Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (75759)	4/23/2006 4:06:17 PM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

If Saddam and Al Qaida had ever collaborated, the RNC and White House would be broadcasting whatever evidence they have 24/7. They would have also presented such evidence in front of the UN and congress. Not to mention during Bush's State Of The Union speeches. The fact they said nothing of the sort is proof it never happened. Or at least that no one has ever found any credible evidence of it. And because Saddam was against Islamic extremists, collaboration was unlikely. The report that Zarqawi was in Saddam's Baghdad hospital turned out to be a myth. Reporters could not find a single hospital worker who recalls Zarqawi ever being treated. Same with the mythical Al Qaida training camp in northern Iraq. Likely this was disinformation put out by Cheney's gang.

To: Orcastraiter who wrote (75759)	4/23/2006 11:17:04 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81568

For you information, while you failed to address the point of my post, you also provide a link to Wikipedia which absolutely backs up scads of known connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The article offers opinion from both sides, but definitely fails to debunk much at all, including the alleged Prague meeting. By the by, it confirms that it was an Iraqi who put several 911 hijackers together for a meeting, when it states "The CIA has concluded that....Shakir al-Azzawi was indeed an Iraqi with connections to the embassy in Malaysia who helped organize the Kuala Lumpur meeting (between three 911 hijackers. His Malaysian connection was another Iraqi with an official position in Malaysa, who got him the job he soon left after the meeting. When ultimately arrested, he possessed plans for Al Qaeda operations - Dan B.), The article does not debunk the notion that Salmon Pak was used to train foriegn terrorists. It quotes Dulfer and others offering further testimony and indication that it was. The article contains some glaring and wholly unsupported statements of pure bias (and this sort of thing is common in Wikipedia). For but one example we find: "1999 * January, Newsweek magazine reported Saddam Hussein is joining forces with al-Qaeda to launch joint terror counter-strikes against the US and Britain. An Arab intelligence officer, reported to know Saddam personally, told Newsweek: "very soon, you will be witnessing large-scale terrorist activity by the Iraqis." The planned attacks are said to be Saddam's revenge for the "continuing aggression" posed by the no fly zones that show the countries are still at war since Operation Desert Fox.[81] The planned attacks never materialized..." Never materialized? Oh? But then we also find that this particular point wraps up with an opinion from the same Newsweek article that "'I'm skeptical that Saddam would resort to terrorism,' says a well informed administration official." [10]" And what is that opinion worth when we KNOW Saddam supported terrorists by offering to, and in fact paying the families of suicide bombers? I could go on, but suffice it to say that your characterization of the article as having "debunked" much of anything is specious indeed. We also find in the article pre-war quotes from President Bush in which he consistently denied there was any proof of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda in 911. Dan B.