of credible evidence", yet that information is not always credible either. It is ALL taking someones word for something.

The 911 report was for public consumption (most of it anyway). I know you find it hard to believe that the two were connected and working towards a common goal, but I do. It makes to much sense. I am not saying that they were camping buddies but they did have mutual interests and "circumstancial" evidence is quite impressive if you would dig a bit.


As an example, being a conspiracy site and all, their is some circumstantial evidence that Saddam (through Iraqi Intel) might have played a very big part in the Oklahoma bombing and that Al Qaeda was also involved in the bomb making (training). These you can dismiss because CBS doesnt pick it up, but the theory is plausible and you know it.

Remember Scott Peterson was convicted on "circumstantial" evidense only, but it is almost assured he was guilty. But the evidence was lacking because he destroyed it. Saddam is a hell of a lot smarter than Scott.

Originally posted by edsinger
Durden, you keep stating "vast preponderance of credible evidence", yet that information is not always credible either. It is ALL taking someones word for something.

By all means, edsinger. Share your opinion on which sources I've posted that you feel can't be considered credible as opposed to your sources.

The 911 report was for public consumption (most of it anyway). I know you find it hard to believe that the two were connected and working towards a common goal, but I do. It makes to much sense. I am not saying that they were camping buddies but they did have mutual interests and "circumstancial" evidence is quite impressive if you would dig a bit.

If I 'dig a bit'? Well tell me, edsinger. What information exactly do you feel I have completely dismissed in this case without taking to account that which can actually be supported by evidence?

As an example, being a conspiracy site and all, their is some circumstantial evidence that Saddam (through Iraqi Intel) might have played a very big part in the Oklahoma bombing and that Al Qaeda was also involved in the bomb making (training). These you can dismiss because CBS doesnt pick it up, but the theory is plausible and you know it.

You know how many ridiculous theories there are out there that can be considered plausible? That line of reasoning absolutely isn't satisfactory to support the invasion of another nation.

Remember Scott Peterson was convicted on "circumstantial" evidense only, but it is almost assured he was guilty. But the evidence was lacking because he destroyed it. Saddam is a hell of a lot smarter than Scott.

Again you bring up this case which has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. To rely on large amounts of circumstantial evidence due to the complete lack of hard evidence is one thing. To rely on guesswork, theories and that which barely even amounts to circumstantial, when the evidence that can actually be substantiated contradicts those theories, is quite frankly offensive and absolutely not acceptable.

Originally posted by DurdenBy all means, edsinger. Share your opinion on which sources I've posted that you feel can't be considered credible as opposed to your sources.

Well to be honest, the only one we have both posted that I would consider totaly credible is the 911 report. Although it has issues, it gave the basics. You post yours, just a I post mine. Internet sources all.

Originally posted by DurdenIf I 'dig a bit'? Well tell me, edsinger. What information exactly do you feel I have completely dismissed in this case without taking to account that which can actually be supported by evidence?

It doesnt really matter, if I post it, you automatically say it is uncredible. Kinda the way I would do if you posted Dan Rather as one, even though 99% of what the man says is credible. I find stuff and post it, these support what I believe to be closer to the truth than the publically available sources so to speak. It is a conspiracy site after all.

Originally posted by DurdenYou know how many ridiculous theories there are out there that can be considered plausible? That line of reasoning absolutely isn't satisfactory to support the invasion of another nation.

Look, we had justification on the previous 12 resolutions alone. There was no chance of a UN 'green light' becuase of the corruption of the UN. I hope we could agree on this one at least. As I have been saying, Iraq is our best shot of changing the middle east which has steadliy gotten worse over the years. When the war made it to American soil, it was time to act. Saddam supported terrorism both financially and idealogically. He had to go. We had to start somewhere. You hate war, as do I, but sometimes it is nessesary and this is one of those times. We either do it now, or later when the stakes and costs will be much greater.

Originally posted by DurdenAgain you bring up this case which has nothing to do with the situation in Iraq. To rely on large amounts of circumstantial evidence due to the complete lack of hard evidence is one thing. To rely on guesswork, theories and that which barely even amounts to circumstantial, when the evidence that can actually be substantiated contradicts those theories, is quite frankly offensive and absolutely not acceptable.

Barely Circumstancial? You are kidding right? So what you are saying is that if it makes a "mainstream" media source it is credible and only then.

My I remind you that Drudge, which I will agree is very quick to post without research has gotten it right, first at least once.


I think that all these theories need research, and I honestly believe that the "official" stories are lacking...

I will stand by my belief that Saddam had more than "superfical" ties to Al Qaeda....

Look, we had justification on the previous 12 resolutions alone. There was no chance of a UN 'green light' becuase of the corruption of the UN. I hope we could agree on this one at least. As I have been saying, Iraq is our best shot of changing the middle east which has steadliy gotten worse over the years. When the war made it to American soil, it was time to act. Saddam supported terrorism both financially and idealogically. He had to go. We had to start somewhere. You hate war, as do I, but sometimes it is nessesary and this is one of those times. We either do it now, or later when the stakes and costs will be much greater

I'am sorry, but your own president has stated that Saddam had no ties to 9/11, I posted a good circulatory qoute from Powell himself.

Now, how exactly is the U.N. corrupt? Are we, once again, being molested by CNN dogmatism? The U.N. has a great deal more responsibilites to the world than the U.S. does, it has/is the binding force between countries the world over.

The U.N. has tried to be more asepsis than the blatantly 'corrupt' U.S. goverment.

Deep

Originally posted by edsinger
Well to be honest, the only one we have both posted that I would consider totaly credible is the 911 report. Although it has issues, it gave the basics. You post yours, just a I post mine. Internet sources all.

You're avoiding the question, edsinger. Share your opinion on which sources I've posted that you feel can't be considered credible as opposed to your sources.

It doesnt really matter, if I post it, you automatically say it is uncredible. Kinda the way I would do if you posted Dan Rather as one, even though 99% of what the man says is credible. I find stuff and post it, these support what I believe to be closer to the truth than the publically available sources so to speak. It is a conspiracy site after all.

Again, you're avoiding my question. What information exactly do you feel I have completely dismissed in this case without taking to account that which can actually be supported by evidence?

When the war made it to American soil, it was time to act. Saddam supported terrorism both financially and idealogically. He had to go. We had to start somewhere. You hate war, as do I, but sometimes it is nessesary and this is one of those times. We either do it now, or later when the stakes and costs will be much greater.

When the war made it to American soil, yes. And who exactly brought it there?

Barely Circumstancial? You are kidding right? So what you are saying is that if it makes a "mainstream" media source it is credible and only then.

This is not about 'mainstream media'. This is about basing ones judgement upon that which can be substantiated by credible evidence and not jump to conclusions based on assumtions that are even contradicted by the evidence available.

My I remind you that Drudge, which I will agree is very quick to post without research has gotten it right, first at least once.

So what's your point?

I think that all these theories need research, and I honestly believe that the "official" stories are lacking...

I never said all these theories shouldn't be researched now did I? And believe me, they are being researched.

I will stand by my belief that Saddam had more than "superfical" ties to Al Qaeda....

Again you show the real difference between the way you and I approach this issue. Despite your opinion being refuted by evidence, you choose to stick to your belief. As if you think it is a preferable character trait to stick to your guns no matter what. It simply doesn't matter if you're proven wrong. I think it's fairly obvious what you love about your current president, edsinger.

Originally posted by Durden

I will stand by my belief that Saddam had more than "superfical" ties to Al Qaeda....

Again you show the real difference between the way you and I approach this issue. Despite your opinion being refuted by evidence, you choose to stick to your belief. As if you think it is a preferable character trait to stick to your guns no matter what. It simply doesn't matter if you're proven wrong. I think it's fairly obvious what you love about your current president, edsinger.

OK you post yours sources that say the ones I post are wrong, my sources say yours are wrong. So how to you PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that Saddam had no ties to AlQaeda? HOw Durden? Oh Becuase your sources are better than mine? Look you believe what you wish, I am telling you that they did conspire together, but to what degree remains to be found.

I ahve posted sources but you just refute them, while posting yours as the only credilble ones....

whatever.....

Originally posted by edsinger
OK you post yours sources that say the ones I post are wrong, my sources say yours are wrong. So how to you PROVE BEYOND ALL DOUBT that Saddam had no ties to AlQaeda? HOw Durden? Oh Becuase your sources are better than mine? Look you believe what you wish, I am telling you that they did conspire together, but to what degree remains to be found.

I ahve posted sources but you just refute them, while posting yours as the only credilble ones....

whatever.....

As to the alleged collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam; the burden of proof lies on those who claim this to be a reality. Simple as that.

And once again. Share your opinion on which sources I've posted that you feel can't be considered credible as opposed to yours.

Originally posted by Durden

As to the alleged collaboration between al-Qaeda and Saddam; the burden of proof lies on those who claim this to be a reality. Simple as that.

And once again. Share your opinion on which sources I've posted that you feel can't be considered credible as opposed to yours.

I understand your questions, we ahve both posted many sources, there is no way to list them all.

Originally posted by edsinger
I understand your questions, we ahve both posted many sources, there is no way to list them all.

So your argument of concern as to the credibility of my sources can't be taken seriously or be considered valid.

I have yet to see edsinger come up with any links to accurately back up any of his wild assertions.

But he sure does write a lot of stuff he seems to believe in, even if it's laughable propaganda to the rest of us higher primates.

I say let him go, it's pretty entertaining.

What?

Ok I have never posted any credible link? This is getting silly. Someone can post from Rense.com and as long s it is anti-Bush it is considered credible.

Sometimes, this place make me wonder.......


And durden, your sources are nothing more than information just as what I post. Just because you dont like the sources I post does not make them invalid.

You have a preconcieved notion that Saddam and Osama did not work together, I think they did.




[edit on 18-11-2004 by edsinger]

My only question is why would Bin Laden have even needed Saddam for the 911 attacks? If there had been use of chemical weapons that would definatly point to state funded terror by a country with those capabilities but in the instance of 911 they used hijacked planes. Hijacking planes is not a new technique for terrorists to use and they would not need state funding to do it.

It's possible that Saddam and Bin Laden had ties but given the fact that Saddam strikes me as a Stalin like dictator who cares more about staying in power than fighting for a cause i find it unlikely. Saddam would not have wanted to anger the US unless it directly gave him more power, he even backed down and got rid of his WMD in an attempt to hold onto his power. Bin Laden on the other hand is a completely different person who probably believes in his cause and sees his power and money as a means to advance his cause rather than his cause a means to advance his power and money. In other words Bin Laden = religious fanatic, Saddam = power hungry dictator.


[edit on 18-11-2004 by Trent]

Agreed Trent, but Saddam and Osama had a mutual enemy. They could very easliy have worked toward mutual goals.