Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection

[Popeman38]

Hell, Popeman thinks there are "Thousands of pages of evidence" linking the two. people grab hold of their beliefs and cling to them no matter what the outcome. I will not do that, and I have changed my opinion many MANY times when more corroberating evidence comes out. Otheres here do not, unfortunatelty, and to even add to their dillutions of grandeur, if there wasn't a relationship, there will be no evidence, and they will be stating the same thing 20 years forom now.

Would you be willing to change your opinion on the link if I could provide accounts of translated meeting minutes that have passed the "72 hour rule"?

[chomerics]

Maybe you should read the full report.

Pg 61:

The new translated evidence DOES indicate that Iraq responded positively to the request.

Pg 66

What the 9/11 commission said was that they did not have the evidence to prove anything. Not surprising when Iraq and AQ are trying to keep their relationship secret. New evidence has come out since then however that makes a fairly strong case.

Pg 98

pg 128

There's more but I have a life and I need to go to work. Do a little research yourself. One ground rule... Don't look to defend your position... look at the info as somone who is tasked to protect the US from threats. When you put Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, his hatred for the US and his desire for rvenge for the gulf war, his known contacts with al Qaeda, and the new information that keeps coming out together, Do you REALLY think it is smart to dismiss him as a threat?

Gee Mike, i guess you MISSED this one in the 9-11 report huh. . .:doh: :doh:

But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor

have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76

Here is the link, it is in Chapter 2 on page 66

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.pdf

Where are the links to your cut and pastes?

What you are doing is the perfect example on WHY we don't cherry pick information, and use it as a solid basis for decisions.

[chomerics]

Would you be willing to change your opinion on the link if I could provide accounts of translated meeting minutes that have passed the "72 hour rule"?

I read the "meeting minuites" and they were on a possible collaberation with the Taliban, not Al Qaeda, and it was not finalized. It was also filtered through Pakistan, who WAS in a relationship with the Taliban, and some of OUR OWN companies, as well as OUR OWN government had talks with the Taliban. It is not a justification for war because a country supported someone you don't like.

[Predicto]

What utter smoke-and-mirrors nonsense.

Documents demonstrate that Saddam Hussein - who ruled Iraq, a Muslim country in the Middle East, actually had some contacts with the Taliban - the undisputed rulers of another Muslim country in the Middle East at the time?

STOP THE PRESSES!

[swaroopm]

Thats funny. I find it laughable that whenever anyone says "Iraq involved in terrorism" someone responds with "Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11". Terrorism is not a tactic that begins and ends with the actions of AQ on 9-11-01. Do you acknowledge that it is possible for someone to be involved with terrorism, an active sponsor of terrorism, an enabler of terrorism, etc WITHOUT being involved with 9-11?

Yes, I acknowledge your statement, which leads me to two questions.

1) The implication of your statement is that the US had to invade Iraq and topple Hussein because of his possible connections to terrorism. If this war was really about terrorism, do you think invading Iraq was more of a priority than invading countries like Iran or Syria, countries with seemingly longer ties to sponsoring terrorism than seen with Iraq?

2) As a separate question, can you offer your opinion on what the outcome of this invasion will be with regard to terrorism? That is, when all is said and done, will Iraq be more or less of a haven and sponsor for terrorists? Also, will our invasion serve as a deterrent or an inspiration to terrorists?

GWOT isn't only about punishment for 9-11, it is also about prevention of 9-12.

I obviously have no interest in seeing a 9-12. I hope the "GWOT" is successful in that sense. I don't see how the "invasion of Iraq" part of the "GWOT" achieved either 1) any punishment for 9-11 (since the regime we conquered was not connected to 9-11) or 2) any prevention of 9-12 (which is alluded to by the questions I posed above).

[swaroopm]

When you personally decide to do something, is it better to do something for one reason or do multiple reasons for an action make it more compelling?

One sound reason is better than ten flimsy ones.

And If you really need on reason. Lump it all into the war on terror as a whole and it will still encompass all of the reasons Saddam had to go.

"Lump it all into the war on terror" is not "on reason," it's saying "if you add together all my reasons, it makes one reason."

I'm still waiting for one good justification for our invasion of Iraq.

Maybe you can use the George Bush approach of coming up with a different reason every day.

[chomerics]

And you wonder why people get a little riled up when you start a thread about something? You call what Bush and Co did prior to the war Cherry Picking, yet when you do it you are thoroughly researching information. People do believe that the war was justified. And you know what, their position is not "crap" anymore than your position is.

It was the DEFINITION of cherry picking, they took bits and snipits of ANYTHING that justified their position (a war with Iraq) and used the intel to their advantage. That IS what happened, that IS cherry picking any way you look at it. Just because people, like yourself, think the war is justified by "thousands of pages of documents" does not mean your position is on solid foundation, I still contend it is crap until I see proof that there was an operational relationship between the two groups. To this date, nothing, and I repeat NOTHING has been shown as evidence linking the two, in fact all the evidence presented to the UN turned up to be false ruses.

Your opinion is that Bush started an unjust war. The only way you will ever acknowledge it as being just is if we uncover thousands of active WMDs in the desert. You are a self proclaimed hater of Bush (the Pres at least:laugh: ) and will be sooooo happy in 2008 when the next pres is inaugurated.

Or if people can show me information that Saddam was in fact working with Al Qaeda. he was not, and the 9-11 commission said so in their report.

UBLs teachings violate the Pillars of Islam too. That does not prevent him from saying it is the wishes of the Prophet and Allah for Muslims to blow themselves up. If he is willing to diregard the teachings of Islam, the holiest of all teachings, you do not think that he would align himself with a dictator who wants to annihilate Israel, his ultimate goal? That is naive. (think back to your views on Christians using the teachings of Christ to persecute the Jews in your other thread and be very careful how you answer lest you perjur yourself)

I go by what he says, as he has been pretty consistant over the years. His MAIN objection is with the United States, and yes he is ALSO not a fan of Israel. The difference is that he is not working with Palestine, but on his own against the US, and he is recruiting a massive amount of people in his jihad against us. We invaded a country and played DIRECTLY into his hands. Now, instead of allying the world against the terrorists, we have isolated America, increased terrorism and turned the ME on its head. We have done EVERYTHING wrong, EVERYTHING!!! We have almost single handedly screwed ourselves and an entire generation to EVER have peace because of our actions in Iraq.

As for people traveling places without any documentation. That has never happenned before, has it? Maybe more than 7 million times in our own country? Just a thought about that. Have you ever traveled abroad? Freedom of movement is easy. You can drive accross borders without stopping. I went from Bosnia to Croatia to Hungary without having a passport or being stopped. So no one has nay record of me crossing the border. Unbelievable...

There is NO PROOF!!!! Here, I contend that the Easter bunny is real, prove he isn't!!! Your premise is that he got out of the US, traveled to Prauge, yet was not on ANY security camera in ANY airport, met with an Iraqi diplomat, then SNUCK back into the country all in 4 days without a passport. Have you traveled overseas? have you ever tried to get into a country without a passport? Can you travel half way around the world, then come back in a period of four days? Seriously Occam's Razor my friend, Occam's razor.

And in reference to your last paragraph. I could provide links that justify the war, but you would dismiss them as propoganda that can be disproven. I could do the same for your links and say: "Seriously folks, i can't make this stuff up, people actually believe this crap :doh:". That really proves my point doesn't it. Makes everyone aware that I am right and you are wrong. Let us try to stay civil and respect the other POV. Otherwise people will refuse to debate the points and instead attack. And neither of us want that.

If you can provide me with links that show an operational relationship between Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and stuff which was not made up, the please do so. If not, stop wasting our time saying you can.

[luckydevil]

What utter smoke-and-mirrors nonsense.

Documents demonstrate that Saddam Hussein - who ruled Iraq, a Muslim country in the Middle East, actually had some contacts with the Taliban - the undisputed rulers of another Muslim country in the Middle East at the time?

STOP THE PRESSES!

People listen to Predicto. The thread should be over

[Baculus]

It must be noted that we had past relations with the Taliban as well. So we had relations with Saddam and the Taliban - where does this place us? Oh, and we had relations with Bin Laden as well, insofar as Bin Laden visiting the U.S., so we aren't exactly keeping a good looking score at this point.

I wouldn't be totally surprised that Saddam reached out to the Taliban - in addition to the U.S., Russia and China were also establishing ties with this regime. It is possible that he did have some nefarious plans in the future, but that is speculation, so it comes back to what I have been asking for years: Was Saddam Hussein an immediate theat that had to be resolved immediately? After all, when I ask this question, I usually get a reply of "Well, we invade Iraq to really create a presence in the region," so I am not sure if such ties between Saddam and the Taiban is actually important, according to some theories to why the U.S. is in Iraq.

[@DCGoldPants]

Its almost the weekend. If the Admin or State Dept doesn't step up and confirm this story soon. Its going to be lost by monday.

[luckydevil]

It must be noted that we had past relations with the Taliban as well. So we had relations with Saddam and the Taliban - where does this place us? Oh, and we had relations with Bin Laden as well, insofar as Bin Laden visiting the U.S., so we aren't exactly keeping a good looking score at this point.

I have pointed out this same exact stuff, but sadly every time I do I get dismissed as a radical leftist and a person who hates America.

[swaroopm]

Maybe you should read the full report.

There's more but I have a life and I need to go to work. Do a little research yourself.

Thanks for your advice. :rolleyes:

One ground rule... Don't look to defend your position...

Who cares about defending positions? Anyone who wastes time doing that is stupid and needs to get over their own ego. The point is to think about what is best for our country and its people. Everyone in this discussion should realize that.

look at the info as somone who is tasked to protect the US from threats. When you put Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, his hatred for the US and his desire for rvenge for the gulf war, his known contacts with al Qaeda, and the new information that keeps coming out together, Do you REALLY think it is smart to dismiss him as a threat?

This is a fair question. I definitely think it is worth trying to view the situation from the point of view of those who are trying to defend the country. In that light, I don't think it would have been smart to "dismiss him as a threat" at all. I don't know who ever dismissed him as a threat; I certainly didn't. My thought is just that, whatever threat he posed, it didn't justify an invasion of Iraq. This is true even when putting together the various points that you bring up. In particular, I don't find the "history of supporting terrorism" or the "known contacts with al Qaeda" to be very substantial or significant, and Hussein was (and is) far from the only world leader with a severe ax to grind against the US. To repeat, it's not that I "dismiss him as a threat," it's that I don't think the threat justified an invasion.

Further, nothing that Bush or anyone in the administration has said since then has led me to believe the invasion was justified. In the meantime, other things have happened that serve to discredit the profferred justifications - e.g. the errors in Powell's speech to the UN, the failure to discover significant "WMDs," and even the apparent lack of enthusiasm the conquered Iraqis (not just the insurgents) seem to have for our occupation and our efforts to install democracy.

Sorry if I've gotten far away from the thread topic. Returning to this thread, the initial post is (as far as I can tell) an attempt to justify this invasion. I remain unconvinced, though open-minded - as I said in my initial post in this thread, please let me know if anyone comes up with a legitimate justification for our invasion of Iraq. It should be obvious that the evidence presented in this thread is not convincing to me. Evidence of a few contacts or interactions, yes - evidence that suggests we needed to send our troops to invade Iraq, no.

[Popeman38]

If you can provide me with links that show an operational relationship between Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and stuff which was not made up, the please do so. If not, stop wasting our time saying you can.

Originally it was show any contact between the two. Now it is an operational relationship. How about you read the documents that habve been declassified. I will even provide a link:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

[NoCalMike]

I still don't understand why some people think we were ever ignoring Saddamn in the first place, the man was contained, under surveillence, he wasn't going to move from his living room to his bathroom without our Government and CIA knowing his every move. People acted like not going to war with Iraq meant we paid no attention to Iraq, which is false. Iraq was contained, had been contained for over a decade, and the lack of WMDs(once we invaded) is proof that Saddam was contained. "Saddam had aspirations to get nuclear weapons" Big freaking deal, so does every world leader probably, but there is no way Saddam was going to start up a program without us knowing. He was being watched under a careful eye. One thing is for sure, AFTER the invasion and occupation Iraq sure ISN'T contained, now you have every radical from every country moving into the country to plant car bombs, Yay Us!?!

[Midnight Judges]

Originally it was show any contact between the two. Now it is an operational relationship. How about you read the documents that habve been declassified. I will even provide a link:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

Dude, this is what your source says:

The US Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available. Users who come across documents they feel are inappropriately released may contact the responsible officers at docex@center.osis.gov. The ODNI press release and public affairs contact information is available at

[chomerics]

Originally it was show any contact between the two. Now it is an operational relationship. How about you read the documents that habve been declassified. I will even provide a link:

http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm

It was ALWAYS operational relationship, that is what we were sold on as a country.

I know what is out there, and I know what has been stated, and there was no working relationship with Al Qaeda. Was there possibly a contact out there? Yes, there could have possible been one, but EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY would have had contact using the definition of contact or "link".

Can you give me something to go on? Seriously, I found nothing in the first three documents on the list, and now the page won't load.

BTW, Midnight just kind of ripped apart your links :doh:

[Predicto]

People listen to Predicto. The thread should be over

Yeah - what he said!

[ZoEd]

If you CLAIM there is a connection, and go to WAR over a connection (even when the top world leaders say there is no connection) then you better damn well have proof of a connection.

The reason nobody believes any of this stuff is because bin Laden has stated many MANY times that he despised Saddam. He hated Saddam almost as much as he hated us, for killing Muslims, invading Kuwait and having a secular government. Everything OBL is against. It is because of his teachings and rants that we were skeptical to say the least, and the only thing which has been given as proof is half hearted meetings with Pakistan, which show at least two layers of removal from Bin Laden. It is a joke to say the least that "there could have been a connection" without proof and in the absence of any.

Hell I could say George bush was in cahoots with Bin Laden, all I would have to do is point to sketchy documents with his companies dealings with Bin Ladens families, and that would be the same thing.

Didi Saddam have ties to terrorists? Of course he did, but the were MUCH MUCH less then countries such as Saudi Arabia, or Syria. he was a isolated piss ant dictator who was living scared and without international support. We removed him and created a world wind of crap in the ME, and now people are saying that we have to stay and fix it. . . well has anyone taken a history class? What happened to the British occupation of Iraq? How did it fair for them? All we are doing right now is fueling the insurgency, increasing the divide between Iraqi factions, and making sure an entire generation of Muslims will be willing to kill themselves to hurt us.

It is not just horrible foreign policy, but completely tragic to both the Iraqi people and to our soldiers, of over 60,000 which have been hurt in this war. Sorry, but we are not making the world safer, we are making it more dangerous by our presence in Iraq, and we are loosing young Americans, money and world opinion in the process. It is a lose, lose, lose situation. The best course of action is to declare victory and leave. it is what the American people want, it is what the Iraqi's want and it is what the world wants. BTW, it is not what Bin Laden wants either, he would rather have us in Iraq, so he can use us as a scapegoat, and not other Muslims.

Chom I have one question for you. I'm not trying to be an ass but where do you get all of your information? The news, television, internet, papers? Many US serviceman have come on ES time and time again and told numerous Bush haters that there is a million times more good things being done for the Iraqi people than whats being reported. We've told ES over and over again that the media 99% of the time reports all of the negative things and none of the good. You speak as if you have an inside scoop as to what's going on in Iraq, yet I'm guessing you've never been there. I'm willing to bet you really don't know what the Iraqi people want, you are making an assumption based on your partisanship and political agenda.

You write very well and give the appearance that you know what you're talking about but typically you can't back up what you're saying. I think your hate for this administration may be clouding your ability to accept the fact that we may be doing some damn good over there. :2cents:

[ZoEd]

I've read a few of your posts and you are severely mistaken on a few issues.

1. The Democrats in the Senate did NOT have access to the same information as the White House. Here are some examples:

a. Scooter Libby said there was a photograph of an Iraqi Government worker meeting with Muhammed Atta in Europe. The Bush administration allegedly saw the photo but when Colin Powell's office tried to get the photo they were unable to get access.

b. Only the Dems on the intelligence committee were supposed to be privvy to all intelligence. NOT everyone in the Senate has that access. Of course the Bush administration really didn't share intelligence when they weren't forced to. The Bush administration defied the UN resolutions (specifically 1441) by not sharing WMD intel with inspectors on the ground in Iraq.

c. Democrats and the state department were told there were four different sources for the curveball information. To this day the other three sources have not been revealed to the state department, the Democrats, or Collin Powell. It is now fairly obvious that the Bush administration was heavily influenced by curveball and known manipulator, Ahmed Chalabi.

Bottom Line: Anyone who claims the Democrats had access to all the same information as the Bush administration is saying so without any factual basis and they are saying it purely for political gain.

Don't believe me? Fine. You can hear it from 25 different CIA agents/state department employees right here:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

You severely misquoted John Kerry. I would like to see a source on that quote. Something tells me you just made it up or you are echoing what some Republican pundit told you. Repeating the words of Republican pundits is dangerous because 90% of the pundits are liars and manipulators.

Seriously, you can't remember September 12th, 2001? When Bush had an 80% approval rating and all the Democrats stood behind him and declared war on the Taliban? If your memory is that short...nevermind.

So what you are telling me is Bush single handedly declared war and Congress backed him with 0 proof. So our Government allowed Bush to single handedly crank up the war machine and drive it into Iraq. Checks and balances went out the window. Didn't know Bush went from president to dictator, how ignorant of me. :doh:

I have no politcal agenda, none. I'm not a huge supporter of Bush but he was the lesser of two evils in my opinion. I didn't receive any of my information from pundits, I'm so ignorant I don't even know what a pundit is. I watched the debates myself and watched Kerry repeatedly two step around how he would handle the situation in Iraq. Every time the question was directed to him he would say, I'm probably paraphrasing a little "I have a plan but I won't tell you because the Bush administration may steal my plan". Now that's not a direct quote but that's exactly what I got out of his statements and his incesant tap dancing around the question.

Brother I don't have a politcal agenda but you are trying to say the Dems hands are clean and there is no way in hell that's true. They are all in bed together left and right, none are clean and most are not honest. Both sides play political pool and it just so happens the right has run the table the last two elections. If and when the left finally wins you'll have your hey day, until then quit blaming all of Americas problems on one man.

[ZoEd]

That's the thing, they are no longer WMD's because they are inneffective, impotent. You could throw that crap on a neighborhood and nothing would happen.

Absolutely, positively not true. One of these impotent shells was used in a roadside bomb and several US soldiers had to be treated for exposure to mustard gas. That's via an intel brief given to US soldiers reporting to Iraq. Then again it might not have been on CNN so I must be lying.

[ZoEd]

This just in - The president has already stated that Saddam had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. The mastermind of that tragedy was OBL and he is still free. Why are you knuckleheads crowing about a fake news story on Faux News instead of demanding that the men who perpetrated the attacks of 9/11 be brought to justice?

How can you claim to have a war on terror and let the world's most dangerous terrorist go free? If Saddam's purported connection to AQ is enough to go to war then why not destroy AQ and OBL first?

Why is it okay to waste blood and treasure on a diversonary war in which the conquered never attacked us? We will spend over 1.27 TRILLION dollars to attack a country that had no ties to 9/11 and never attacked us. It is insanity.

So we're not looking for OBL? We're not still searching the mountains of Afghanistan where he's reported to be hiding? We haven't tried in the past to search him out and kill him? This is one of the lamest arguement you can come up with. If you seriously think we're allowing OBL to just run around one of the Stan's picking poppy plants you're freaking nuts. Eventually we'll find him then all the Bush bashers will find something else to ***** about.

[Baculus]

So we're not looking for OBL? We're not still searching the mountains of Afghanistan where he's reported to be hiding? We haven't tried in the past to search him out and kill him? This is one of the lamest arguement you can come up with. If you seriously think we're allowing OBL to just run around one of the Stan's picking poppy plants you're freaking nuts. Eventually we'll find him then all the Bush bashers will find something else to ***** about.

It was strange to watch the President go from "OBL can't hide and can't run. We will find him" type of language, to six months shrugging and saying "I dont care where he is - he isn't the most important target." It really left a huge question mark above my head and was quite odd.

[Baculus]

Absolutely, positively not true. One of these impotent shells was used in a roadside bomb and several US soldiers had to be treated for exposure to mustard gas. That's via an intel brief given to US soldiers reporting to Iraq. Then again it might not have been on CNN so I must be lying.

That is absolutely true. In all of the discussion about Saddam's WMDs, it has been rarely discusses that a lot, if not a majority, of such weapons are most likely inert, from time and environment. It is assumed that one can leave chemical shells lying around the desert and they will simply work after years of such storage - that is a false assumption

By the way, I haven't heard of such a story. Also, it really has nothing to do with CNN - just many folks have lost faith in some of the military reporting, even from the Pentagon.

[twa]

That is absolutely true. In all of the discussion about Saddam's WMDs, it has been rarely discusses that a lot, if not a majority, of such weapons are most likely inert, from time and environment. It is assumed that one can leave chemical shells lying around the desert and they will simply work after years of such storage - that is a false assumption

By the way, I haven't heard of such a story. Also, it really has nothing to do with CNN - just many folks have lost faith in some of the military reporting, even from the Pentagon.

Can you tell me why mustard gas shells from WW2 are still active then?

I am sure you also know Iraq had binary weapons that remain stable for long periods.

The statement they were not usable adressed the manner they were designed for IE: artillery shells

[SkinsHokieFan]

By the way, I haven't heard of such a story. Also, it really has nothing to do with CNN - just many folks have lost faith in some of the military reporting, even from the Pentagon.

If it was given in an intel briefing, I am fairly positive that bit of information is classified

I hope our good friend didn't violate any national security act documents by stating what he did in the heat of this debate

I am looking forward to talking to 2 of my friends who come back from Iraq in August. One had interesting things to say back in January when I spoke to him about his time in Iraq, the most interesting being WMD's being transported to Syria via ambulances

Of course, I have absolutley 0 concrete proof of that except for his word when speaking to his Iraqi Republican guard source