Alleged links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda unravelling?

The latest CIA report casts serious doubts on whether there was ever any real link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9831216/site/newsweek/

This makes Cheney et al.'s statements regarding this link, as well as Powell's speech to the UN, seem even more problematic. Along with the obvious falsity of the claim that Hussein had large stockpiles of WMDs and that he tried to obtain yellowcake uranium from Africa, yet another pillar of the Bushites case for war against Iraq seems to be crumbling.

I don't think anybody thought they where linked. It was a sort of the emperor has no clothes situation.

I have heard that AQ tried to kill Saddam in the past. Is this true?

He has helped terrorists in the past. Such as a the Iranian embessary hostage takers.

i have never heard or seen definitive proof between iraq and al quaeda. so this is a non-issue.

so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

i have never heard or seen definitive proof between iraq and al quaeda. so this is a non-issue.

so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either.

---

Before or after the invasion of Iraq by the United States?

Think about your answer because a certain individual in Iraq claims to be a member of Al Quaeda and is mentioned in the linked article.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MSN article

The CIA declined to comment on the draft report. But officials tell NEWSWEEK that Zarqawi probably did travel to the Iraqi capital in the spring of 2002 for medical treatment. And, of course, there is no question that he is in Iraq now—orchestrating many of the deadly suicide bombings and attacks on American soldiers.

---

Think about your answer because a certain individual in Iraq claims to be a member of Al Quaeda and is mentioned in the linked article.

How does that relate to ....so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either. ?
He isn't an Iraqi is he , note the word in the article "probably" , a few other quotes from the article on the subject
No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence
most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war.
Now since the whole story centred on him getting treatment after losing his leg , yet he still has both legs , just shows it to be bull .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Think about your answer because a certain individual in Iraq claims to be a member of Al Quaeda and is mentioned in the linked article.

How does that relate to ....so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either. ?
He isn't an Iraqi is he , note the word in the article "probably" , a few other quotes from the article on the subject

---

Now think about it Tribesman its not hard - if I have to explain it to you - it wouldn't be very amusing for me. How many of Zarqawi are foreign to Iraq and how many are Iraqi - I will give you a clue - no one outside of Zarqawi's network knows the answer to that. A little common sense about how covert or in this case terrorist cells operate could provide you with a clue. (That shouldn't be hard for you to think about now will it.) Like I said earlier think about the answer very carefully, the answer just might surprise you.

Quote:

---

No evidence has been found showing senior Iraqi officials were even aware of his presence
most evidence suggests Saddam Hussein did not provide Zarqawi safe haven before the war.
Now since the whole story centred on him getting treatment after losing his leg , yet he still has both legs , just shows it to be bull .

---

Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up the circulation and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information.

Quote:

---

How does that relate to ....so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either. ?

---

Hmm. Let's think about this a bit. it shouldn't take longer than 1/7825 of a second to come to the right conclusion:
He's a terrorist, claiming allegiance to Al Queda, and he's in Iraq orchestrating terrorist attacks.

Quote:

---

Now since the whole story centred on him getting treatment after losing his leg , yet he still has both legs , just shows it to be bull .

---

Where did it say he got treatment for a lost leg, and how are you so well informed of his current health?

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

Hmm. Let's think about this a bit. it shouldn't take longer than 1/7825 of a second to come to the right conclusion:
He's a terrorist, claiming allegiance to Al Queda, and he's in Iraq orchestrating terrorist attacks.

---

You only got part of the answer correct - he is from a different country so he is not Iraqi. However your headed in the right direction.

Quote:

---

Where did it say he got treatment for a lost leg, and how are you so well informed of his current health?

Crazed Rabbit

---

It was in a much earlier article - no one really knows - which means neither does Tribesman.

It was in a much earlier article - no one really knows - which means neither does Tribesman.
Yeah must be my drink addled faulty memory , it means I cannot remember what government , military and intelligence people spoke publicly about a couple of years ago on numerous occasions .
So the "article" you refer to is public statements by your government , not media stories .
Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up the circulation and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information.
Of course when they are showing live coverage of people making these false statements the media is only making it up right ~:rolleyes:

Now think about it Tribesman its not hard
Since the article is about false claims from before the invasion then what is the relevance of events after the invasion ?
Its like slashing someones tyres and telling them that they had always been flat .
Besides which there was Al-qaida in Iraq before the invasion , but it was in the area run by Kurdish terrorists and protected by Britain and America .

Where did it say he got treatment for a lost leg
Come on Rabbit , surely you can remember a failure of intelligence of that magnitude , it was only when the bastard starting releasing videos that they realised that they were not looking for a one legged terrorist .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It was in a much earlier article - no one really knows - which means neither does Tribesman.
Yeah must be my drink addled faulty memory , it means I cannot remember what government , military and intelligence people spoke publicly about a couple of years ago on numerous occasions .
So the "article" you refer to is public statements by your government , not media stories .

---

LOL - your reaching - article means nothing other then that it was reported in the news. But nice try there. So yep the achocal has indeed effected your ability to reason.

Quote:

---

Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up the circulation and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information.
Of course when they are showing live coverage of people making these false statements the media is only making it up right ~:rolleyes:

---

Oh so you didn't like your little game being played back at you. Tsk tsk.. ~:joker: Try again. The comeback here is so far beneath your normal ability - you must be on the sauce tonight more then usual.

Quote:

---

Now think about it Tribesman its not hard
Since the article is about false claims from before the invasion then what is the relevance of events after the invasion ?
Its like slashing someones tyres and telling them that they had always been flat .
Besides which there was Al-qaida in Iraq before the invasion , but it was in the area run by Kurdish terrorists and protected by Britain and America .

---

And since I was responding to Solypsist's post you will have to do better then that for a counter. Since you just proved that Al-Qadea had Iraqi operatives since the Kurds in Northern Iraq are indeed Iraqi citizens also. Remember [b]Solypsists initial comment was
so far not a single al-quaeda operative has been an iraqi, either.

But your not even close to what I initially meet - so try again if you can. Here is another clue - how can a terrorist cell function and not be discovered?


Ah the persecution complex must be in over-drive tonight since you missed the orginial intent so completly.

~:eek: ~D ~:joker:

The comeback here is so far beneath your normal ability
Well when you only put out rubbish is it worth the effort , like.....
Of course the media never reports the truth
Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

article means nothing other then that it was reported in the news.
So any statement by anyone becomes false the moment the media repeat it .
Though in this case the statement was false even if it hadn't been repeated , just like most of the statements made about Iraq before the invasion .

Since you just proved that Al-Qadea had Iraqi operatives since the Kurds in Northern Iraq are indeed Iraqi citizens also.
So that means that Britain and America were linked to Al-Qaida rather than Saddams Iraq as in 2001 when Ansar al Islam set up there Saddam was not in control of the area , foriegn backed terrorists were (almost said western backed there , but of course there are many backers of the various groups), under the protection of the western military , BTW you might want to insert the word "some" into that statement as many of the Kurds in N.Iraq are not Iraqi citizens .

how can a terrorist cell function and not be discovered?

The best way is to have the population so shit scared of you that they don't turn you in , so does that mean that the population are "operatives" ?

Wait a second, I appear to have all the picture wrong in my head:
1- Bush admited that they didn't found any connections between Saddam Hussein and terrorists organizations, right after the attack (when actions seemed justified btw). And that they attacked with little solid proof of it.
2- Later someone of his administration did the same with the weapons of mass destruction.
3- Bush and his administration admitted later that they invented all this false founds, only to jutify the attack. Not to mention that the enemy was created previously, and also that the supposed all armed emperor uncle Saddam was disarmed after the war in the '90.

So why is that this is discussed even now?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

The comeback here is so far beneath your normal ability
Well when you only put out rubbish is it worth the effort , like.....
Of course the media never reports the truth
Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

---

LOL

Quote:

---

article means nothing other then that it was reported in the news.
So any statement by anyone becomes false the moment the media repeat it .
Though in this case the statement was false even if it hadn't been repeated , just like most of the statements made about Iraq before the invasion .

---

Nice try but that isn't what I said. try again.

Quote:

---

Since you just proved that Al-Qadea had Iraqi operatives since the Kurds in Northern Iraq are indeed Iraqi citizens also.
So that means that Britain and America were linked to Al-Qaida rather than Saddams Iraq as in 2001 when Ansar al Islam set up there Saddam was not in control of the area , foriegn backed terrorists were (almost said western backed there , but of course there are many backers of the various groups), under the protection of the western military , BTW you might want to insert the word "some" into that statement as many of the Kurds in N.Iraq are not Iraqi citizens .

---

Getting warm, yes indeed a decent part of the Kurdish population in Northern Iraq come from another country or two - but a significant portion are indeed also Iraqi citizens.

Quote:

---

how can a terrorist cell function and not be discovered?

The best way is to have the population so shit scared of you that they don't turn you in , so does that mean that the population are "operatives" ?

---

Ah your getting very close - but no cigar yet. And to answer your queston - no that is not what it means.

There clearly was a link, we were told. Have some of that you liberal wussies!

Nice try but that isn't what I said. try again.

Don't be silly Red ...Its plain what you said and it is rubbish
Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up
If it never reports the truth then everything it reports must be false .......So any statement by anyone is false the moment the media report it , or if it is true it isn't reported .

Hence......Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

But anyway those claims of links appear on official documents as well as in the media . They were untrue at the time and still are , that is the topic at hand .


So why is that this is discussed even now?
I think it might be because of the mid-term elections coming up ,some people are trying to remind voters that the Administration are a bunch of decietful fools who got them into an expensive quagmire over a pile of bullshit .
Expect plenty more of it to be filling the airwaves in the coming months .There is certainly no shortage of material to use .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Nice try but that isn't what I said. try again.

Don't be silly Red ...Its plain what you said and it is rubbish
Of course the media never reports the truth just bull to drive up
If it never reports the truth then everything it reports must be false .......So any statement by anyone is false the moment the media report it , or if it is true it isn't reported .

---

LOL - you still haven't gotten it right - your confusing yourself about what i meant by truth in the statement. The media can and will report facts in such a way that spins the information to make a story that sells papers. Again that is what bull is - spin. Now try again - you have been rather amusing so far.

Quote:

---

Hence......Thats a pretty absolute statement isn't it , absolute rubbish .

But anyway those claims of links appear on official documents as well as in the media . They were untrue at the time and still are , that is the topic at hand .

---

LOL - you missed it again

Quote:

---

So why is that this is discussed even now?
I think it might be because of the mid-term elections coming up ,some people are trying to remind voters that the Administration are a bunch of decietful fools who got them into an expensive quagmire over a pile of bullshit .
Expect plenty more of it to be filling the airwaves in the coming months .There is certainly no shortage of material to use .

---

LOL - we all might just be surprised about how the next cycle of elections go in the states.

LOL - you still haven't gotten it right
Speak English Red , there is only one meaning for "never reports the truth" .

we all might just be surprised about how the next cycle of elections go in the states.
never ever underestimatethe stupidityof the electorate
There , just to help you out I bolded the important words , would you like to look up their meaning ?~;)

So to redo your original statement as it should read
Of course the GOVERNMENT never reports the truth just bull to drive up the SUPOORT FOR THE WAR and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information THAT THEIR GOVERENMENT PUTS FORWARD.

On the plus side, The Guardian reported that links between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgencey are starting to break down due to Al-Qaeda constantly targeting Iraqi civilians...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

On the plus side, The Guardian reported that links between Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Insurgencey are starting to break down due to Al-Qaeda constantly targeting Iraqi civilians...

---

Which, according to the amazing documantary 'Power of nightmares' , is where Muslim extremists went wrong previously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

LOL - you still haven't gotten it right
Speak English Red , there is only one meaning for "never reports the truth" .

---

Naw this is more amusing to see which way you jump.

Quote:

---

we all might just be surprised about how the next cycle of elections go in the states.
never ever underestimatethe stupidityof the electorate
There , just to help you out I bolded the important words , would you like to look up their meaning ?~;)

---

Naw - no bolding necessary - that saying is older then you. You however might want to take notes for your rantings later on.

Quote:

---

So to redo your original statement as it should read
Of course the GOVERNMENT never reports the truth just bull to drive up the SUPOORT FOR THE WAR and fool the idiots that read only the one source of information THAT THEIR GOVERENMENT PUTS FORWARD.

---

Nice try - but try again. Your getting warm - but not there yet.

Naw this is more amusing to see which way you jump.

There is only one meaning for those words , so perhaps you are using the wrong words .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Naw this is more amusing to see which way you jump.

There is only one meaning for those words , so perhaps you are using the wrong words .

---

Lets see

From Websters the meaning of truth

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webster's

Main Entry: truth
Pronunciation: 'trüth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural truths /'trü[th]z, 'trüths/
Etymology: Middle English trewthe, from Old English trEowth fidelity; akin to Old English trEowe faithful -- more at TRUE
1 a archaic : FIDELITY, CONSTANCY b : sincerity in action, character, and utterance
2 a (1) : the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD
- in truth : in accordance with fact : ACTUALLY

---

So for truth it looks like four definations are placed for consideration.

Now for Bull

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Webster's

Main Entry: 1bull
Pronunciation: 'bul, 'b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English bule, from Old English bula; akin to Old Norse boli bull
1 a : a male bovine; especially : an adult uncastrated male ox b : a usually adult male of various large animals (as elephants, whales, or seals)
2 : one who buys securities or commodities in expectation of a price rise or who acts to effect such a rise -- compare BEAR
3 : one that resembles a bull (as in brawny physique)
4 : BULLDOG
5 slang : POLICE OFFICER, DETECTIVE
6 capitalized : TAURUS

---

Care to try again....~:joker:

Maybe you should subcribe to this outfit - they bring a whole new meaning to the concept of "truth in media" :wacko: :smartass:

Quote:

---

If there were always the truth in media, there would be no need for the Truth in Media

Ever had a friend or a neighbor who waxed nostalgic about the "good old days" when "the world seemed so simple?" Who lamented the time when media always told the truth, at least as most readers thought? Who missed the days when patriotism, national pride or "motherhood and apple pie" weren't cynically snickered at by the "cool" liberal-globalists as old-fashioned ideas whose time has passed? Or who just thought that "life was more fun" back then?

Well, if you're like the millions of Americans who feel that way today; who resent being ruled by the big business elites; who have lost trust in our once democratic institutions; who want to feel proud of their country again - wax nostalgic no more! Join the readers whom Bob Djurdjevic's editorials and columns have been enchanting and often moving to action. From business leaders to academics; from homemakers to economists; from clergymen to college students; from artists to soldiers - Djurdjevic's pieces have drawn a worldwide following and support.

---

http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/index.html

Edit: to add the truth in media link - to bad I could not find a smart alec smilie to go along with the sight at first - but here is one for now.

Care to try again....~D ~D ~D ~D
Come on Red get out your online dictionary and look up the word never

So much for your no bolding necessary as obviously bolding isn't enough .
Would you like it in really big easy to see letters , perhaps in a rather fetching colour ?
NEVER

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Care to try again....~D ~D ~D ~D
Come on Red get out your online dictionary and look up the word never

---

You might want to try it some time - never actually has two definitions that are similiar - but if I wanted to nickpick like you do - I could point that out - with two the word never has more then one meaning. Oh wait I just did your type of nickpicking someone's statement - rather amusing isn't. ~:joker: ~:eek:

LOL - you said words there Tribesman and now your down to one word. Very good. You really are rather amusing - must be the persecution complex beginning to show its ugly side. Just go drown yourself in some more achocal - your ability to rationalize might become a little better.

Quote:

---

So much for your no bolding necessary as obviously bolding isn't enough .
Would you like it in really big easy to see letters , perhaps in a rather fetching colour ?
NEVER

---

[/quote]

Not even close - to bad you like to nickpick and use sarcasm - I might attempt an honest exchange with you. But never-the-less I am rather amused with this exchange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

So for truth it looks like four definations are placed for consideration.

---

You should get into politics, Red.

Arguing that by using the word "truth," you weren't actually referring to a thing that was "true?"

Puh-leaze...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

You should get into politics, Red.

Arguing that by using the word "truth," you weren't actually referring to a thing that was "true?"

Puh-leaze...

---

LOL - I am way to honest for politics.

Tribesman and yourself would probably do well in politics. ~:joker:

LOL - you said words there Tribesman and now your down to one word
Yes Red , an adverb that is absolute in its meaning , the use of which absolutely governs the sentance it contains and the meaning of the words in the sentance
Therefore your statement was absolute rubbish .
So pile on as many petty attempts at insults as you like , you cannot change that fact .

never actually has two definitions that are similiar
with two the word never has more then one meaning
That is a really lame attempt , care to tell us the definitions ?
Or how they change the meaning of the word ?
This should be fun , come on , do tell , I am absolutely fascinated with what you are going to come up with as two meanings for the word .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

LOL - you said words there Tribesman and now your down to one word
Yes Red , an adverb that is absolute in its meaning , the use of which absolutely governs the sentance it contains and the meaning of the words in the sentance
Therefore your statement was absolute rubbish .
So pile on as many petty attempts at insults as you like , you cannot change that fact .

---

No word is absolute in its meaning - as you have demonstrated amble times.

Again it seems that you can't seem to get past nickpicking other peoples posts to find some type of fault in their opinion. As for petty insults you are far more verbose in that area then I. Whats wrong Tribesman like to dish out the petty insults hiding them behind sarcasm - but don't like them direct at yourself?

I am so amused ~:joker:

[quote]

Quote:

---

never actually has two definitions that are similiar
with two the word never has more then one meaning
That is a really lame attempt , care to tell us the definitions ?
Or how they change the meaning of the word ?
This should be fun , come on , do tell , I am absolutely fascinated with what you are going to come up with as two meanings for the word .

---

Actually I have already explained it to you - but in your achocal induced lack of reasoning you missed the word that is even highlighted in your bolded type. Must be hard to want to prove people wrong all the time - especially when they just want to screw with you because of your nature. Its been rather amusing for me. Now off to work I go.

~:eek:

No word is absolute in its meaning
Then you should have no trouble finding an alternative definition of the word then , come on Red you have shown your ability to post directly from a dictionary , so please enlighten me , what is the alternative use of the word never?

Would you like to learn some some other words that can only ever have one meaning ? There are a hell of a lot of them .

Actually I have already explained it to you
Where ?????? I don't see it , is it in invisible writing ?

Oh but of course you cannot explain it can you as there is no alternative meaning , it is an absolute definitive word and as such it makes a statement absolute with no leeway for alternative interpretation .
So in this case your statement was absolute rubbish .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

No word is absolute in its meaning
Then you should have no trouble finding an alternative definition of the word then , come on Red you have shown your ability to post directly from a dictionary , so please enlighten me , what is the alternative use of the word never?

---

No need - the point has been made - it seems you have a problem and you just don't realize it.

~:eek:

Quote:

---

Would you like to learn some some other words that can only ever have one meaning ? There are a hell of a lot of them .

---

You will be surprised how many words in the English Language have more then one definition.

~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Actually I have already explained it to you
Where ?????? I don't see it , is it in invisible writing ?

---

Not in invisible writing its a single word also with several different meanings in its definition and they are all similar also. ~D

Quote:

---

Oh but of course you cannot explain it can you as there is no alternative meaning , it is an absolute definitive word and as such it makes a statement absolute with no leeway for alternative interpretation .
So in this case your statement was absolute rubbish .

---

It seems you are never the wiser from understanding when someone is screwing with you - just like you like to screw with other people.

Oh well - must be the alcohol effecting the higher cognitive skills.

~:joker: ~;)