I may not be a rocket scientist but.....

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:59 am

how can people make the assertion that Iraq has no ties to Al Quida?

If Iraq has/had no ties to Al Quida (spelling?) why are there top Al Quida members being captured in Iraq during the round-ups of insurgents?

Are we to believe that top Al Quida leaders just decided to go there to disrupt the Iraqi freedom? IMO they are part of an existing network operating out of Iraq and have been for years.

by **Mr. Slayer** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:03 am

I'm not going to post in this thread, but good point anyways, Charlie.

by **Murgatroyd** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:27 am

Well, I *am* a rocket scientist, and...

by **JimmyTango** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 6:50 am

Try reading the report issued by the 9-11 panel.

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 7:07 am

and???????????????????????????????????????????????????

Try reading the post again. It seems pretty obvious that there is an entrenched Al Quida network operating there. Do you really believe this was set up AFTER the U.S. invaded?

by **Sewer-Urchin** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:09 am

Actually, the 9-11 report only said Iraq had no direct connection to the 9-11 attack. According to the new intellegence report that bashes the CIA, Iraq did have credible ties to Al-Quida

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:18 am

Good point, Sewer. How can anyone say Iraqi had no ties to September 11th yet they are harboring Al Quida? Let us not forget in GWB's speech on September 13th (I think) that not only were we going after the terrorists but those that support and harbor terrorists.

by **Sidekick Floppy** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:11 am

Didnt we already had this discussion yet? I mean about 5 times yet?

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:16 am

Not that I've seen.

BTW Nice avatar.

by **SavageParrot** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:39 am

Originally posted by CharlieDontSurf
Do you really believe this was set up AFTER the U.S. invaded?

Yes.

Sadam ran a secular country which he maintained by the oppression of radical shiite muslims. He was an enemy of islam and neither he nor al quida could or would have tolerated each others presence. What's more bin laden blamed iraq for bringing american soldiers to defile his holy land in the first gulf war and had publically denounced Saddam.

You might as well argue that cuba is harbouring fascists.

The fact that they are there now is obvious. It's a lawless zone in which there are hundreds of easy american targets, where else would they want to be? It's been over a year now and how long do you think it takes to set up a camp? I'd say about 2 days and probably a month before to pick the site.

If you want a country thet harbours terrorist then why don't you look to Saudi Arabia

by **CharlieDontSurf** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:45 am

Excellent points.

Pay attention, folks. THAT IS HOW TO DEBATE!

While I still believe there is a connection between Saddam and terrorists, you've changed my mind is so far as there being a presence of Al Quida there all along.

Good one dude.

by **Murgatroyd** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 9:56 am

Well, there were Al Qaeda cells in the US prior to 9/11, quite obviously. Does that somehow imply that our government was somehow in compliance with them? If we can suggest that the presense of Al Qaeda indicates governmental compliance in Iraq, simply by the fact that they were there, why wouldn't the same standard apply to us?

by **cashcow** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:23 am

I was about to post something like what SavageParrot said, but noticed that it's been covered.

Iraq is now a terrorist stronghold. The former Iraq probably had less ties to terrorism than any neighboring country (except possibly Turkey).

by **Colonel Ingus** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:35 am

Who can believe anything you say Murg? You and your "chimera' want nothing but to convert us to godless evolutionism and communism!:D

SavageParrot says:

Sadam ran a secular country which he maintained by the oppression of radical shiite muslims. He was an enemy of islam and neither he nor al quida could or would have tolerated each others presence. What's more bin laden blamed iraq for bringing american soldiers to defile his holy land in the first gulf war and had publically denounced Saddam.

Sounds good there Parrot but you may well be wrong. I can give you an excellent counterargument. Stalin and Hitler were two pees in a pod but Stalin was an Ally during WWII and Hitler was the enemy. Hell they were Allied together when they invaded Poland. And Nazism and Communism were inimical to each other. Thats not the first time someone said "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". And it won't be the last.

Mind you I am not saying your suppossition is incorrect. I am just pointing out you are forwarding an argument on a premise that is incomplete at best.

by **Face** » Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:36 am

More than likely, the pro-Saddam people forged a make-shift alliance with al Qaeda because of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of thing. They don't need much time to set up to make trouble. They just need live bodies. The weapons are all there in place, because the pro-Saddam people know where they are/already have them. Then, they just make lots of trouble.

I may not be a rocket scientist but.....

I may not be a rocket scientist but.....

Who is online