# Husseinandterror.com **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 18, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895 "2005-04-18T14:51:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/1 "2005-04-18T14:51:09Z")
This is going to be a bit of a messy OP because my thoughts are a bit numerous on this. The main crux of this thread is to affirm or to debunk the website, “[Husseinandterror.com](http://www.husseinandterror.com)” I’ve got a friend who keeps saying that the war in Iraq was justified because Saddam not only had ties to terrorism, but ties to Al Qaeda. \*(Please keep this thread about the linked website, and not the justifications for the war). \*He’s pushing the website [Husseinandterror.com](http://www.husseinandterror.com/) as unequivable evidence that Hussein had enough ties to terrorism and Al Qaeda: > [@](#): > > So far, we have documented that Saddam Hussein harbored terrorists (many with al-Qaeda links) responsible for international mayhem and even the incidental deaths of Americans. But is there any evidence that Iraq sheltered those responsible for attacks on America? > > Enter Abdul Rahman Yasin, pictured below in a U.S. State Department “Wanted” poster… Now, I found a possible discrepency when H&[T.com](http://T.com) quoted this [article from CBS](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/08/uttm/main552868.shtml) that said: > [@](#): > > A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks. That article is dated 5/7/03 which predates the 9/11 Commission report. Because in June '04, [9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/). I’m curious whatever happened to that court settlement. (I couldn’t find if that was ever overturned due to the Commission report evidence). ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/2 "2005-04-18T17:02:24Z")
From you apologist site: [Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.](http://www.husseinandterror.com/) ''cept for the fact that he was in an Iraqi prison and twice offered to be returned to US authorities, yeah, that one hell of a “connection” your friend’s Make Their Own Reality blog has got there. [US ‘refused Iraq’s terror suspect offer’](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2022991.stm) Rest of the stuff on there is even sillier… ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/3 "2005-04-18T17:52:56Z")
The website author says it himself: > [@](#): > > So does all of this, or anything else, suggest a tie between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda? Some evidence is interesting but far from solid There you go - no solid evidence. Case closed. What it comes down to is, are you going to believe some kooky website, or _everyone else_? As you pointed out, the 9/11 Commission found no link. It’s a commonly known fact that Saddam wasn’t in cahoots with al Qaeda. It’s been my experience that you just can’t argue with these nutcases. You can give your friend all the evidence you want and he will never change his mind. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/4 "2005-04-18T17:58:05Z")
How long has it been since this site was updated? Don’t they know that Zarqawi has two feet now? The US military finds the **Salman Pak** stories to be dubious. They said they have found no evidence of any such thing. “[Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam’s regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at… **Salman Pak** … The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility](http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/8089829.htm).” There’s quite a bit to refute all at once. Perhaps your friends could pick out a few items at a time? That being said, Hussein _did_ have ties to terrorists. He just wasn’t that involved with aQ. Check out the MEK that’re rightfully mentioned on that page. Did you know that hey recently had a [convention here in DC @ the DAR’s Constitution Hall](http://www.newsjunkiesunanimous.com/latest05i.php?subaction=showfull&id=1113592783&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&)? You might also ask your friend to square his version with the facts that sympathies for aQ have increased as anti-Americanism has increased world wide, but esp in predominantly Muslim countries esp in the ME. Even our erstwhile friends in Turkey have taken a severe dislike to us. [Extreme Anti-Americanism in Turkey](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/3/11/182953.shtml) "It is difficult to detect the difference between what Osama bin Laden said in his 19 audio and videotapes since September 11, 2001, and what some Turkish journalists write. If anything, the Turks outvenom bin Laden. This would be hilarious if not for the incontrovertible fact that it is believed not only by Islamist extremists but by countless millions of Muslim fundamentalists … **Anti-Americanism is a relatively new phenomenon in Turkey. Throughout the 1990s in Turkey, 60 percent of the people had favorable views about the U.S. and its policies. The 2003 Iraq war closed many minds**. [The latest survey, gathered in February by the private Metropoll organization, found that four in 10 Turks regard the United States as their country’s “biggest enemy.” That is more than double the number who named Greece, the ancient rival Turkey has come to the brink of war with three times in the last half-century.](http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41024-2005Apr10?language=printer) Surely even he must recognize that losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the moderates does not bode well for the GWoT. Ask him if he does. Anyway, if there were more specifics I could be of more help. There’s just too much to debunk it line by line. ---
**Author:** ![stpauler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@stpauler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stpauler)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/5 "2005-04-19T04:43:57Z")
Thanks all, I gave him the info and this was his (albeit lengthy response) Alright. (The quotes were my notes to him) > [@](#): > > 1)The article from CBS: > Quote: > A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks. > > That article is dated 5/7/03 which predates the 9/11 Commission report. Because in June '04, 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida. That article link didn’t work for me, but one from the Wash Post also said: “But the report of the commission’s staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation.” “The staff report said that bin Laden “explored possible cooperation with Iraq” while in Sudan through 1996, but that “Iraq apparently never responded” to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, ‘but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.’” So. The fact remains that there WAS contact between Saddam and al-Quaida. The commissions conclusion is not a denial of complicity, but rather a claim that the evidence is not significant enough to prove anything. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. > [@](#): > > #2)Next from H&T: > “Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda.” > Unfortunately, Yasin was in an Iraqi prison twice And Mr Yasin himself told 60 Minutes that the FBI let him go after interrogating him in the days following the 1993 bombing - even driving him home. This article that you cite is laughable. To back up its claims, it cites two people: Abdul Rahman Yasin, a terrorist, and Tariq Aziz, Iraq’s Foreign Policy Minister. Here’s some background info on Aziz: When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Tariq Aziz served as the international spokesman in support of the military action, saying the move was justified because Kuwait’s increased oil production was dampening Iraqi oil revenues. He has condemned Arab states for “subservience to the United States’ hegemony in the Middle East and their support for punitive sanctions.” Tariq Aziz has survived as an adviser to Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years. Some attribute his survival to his lack of a power base in Iraq, which means he presents no threat to Saddam Hussein. Tariq Aziz blamed the United States rather than the United Nations for the sanctions that followed the Gulf War, believing they were implemented as a result of U.S. government policies. He used these beliefs to back the expulsion of Americans working for the United Nations Special Commission in 1997. [http://www.iraqinews.com/people\_aziz.shtml](http://www.iraqinews.com/people_aziz.shtml) Hmmmm, think this guy has a reason to hate the United States much? When the only side of a story being presented is that of two completely discredited propagandists, it’s not a very convincing article. Regarding Abdul being in prison…not according to her: Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.” A little bit more info on that alleged deal, from one of your sources: Cheney didn’t mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive. > [@](#): > > #3)From H&T: The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.16 > > - Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam’s regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued. > > The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility. So what do you suppose the pictures are of? This base didn’t disappear magically. Your implication that the base never existed is disputed by Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. He says it DID exist, and managed to draw a picture of it from memory that matched the aerial photo. You neglected to mention that. From that same article: Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam’s secular police state and Osama bin Laden’s Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings. Occasional meetings just about does it for me. > [@](#): > > #4)From H&T:Or perhaps Al-Ani saw a former student from Hamburg named Mohamed Atta to discuss more practical matters. The Czech government sticks to their contention that they did observe this Iraqi diplomat meeting with Mohamed Atta just five months before 9-11. As Czech U.N. Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek explained in a letter to Philadelphia attorney James Beasley, Jr.: “In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status.” 21 Al-Ani was kicked out of Prague for casing the headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Iraq, presumably because he wanted to blow them up. Regarding your 4th claim. Mohammed Atta may not have been in Prague for that meeting. I don’t have any evidence that would support that claim. Other than that, I feel like this report pretty well argues the ties between Saddam and terror. Despite your claims that it’s outdated, it was presented in Sep 2004, and much of its evidence is from late 2004. Now, if you’ll oblige, I have a few questions for you: 1. What do you make of the fact that Saddam was giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine? 2. Does the fact that these bombers were then killing both Israeli’s and Americans constitute an attack on America? 3. How do you defend the fact that Abu Abbas, the infamous cruise ship murderer, escaped jail by virtue of possessing an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport? 4. What about the fact that Abbas lived in Iraq safely and freely for 18 years, until he was captured by the US during the invasion? 5. How do you defend the actions of Iraq’s diplomat to the Phillipines, who was expelled from the country after calling terrorists both directly before and after an attack that killed 23 people, including an American? 6. How do you defend Al-Zarquai’s medical treatment at a special state hospital after the US wounded him while invading Afghanistan? 7. The immediate escape plan for many of the terrorists in Afghanistan after the US invaded was to enter Iraq. Does it seem strange to you that these terrorists would congregate there, when they knew that it too could be a US target? Doesn’t it also seem strange that the Iraqi border police didn’t realize that even one of these people entering their country were terrorists? 8. Despite your claim that this site is outdated, does the information from mid 2004 showing that a prized Lieutenant Colonel in the elite Saddam Fedayeen had documents outlining the 93 bombings and another 95 al-Quaida plot, the predecessor to 9/11, seem odd? 9. Many on the left have claimed that even though many officials from both parties went on the record saying that Iraq and 9/11 were tied, they are exempt from responsibility from that because they were believing the words of President Bush, and as President, the responsibility for the Iraq claim rests on him. How would you react to this: This is an excerpt of the original indictment of Osama bin Laden, filed by President Clinton’s Justice Department in 1998. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq. Given this evidence, could you argue that the premise of a tie between Iraq and al-Quaida was not created by Bush, but rather by Clinton? And finally, 10) Not all of the claims put forth before the war have been refuted. George Tenet, whom you quoted in your original post, had the following to say during the hearings, and has since reaffirmed this: Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq’s increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad’s links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action. To me that doesn’t seem like an exoneration of Iraq, but rather a sign that although the concrete evidence may not yet be enough to gurantee a conviction in a court, any reasonable person could be expected to believe that there WERE ties, and that the ties were most likely far deeper than we now know. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/6 "2005-04-19T15:23:40Z")
> [@stpauler](#): > > So what do you suppose the pictures are of? This base didn’t disappear magically. Your implication that the base never existed is disputed by Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. He says it DID exist, and managed to draw a picture of it from memory that matched the aerial photo. You neglected to mention that. Just because there is a base doesn’t mean that it was used the way this fellow said it was. The question is who do you trust more, the US military or Mr. Khodada? > [@stpauler](#): > > From that same article: > Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam’s secular police state and Osama bin Laden’s Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings. > Occasional meetings just about does it for me. The US has had “occasional meetings” with aQ. Does that mean the US is in league with them as well? I suppose this _would_ explain why the US military’s involved in a cover up of the Salman Pak issue. > [@stpauler](#): > > Regarding your 4th claim. Mohammed Atta may not have been in Prague for that meeting. I don’t have any evidence that would support that claim. No one else has evidence that he was there either. Take a look at the quotes from Cheney as he makes untrue statements in an attempt to distance himself from his earlier comments re the Atta/Prague affair: [Team Bush and “Best Info Available @ the Time”](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=310455&page=1&pp=50) Cheney’s crawfishin’ for a reason. The reason isn’t that the Atta/Prague meeting actuallu happened. Unless we’re back to the US/aQ link and cover up involving the US military as evidenced by the “occasional meetings” between Americans and aQ agents. Don’t forget that aQ terrorists received training to help them carry out the 9-11 attacks right here in the US of A. There must be a collaborative relationship of some sort. Look at the cover up by the US military and Cheney too! Both of them are denying evidence of the IRaqi-aQ links. Or, perhaps not. Perhaps “occasional meetings” don’t really mean diddly and the US military really didn’t find any sort of terrorist training camp. I report, you decide. Here’re some more interesting reports (there from the US intel community, so they may be involved in the attempt to cover up the aQ/Iraq conspiarcies): [Iraq and al-Qa’ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship](http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2005/CIAreport.062102.pdf) [The October 2, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s Continuing WMD Programs](http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2005/NIE.100202.pdf) “As with much of the information on the overall [Iraq-al Qaeda] relationship, details on training and support are second-hand or from sources of varying reliability.” [Iraqi Support for Terrorism](http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2005/CIAreport.012903.pdf) “Iraqi Support for Terrorism,” discusses the lack of “evidence of completed training,” and says most of the reports of training “do not make clear whether training” was “actually implemented.” It indicates that some number of the reports appeared to be based on “hearsay,” and that others were “simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al Qa’ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them.” all from here: [Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship](http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=236440) > [@stpauler](#): > > Other than that, I feel like this report pretty well argues the ties between Saddam and terror. Hussein _was_ involved with terror. He _did_ support an international terrorist organization who has killed Americans and who fought against the US before Baghdad fell. This group were Hussein’s enforcers. They carried out the brutal oppression of the Kurds and Shia that so many people are fashionably upset about. The organization is rightfully noted on the H&T website. The organization is called the **Mojahedin-e-Khalq** (MEK). This terrorist organization held a convention in the [Daughters of the American Revolution’s Consititution Hall in Washington DC _last week_](http://www.newsjunkiesunanimous.com/latest05i.php?subaction=showfull&id=1113592783&archive=&start_from=&ucat=&) and I was there. I had dinner with their spokesman, Ali Safavi, who is _said_ to’ve been a member of the Iraqi Army who tortured dissenting MEK personel. I recorded an interview with him. _Several members of the US Congress gave speeches at the event. Members of Team Bush have helped this terrorist organization of Hussein’s raise funds._ Members of Team Bush and members of the US Congress are supporting the same international terrorist organization that Hussein used to carry out attacks against Iran and Iraqis. Dwell on that for a moment. HOWEVER, this is all markedly different from having some sort of collaborative relationship with aQ. Keep that in mind. > [@stpauler](#): > > Despite your claims that it’s outdated, it was presented in Sep 2004, and much of its evidence is from late 2004. Then it was presented with outdated info. Perhaps this was on purpose, perhaps from from negligence, perhaps from incompetence. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. What do you make of the fact that Saddam was giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine? Not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. Does the fact that these bombers were then killing both Israeli’s and Americans constitute an attack on America? If one chose, one could make this case. However, it’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. How do you defend the fact that Abu Abbas, the infamous cruise ship murderer, escaped jail by virtue of possessing an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport? Why do I have to? Why would I want to? > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. What about the fact that Abbas lived in Iraq safely and freely for 18 years, until he was captured by the US during the invasion? What about it? It’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. How do you defend the actions of Iraq’s diplomat to the Phillipines, who was expelled from the country after calling terrorists both directly before and after an attack that killed 23 people, including an American? Why do I have to? Why would I want to? It’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. How do you defend Al-Zarquai’s medical treatment at a special state hospital after the US wounded him while invading Afghanistan? Why do I have to? Why would I want to? It’s not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ’s recruiting efforts. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. The immediate escape plan for many of the terrorists in Afghanistan after the US invaded was to enter Iraq. Does it seem strange to you that these terrorists would congregate there, when they knew that it too could be a US target? Strange compared to what? Being a terrorist is outright bizarre to me. > [@stpauler](#): > > Doesn’t it also seem strange that the Iraqi border police didn’t realize that even one of these people entering their country were terrorists? As strange as when the 9-11 terrorists got into the US. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. Despite your claim that this site is outdated, does the information from mid 2004 showing that a prized Lieutenant Colonel in the elite Saddam Fedayeen had documents outlining the 93 bombings and another 95 al-Quaida plot, the predecessor to 9/11, seem odd? Odder than the FBI having similar documents? > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. Many on the left have claimed that even though many officials from both parties went on the record saying that Iraq and 9/11 were tied, they are exempt from responsibility from that because they were believing the words of President Bush, and as President, the responsibility for the Iraq claim rests on him. How would you react to this: meh > [@stpauler](#): > > Given this evidence, could you argue that the premise of a tie between Iraq and al-Quaida was not created by Bush, but rather by Clinton? One can argue any number of things. What of it? Clinton was a screw up. Rememeber also that Clinton was saying aQ was going to give chemical weapons to Iraq, not the other way around. > [@stpauler](#): > > 1. Not all of the claims put forth before the war have been refuted. George Tenet, whom you quoted in your original post, had the following to say during the hearings, and has since reaffirmed this: A critical reading reveals that this isn’t as revelatory or radical as some might suppose. Compare and contrast: > [@stpauler](#): > > We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. And the nature of these contacts? Despite more than a decade of efforts the two were unable reach a mutually acceptable agreement. > [@stpauler](#): > > Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in SPAIN and the US of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in MADRID and CHICAGO. > [@stpauler](#): > > We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in the UK, US & PAKISTAN who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. > [@stpauler](#): > > The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. The reporting also stated that the US has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of the USE OF JETS AS WEAPONS. > [@stpauler](#): > > To me that doesn’t seem like an exoneration of Iraq, but rather a sign that although the concrete evidence may not yet be enough to gurantee a conviction in a court, any reasonable person could be expected to believe that there WERE ties, and that the ties were most likely far deeper than we now know. **To you this speculation was worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and a big boost to aQ’s recruiting efforts?** ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/7 "2005-04-19T18:23:24Z")
I like this one: > [@](#): > > So. The fact remains that there WAS contact between Saddam and al-Quaida. The commissions conclusion is not a denial of complicity, but rather a claim that the evidence is not significant enough to prove anything. The absence of proof is not proof of absence. I wasn’t aware we were now starting wars based on _absence_ of evidence. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/8 "2005-04-19T18:24:38Z")
Oh wait - yes I was. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2005, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/9 "2005-04-19T18:50:46Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I wasn’t aware we were now starting wars based on _absence_ of evidence. Interesting question. Can tens of thousands of deaths be justified by speculation based on an abscence of evidence? ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/10 "2005-04-20T15:30:39Z")
**stpauler** , Perhaps you should ask your friend to join the board -at least as a guest. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/husseinandterror-com/299895/11 "2005-04-20T17:57:57Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > **stpauler** , > > Perhaps you should ask your friend to join the board -at least as a guest. :eek: - I’m having a nasty **December** flashback.