Did Powell's presentation convince you?

[The Mad Monk]

Ah. If the medical assistance was the only thing Powell mentioned, you would be correct -- but it wasn't the only thing:

During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77675,00.html

[intrigue]

I am/was convinced already.
The inspections were a load of crap to begin with.
I could care less about what the UN thinks/wants/does.
The US needs to look out for its own interests.
Which will happen soon.

We had a war already, and Iraq had conditions as part of surrender. Since when does the loser of a war dictate policy with anyone?

The US must go in and enforce regime change as soon as possible... or we will be discussing the latest terror attack based off money and technology Iraq supplied the terrorists with. In my view... Iraq has already attacked the US. Now we remove the threat.

And if you disagree... no one likes war, but maybe when someone close to you dies as a result of such atrocities - you'll finally realize what needs to be done. Its an unfortunate necessesity.

[Ramo]

Ah. If the medical assistance was the only thing Powell mentioned, you would be correct -- but it wasn't the only thing:

Powell's account isn't credible. Given the organization he mentioned that's supposedly connected to Iraq, that makes Zurqawi Iran's boy. They hate Saddam's guts far more than al-Qaeda does. Unless there's some huge Iraq-Iran conspiracy in addition to the huge Iraq-al-Qaeda conspiracy, things just don't add up.

[The Mad Monk]

Are you talking about Ansar al-Islam?

[The Mad Monk]

On the off-chance you were, I ran a search and came up with this:

11 members of Iraqi Islamic Ansar al-Islam group surrendered to Kurdish authorities in North Iraq
Sep 26, 2002

The Associated Press

Eleven members of a Kurdish extremist group with suspected ties to al-Qaida have surrendered to Kurdish forces in northern Iraq, an official of a U.S.-backed Iraqi Kurdish group said in Damascus.

Adel Murad, a Damascus-based official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, said two militants of the Ansar al-Islam group had surrendered Sept. 21 in Sulaimaneyah and nine others Tuesday.

He identified those arrested last week as Jawad Jamal Najeeb, an Iraqi Arab, and Bakr Hussein Muhammad.

Murad said Najeeb cooperated with al-Qaida in smuggling hashish from Afghanistan in 1998.

According to U.S. officials, Ansar al-Islam (Supporters of Islam) was formed in December 2001, one of numerous small splinter factions in the region of northern Iraq that is controlled by ethnic Kurds.

It has several hundred members and broke away from another group, Jun al-Islam, which itself was formed in September 2001.

It is composed primarily of Kurds - and some Arabs - who follow an extremist brand of Sunni Islam, but their focus is primarily opposing the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of two large secular Kurdish groups that oppose Saddam Hussein with U.S. support.

The group's fighters are also believed to have trained with al-Qaida and U.S. officials suspect it of helping hide al-Qaida members fleeing Afghanistan.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~konews/26-9-02-11-islamic-extremists-surrendered.html

Somehow, I have difficulty believing that a group that "follows an extremist brand of Sunni Islam" will have good relations with an extreemist Shiite state like Iran.

[uh Clem]

Why have US and British intelligence agencies been so reluctant to sign on to the "link" between Saddam and al Qaida? Anyone who says that there is a link has the additional burden of explaining why the spooks think it's a load of crap.

Make a triangle with the corners:[list=1][*]US government[*]Saddam Hussein[*]Osama bin Ladin/al Qaida[/list=1]
There's tons of extremely good evidence over the years linking 1 to 2, and 1 to 3. The only leg of the triangle where the connection is murky, if it exists at all, is 2-3.

Making that connection relies on, oh, wondering who was in a hospital where and when, or whether Mohammed Atta (assuming that it really was Atta) met with an Iraqi intelligence agent (assuming it really was was an Iraqi intelligence agent)(assuming that the meeting actually took place)(assuming that the topic of discussion was the 9/11 attacks), etc.

The case for the connection has yet to rise to the level of merely being an insult to people's intelligence. Most of the "arguments" aren't even worth taking the time to refute. They're just distractions, things that people shout ("Well, what about the meeting in Prague!? Huh? Huh!?) in order to change the subject.

By contrast, of course, the evidence regarding legs 1-2 and 1-3 is lavish, even embarassingly so. A reasonable conclusion to make is that the entity at angle #1 is desperate to make some kind of connection between numbers 2 & 3, for reasons not specified.

Of course, good citizens know what they're expected to believe in cases like this, and behave accordingly.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MRT144
OBL doesnt like saddam

Citation please, and with a date.

All evidence seems to be that they kissed and made up in the mid-90's - not surprising since that is when OBL turned on the Saudis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem


Make a triangle with the corners:[list=1][*]US government[*]Saddam Hussein[*]Osama bin Ladin/al Qaida[/list=1]
There's tons of extremely good evidence over the years linking 1 to 2, and 1 to 3. The only leg of the triangle where the connection is murky, if it exists at all, is 2-3.

August 1939

Make a triangle with the following corners
1. Great Britain
2. Hitler
3. Stalin
There's tons of extremely good evidence over the years linking 1 to 2, and 1 to 3. The only leg of the triangle where the connection is murky, if it exists at all, is 2-3.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by uh Clem
Making that connection relies on, oh, wondering who was in a hospital where and when,

The gentleman in question is Zarqawi. According to Powell last night he was not only hospitalized in Baghdad, he set up his network headquarters there. His contacts with Al -Ansar, where enabled by Iraqi intelligence. In addition there is evidence of contacts between Iraq and AL qaeeda going back several years.


Now I grant you it is possible Powell was lying through his teeth. If you maintain that there is no connection between Iraq and Al qaeeda you have to maintain that Powell was lying. Do you so maintain that????

[Imran Siddiqui]

No, it wasn't a trial, but that is irrelevant. A lawyer knows full well that the identity of a witness matters if that identity casts doubt on the testimony.

Again, It's NOT a trial. He knew her identity and she was testifying in a Congressional Panel.

You still haven't convinced me why it was necessary to reveal who the witness was to the general public. Hell, the public had no right to really know.

[Ramo]

Are you talking about Ansar al-Islam?

My initial beliefs about what Ansar al-Islam is wrong. I've been reading up on the nature of the group, and it turns out that it's supported by the Iranians and Iraqis. It does seem to have connections with al-Qaeda (as it is an offshoot of the Taleban), but its goal is not to committ terror against the West. Primarily, its goal is to undermine the secular government in Kurdistan, which is in the interest of all parties in the region (in fact, "ours" too). But saying that due to this, Saddam is supporting international terror, will give nukes away to al-Qaeda, etc. really is ludicrous. Hell, we seem to have had some connections with this group (though they seem to have fallen through). Does that make us complicit in al-Qaeda's terror?

Somehow, I have difficulty believing that a group that "follows an extremist brand of Sunni Islam" will have good relations with an extreemist Shiite state like Iran.

And it's somehow more believable that a bunch of Sunni Islamists would have good relations with a secular governments?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
August 1939

Make a triangle with the following corners
1. Great Britain
2. Hitler
3. Stalin
There's tons of extremely good evidence over the years linking 1 to 2, and 1 to 3. The only leg of the triangle where the connection is murky, if it exists at all, is 2-3.

I knew it. Godwin's Law will be breached by one of the pro-war fraction types.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


I knew it. Godwin's Law will be breached by one of the pro-war fraction types.

Does Godwin's law apply to discussions of geopolitics????

[Urban Ranger]

Any discussion, unless, of course, it is actually about Hitler and/or Nazi Germany.

[DaShi]

Good, this thread smelled like moldy cheese anyway.