From samclem’s site:
I looked into the SSCI hearings last month, but they were all closed. No linkage available yet.
If Tenet’s not having any of it why should I?
A note about some Iraqi defectors:
Well, what if Saddam did know about the planned attacks and did nothing because he liked the idea and figured no one would ever call him on it?
I think it suffices to say that common sense would tell you he was involved in it someway.
What is the deal with all the constant references to all the “oil” we now have? People keep saying the war was for oil, are we shipping it back to the US or something? I have not heard of us “nationalizing” the oil fields. It still belongs to the people of Iraq, last I heard the funds from its sale were being used to rebuild their country.
What if we all grew wings and flew to the Moon for a picnic? Also, common sense it seems can tell us whatever we want to hear.
Don’t be silly, MC. There is no atmosphere on the moon, wings would be quite useless. In comparison, aminal scenario is much more sensible.
The wings could be powered by the solar wind.
Not if its nightime.
No, I am being serious here. This is the guy that paid rewards to suicide bombers families on a regular basis, and he certainly has no love for the United States. Can you seriously think that he had no ties whatsoever to terrorist organizations?
Welcome Animal, at the moment you read like Son of Sam (Stone). Feel free to use the seach function and get up to speed.
The question wasn’t about “terrorist organisations” it was about one in particular. And the US has proven no link of any kind at any time. And you can believe they tried rather hard to so do.
What evidence we have strongly suggests Saddam and a-Q were effectively at war in the northern no-fly zone in the months before the US-led acquisition.
ObL has repeatedly stated he thought Saddam a “bad Muslim”; they were enemies, not friends.
And I’m even happier to welcome Aminal. Even.
Thanks for the welcome! I did read the above posts, and I know that there has not been a proven link between Saddam and Al-Q. What I am asking is that isn’t it a reasonable statement that he may have had ties to them that we just do not know about?
It is a possibility of course, but its not going to be backed up by simply saying “well, they are both bad men, and both did bad things, so they probably were bestest mates and planned 911.” is it.
FWIW here in the UK there was VERY little speculation regarding any Iraq/911 linkage, apart from some “borrowed” student papers.
I was actually suprised to see just how many people were citing this as a reason to invade Iraq at the time, and i only saw that through reading US press and websites etc.
I suppose the "reasons to invade iraq! timeline might go like this:
(usa)SADDAM DID 911
(uk)SADDAM CAN LAUNCH WMMMDDDDDDD IN 15 MINUTES!!!
(usa) what he said ^
(uk)EVEN IF HE DOESNT HAVE WMMDDD, HES A BAAAD MAN mmk!
(usa)Right on, lets drop those liberty bombs and free those people!
UbL told Iraqis that members of the Iraqi Baathist party were infidels, and thus sentenced to death.
Kind of an odd thing for allies to do.
I’m sure in UbL’s mind, it was perfectly logical for there to be an alliance between the US and Iraq.
aminal,
The dearth of evidence despite the huge amount of searching, past and present, makes it seem like a less and less reasonable Hussein may have had meaningful and/or "operational" ties to al Qaeda “that we just do not know about.”
aminal, the point is that you can say “what if…” until the cows come home, but with a total lack of evidence to back your statement up it’s completely pointless and certainly not enough to retroactively justify a war. Infact a reasonable analysis of the circumstantial evidence shows that it is unlikely Saddam would’ve had foreknowledge of the series of attacks that took place on 11th September 2001 as among al-Qaida’s long enemies list was Saddam’s broadly secularist regime.
Also arguing from common sense is a logical fallacy as there is no such thing as common sense’ apart perhaps from what a person may wish to define as common sense.
[http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/27/100047.shtml]WSJ: Saddam’s Files Show ‘Direct’ 9/11 Link
Thursday, May 27, 2004 9:53 a.m. EDT
Newly uncovered files examined by U.S. military investigators in Baghdad show what is being described as “a direct link” between Saddam Hussein’s elite Fedayeen military unit and the terrorist attacks on America on Sept. 11, 2001.
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir, who attended a January 2000 al-Qaida summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, where the 9/11 attacks were planned, is listed among the officers on three Fedayeen rosters…
I am going to have to be somewhat skeptical. Check out the Editor’s Note at the bottom of the page.
Of course the original story is listed as coming from the Wall Street Journal. Bears further watching.
Neither link work for me btw. I’d be interested in reading about it, but am skeptical. Oh, I think there might have been a passing aquaintance between Iraq and AQ, especially Iraqi intellegence (I doubt there was a Saddam link at all), but I don’t think it was well established or very strong. Most likely just each side feeling the other out, and defining some boundaries between them…and perhaps an ad hoc truce while they dealt with more pressing matters.
If someone can fix the link, I’d appreciate it as I’m interested to see what it says.
-XT
Hmmm…sell oil - get money - hire US companies to “rebuid” Iraq - pay the money to these comapnies. :smack:
Ahmed Hikmat Shakir first surfaced in Feith’s 50 point memo of last October. IIRC Ahmed Chalabi supplied much of the information for that attempt to link Saddam and al Qaeda. What’s the source of this new information? Could it have been recovered from the raid on Chalabi’s offices, and if so, how much credibility does it have?