9/11 Coincidences

[Mad Mike]

Says the man with the tinfoil hat who still thinks Saddam was in cahoots with Al Qaeda :doh:

I find it quite funny that you try to ***** slap one conspiracy theorist, when you have a conspiracy theory just as whacked out and pimp it front and center.

Keep up with your banter, Mike, the world needs people like yourself. . .people to be made examples of for the rest of us.

Yeah. Iraq trained foreign (arab) terrorists for more than a decade. Many of the terrorist groups that they trained were groups that al Qaeda recruited from. A FACT exposed by Iraqi documents. They had an aircraft they used to train terrorists in hijacking. A FACT documented in photographs. They did make use of groups associated with al Qaeda and did target american interests with terrorism, again FACTS proven with Iraqi documents. One of the people behind the first world trade center bombings fled to Iraq. All FACTS. But I'm crazy to suggest that Iraq may have helped train the hijackers either directly or by training the person who trained the hijackers. I'm crazy for suggesting Iraq was a valid target on the war against terrorism.

You on the other hand are the voice of reason for suggesting bush may have knowingly let 9/11 happen with ZERO evidence to back such a statement.

Pure ******* genius.

[chomerics]

Dude, I honestly have a lot of respect for you. If I could turn the dial on the way-back machine and undo some of our earliest arguments, I would. We may disagree strongly on some issues but I respect the fact that you have a very sharp mind. I would even venture to say that if we sat down at a bar, you and I would have some extremely interesting conversations till the wee hours of the morning and while the debates might get heated, we would part ways with a handshake and a slap on the back. But damn it, you constantly make comments about me while ignoring the actions of those you are more ideologically in agreement with.

Where were you when Chom called me a liar? How many times have you told him or anyone else to chill out with attacks on me?

He doesn't call me out because it is not me that is lying Mike, it is you. If I make a mistake, I will man up and admit it, I will tell everyone that I was wrong, I will give my mea culpa, every single time. You, on the other hand, will NEVER EVER admit that you are wrong. You will block your ears and scream at the top of your lungs lalalalalalalala I can't hear you!!!! You will not debate, and you will not come to the same conclusions as me because your mind won't allow you too. I don't know if it was because you were picked on in the second grade, or if it was because some bully stole your lunch money when you were 12, but you have some deep seeded psychological problems when it comes to evaluating truth, and looking at evidence to make an honest judgment.

You think that you have it all figured out, you think that the entire world is wrong, and you, a graphics designer has figured out the hidden connections between Saddam and Al Qaeda. You think that you have the smoking gun, and when you are proven wrong, again and again and again, you still spout the same information as if it has merit. . .well :secret: your "FACTS" are BS, lies, cherry picked information, and propaganda that was meant to persuade an entire country to go to war. And you know what? It worked!!!! Yes you should be proud of yourself, crap posted like you did in 2003-2004, convinced the country that Iraq was an immediate threat and that they were going to attack us again through Al Qaeda. That distinction and link was done through bits of information that was "leaked" to the press, where as it was nothing more than a propaganda piece meant to scare Americans into a war.

Unfortunately, for the vast majority of US citizens, they came to realize that this was all BS. They came to understand that there were no WMDs, that Saddam was not "actively training Al Qaeda at Salman Pak" as you have insinuated previously. No in America has become disenfranchised by the actions of the Bush Cabal because they know now that they were lied to in order to start a war in Iraq. We now know the truth, and it is a truth you so stringently want to ignore.

I don't know WHY you can't come to grips with the reality that you were used as a pawn. Maybe it is because you think you are infallible, maybe it is because your brain lacks empathy or can not understand that other people have motives beyond your understanding. Maybe you can't come to grips that a person that you admired lied to America in order to start a war which his cabinet stated couldn't happen unless. . .

"absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor"

Who knows what the reason is Mike, only you do. Only you know why you can't come to grips with the idea that your "FACTS" were tiny tidbits of information purposefully leaked to the media in order to justify an invasion. It didn't matter if they were true or not, nope not at all.

Tell me again when something that was supposed to be so top secret was leaked to the press? Why would our government give up this information? Who gave up this information and why was it printed? Have you been under a rock for the past 4 years? Have you not heard of the Libby trials? Do you not know that this information was purposefully leaked to the NY Times by the White House in order to promote their war? Does that not make you sick that you actually helped these people lie? That you bought into the lie so much, that you are willing to make a fool out of yourself on a message board time and time again?

At what point does it end Mike? When do you admit that you were wrong? What will it take for you to come clean and say "you know what? I effed up, and I was wrong about these "facts?". I now realize that I was just one of a million pawns used to pimp a war we never should have started. Is there anything on the face of this earth that will get you to say your mea culpa?

I think not :doh:

I've posted Page after page of FACTS showing Iraq's ties to terrorism, it's desire and record of using terrorism against the US. It's ties with groups associated with al Qaeda and it's known meetings with bin Laden. and when I say it's not a stretch to think the were not involved or supported in some fashion what happend on 9/11. I'm crazy. But let Chom suggest that Bush might have knowingly let 9/11 happen without any proof whatsoever and he's intellectually honest. Does that make any sense?

The reason people think you are crazy Mike is because . . . you are. Anyone who thinks that Al Qaeda and Saddam were in cahoots should be lumped into the same group of people that think that 9-11 was an inside job. Your are all part of the same genera of debater, one who ignores evidence to the contrary, and only uses tiny snipits of information that promote an illogical conclusion when everything else is considered.

Now, after everything is said and done, what would be the reason Bush would be ignoring a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam? Why would he not hold up the smoking gun evidence and show everyone, heck the entire world, that they were working together? It would justify the war Mike, and it would mean that we have lost over 4000 people in this hell hole, with another 50K people who are severely disabled, but we were right to do so. It would be justification for the removal of Saddam Hussen, yet that evidence has never been presented. It has never been shown to the public or the world. . . you are one of the only few people on the face of this planet who think that Saddam and Bin Laden were in lock step with each other. You have no evidence, and most of the "links" are nothing more than conversations between two factions in the middle east. Do you think Saudi Arabia had any more dealings with Bin Laden than Saddam? I sure do, and I bet, if they wanted to, they could have found 10,000 more harming and damning intel on the Saud family's dealings with Bin Laden, but lets ignore that right?

:rant:

[MozeDawg]

Makes you go hmmmmmmmmm that idiots like you fall for it.

- Arsenio Hall

Well your the idiot for being an undercover cowboy fan...i swear no one can comment with out some childish remark...pull your ho card out your a**

[Mad Mike]

Chom, I'll let your entire rant stand (it's not worthy of quoting) and simply post the link to this thread:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243405&highlight=report

Perhaps you can point out which of my facts is wrong? Perhaps you have documented facts that show this? Or is it all propaganda?

Then maybe you can explain how your theory that Bush knowingly let 9/11 happen based on zero evidence is somehow more compelling than my theory about Iraq?

And Predicto.... "not intellectually dishonest"?

[chomerics]

Yeah. Iraq trained foreign (arab) terrorists for more than a decade. Many of the terrorist groups that they trained were groups that al Qaeda recruited from. A FACT exposed by Iraqi documents. They had an aircraft they used to train terrorists in hijacking. A FACT documented in photographs. They did make use of groups associated with al Qaeda and did target american interests with terrorism, again FACTS proven with Iraqi documents. One of the people behind the first world trade center bombings fled to Iraq. All FACTS. But I'm crazy to suggest that Iraq may have helped train the hijackers either directly or by training the person who trained the hijackers. I'm crazy for suggesting Iraq was a valid target on the war against terrorism.

Yes you are crazy, you are insane and crazy for thinking Salman Pac had something to do with 9-11. ..

yet the 9-11 report stated. . .

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

From the Pentagon. . .

"Captured Iraqi documents and intelligence interrogations of Saddam Hussein and two former aides "all confirmed" that Hussein's regime was not directly cooperating with al-Qaeda before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a declassified Defense Department report released yesterday.

The declassified version of the report, by acting Inspector General Thomas F. Gimble, also contains new details about the intelligence community's prewar consensus that the Iraqi government and al-Qaeda figures had only limited contacts, and its judgments that reports of deeper links were based on dubious or unconfirmed information. The report had been released in summary form in February.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/05/AR2007040502263_pf.html

You on the other hand are the voice of reason for suggesting bush may have knowingly let 9/11 happen with ZERO evidence to back such a statement.

how about the Aug. 6th PDB. . .

http://www.cnn.com/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

How about this memo which Clark called for an URGENT meeting on Al Qaeda which was http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB147/clarke%20memo.pdf

how about when bush told Clarke to find out how Saddam was behind 9-11, which he was not. . .

Clarke had written that on September 12, 2001, President Bush pulled him and a couple of aides aside and "testily" asked him to try to find evidence that Saddam Hussein was connected to the terrorist attacks. In response he wrote a report stating there was no evidence of Iraqi involvement and got it signed by all relevant agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the CIA. The paper was quickly returned by a deputy with a note saying "Please update and resubmit".[5] After initially denying that such meeting and request between the President and Clarke took place, the White House later reversed its denial when others present backed Clarke's version of the events.

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

how about when PNAC described how the only way to invade Iraq would be if we had a "Pearl Harbor" type event???

the people in PNAC?

Elliott Abrams Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Democracy, Human Rights, and International Operations (2001–2002), Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Near East and North African Affairs (2002–2005), Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy (2005-) (all within the National Security Council)

Richard Armitage Deputy Secretary of State (2001-2005)

John R. Bolton Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs (2001-2005), U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2005-2006)

Dick Cheney Vice President (2001-)

Eliot A. Cohen Member of the Defense Policy Advisory Board (2007-)[83]

Seth Cropsey Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau (12/2002-12/2004)

Paula Dobriansky Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs (2001-2007)

Francis Fukuyama Member of the The President's Council on Bioethics (2001-2005)

Zalmay Khalilzad U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan (11/2003 - 6/2005), U.S. Ambassador to Iraq (6/2005 - 3/2007) U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007-)

I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Chief of Staff for the Vice President (2001-2005)

Richard Perle Chairman of the Board, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee (2001-2003)

Peter W. Rodman Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security (2001-2007)

Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense (2001-2006)

Randy Scheunemann Member of the U.S. Committee on NATO, Project on Transitional Democracies, International Republican Institute

Paul Wolfowitz Deputy Secretary of Defense (2001-2005)

Dov S. Zakheim Department of Defense Comptroller (2001-2004)

Robert B. Zoellick Office of the United States Trade Representative (2001-2005), Deputy Secretary of State (2005-2006)

But just ignore the 9000lb gorilla in the room, and focus on what isn't true. . .in fact that is decidedly what you will do.

Pure ******* genius.

Why yes, I am an arrogant prick when it comes to making an example of the uninformed. If you want to debate the issue, go right ahead, because your "Facts" have been proven wrong by history and my "theories" still stand the test of time. . .funny how that works isn't it?

[Mad Mike]

From 2008, a report with actual documentation from Iraqi documents:

Quote:

Renewal and Jihad Organization

Secret Islamic Palestinian Organization established after the war. It believes in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests. They also believe our leader [saddam Hussein], may God protect him, is the true leader in the war against the infidels. The organization's leaders live in Jordan... when they visited Iraq two months ago they demonstrated a willingness to carry out operations against American interests at any time.

Training foreign terrorists

Quote:

Captured Iraqi archives reveal that Saddam was training Arab fighters (non-Iraqi) in Iraqi training camps more than a decade prior to OPERATION DESERT STORM (1991). A Saddam memorandum directed the IIS to submit a list of foreign nationals who were trained in Iraq and carried out operations during the 1991 war against the United States. 33 In response, the IIS sent a list of one-hundred names of foreign national fighters, categorized by country

Training at places like Salman Pak btw.

Terrorism against american interests

Quote:

In the first, from January 1993, and coinciding with the start of the US humanitarian intervention in Somalia, the Presidential Secretary informed the council member of Saddam's decision to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia."

? In the second memorandum, Saddam orders the IIS Director to revise a

plan the IIS director had previously forwarded to include setting up

operations inside Somalia.44 The overlap between bin Laden's and

Saddam's interests in Somalia provides a tactical example of the parallel

between Iraq and radical Islam: at the same time Saddam was ordering action in Somalia aimed at the American presence, Osama bin Laden was doing the same thing.

Other documents show Saddam's terror organizations could be

deadly. They were willing to target not only Western interests but also to directly attack Americans. Uday Hussein reports to his father the results of one such terrorist strike that specifically targeted American aid workers with the UN

1. What was the target?

Attacking the new Land Cruiser vehicle with the UN symbol, the vehicle

originally owned by the [unclear] organization,

There were four American citizens including

one female in the vehicle.

2. Execution

On 19th of February at 1915 hours, using an explosive charge.

3. Participants in the execution of the operation

An advisor and three other citizens. The results of the mission were the

destruction of the above mentioned vehicle, the death of the head of the

organization and the serious injury of the other three, including the

woman. The operation was supported by the command of the At Ta'mim

78 branch of the Party ...

This and other attacks were not isolated incidents but part of a state-directed program of significant scale.

al Qaeda

Quote:

When attacking Western interests, the competitive terror cartel came into play, particularly in the late 1990s. Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's long term vision.

We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army ofMuhammad... has threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests ...We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives, and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom they belong to and with whom they are connected. Give this subject your utmost attention.

Information available to us is that the group is under the wings of bin Laden. They receive their directions from Yemen. Their objectives are the same as bIll Laden...

More to chew on....

Quote:

Ten more pages in this document folder give further details on operatives sent into the countries around Iraq to attack American installations, the ruling families in the Middle East, and oil installations. Most of this material details the cover identities they would use while traveling and how Unit 999 could guarantee their future loyalty once they were out of the unit's direct control.

Some aspects of the indirect cooperation between Saddam's regional terror enterprise and al Qaeda's more global one are somewhat analogous to the Cali and Medellin drug cartels. Both drug cartels (actually loose collections of families and criminal gangs) were serious national security concerns to the United States. Both cartels competed for a share of the illegal drug market. However, neither cartel was reluctant to cooperate with the other when it came to the pursuit of a common objective-expanding and facilitating their illicit trade.

Saddam Hussein was demonstrably willing to use terrorism to achieve his goals. Using this tactical method was a strategic choice of Saddam's, often requiring direct and indirect cooperation with movements, organizations, and individuals possessing, in some cases, diametrically opposed long-term goals. An example of indirect cooperation is the movement led by Osama bin Laden. During the 1990s, both Saddam and bin Laden wanted the West, particularly the United States, out of Muslim lands (or in the view of Saddam, the "Arab nation"). Both wanted to create a single powerful state that would take its place as a global superpower. But the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted-and still wantsto restore the Islamic caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the secular ruler of a united Arab nation. These competing visions made any significant long-tenn compromise between them highly unlikely. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of "apostate" regime-a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges. In pursuit of their own separate but surprisingly "parallel" visions, Saddam and bin Laden often found a common enemy in the United States.

The Saddam regime was very concerned about the internal threat

posed by various Islamist movements. Crackdowns, arrests, and monitoring of Islamic radical movements were common in Iraq. However, Saddam's security organizations and bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims, at least for the short tenn. Considerable operational overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the regional groups involved in terrorism. Saddam provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arab nationalists in the region. Osama bin Laden provided training and motivation for violent revolutionary Islamists in the region.

Nevertheless, these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.

Conclusion

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there

anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

[Corcaigh]

9/11 Conspiracy Theories 'Ridiculous,' Al Qaeda Says

"Arguing with you is like arguing with a goat" :laugh:

[mjah]

Hey Mad Mike, is that the largest font Extremeskins offers?

Let's see here. Font size rundown:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Yep, that's the biggest font we have.

What will you do someday when you need to make a point even bigger than this one? Lobby for a size 8?

As long as you're trying to keep up with chom, maybe you can follow his lead in another way... by, you know, posting the link from which you just quoted over 1,200 words.

[Corcaigh]

7

That takes the cake. Yellow cake.

[Mad Mike]

Hey Mad Mike, is that the largest font Extremeskins offers?

Let's see here. Font size rundown:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Yep, that's the biggest font we have.

What will you do someday when you need to make a point even bigger than this one? Lobby for a size 8?

As long as you're trying to keep up with chom, maybe you can follow his lead in another way... by, you know, posting the link from which you just quoted over 1,200 words.

I've posted my links hundreds of times. Here's the thread where I have collected my evidence with links:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243405&highlight=report

But If you want a specific link to the report I got that info from:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

Note: Perhaps most damning of the media and their coverage of the report is the abstract of the report itself, found on page 93:

Quote:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

[mjah]

Of course, not all size 7s are created equal...

777777777

[chomerics]

I've posted my links hundreds of times. Here's the thread where I have collected my evidence with links:

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=243405&highlight=report

But If you want a specific link to the report I got that info from:

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

Note: Perhaps most damning of the media and their coverage of the report is the abstract of the report itself, found on page 93:

Quote:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam's security organizations and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.

Jesus effing christ, what is your major malfunction private pyle????

Larry ripped you apart on this the other time, I did it previously, as have HALF THE FREAKING BOARD HAS!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what you highlighted!!!!

While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely.

While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network

Do you understand what that means???? Can you comprehend??? It means THERE WAS NO CONNECTION!!!!

All it says is at ABSOLUTE BEST (and this is how intel works, the absolute best scenario) he was willing to use people who were connected to Al Qaeda, as long as he could control them.

It does NOT say there was a collaborative relationship. It does not say he was training, it does not say he was working with, it says in fact the opposite!!!!

These documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network

Christ, why is it so hard to comprehend that there was no working between the two???

Answer ANY of my questions, pick one, debate it, roll over it, stomp out the truth, all you do is post the same exact crap over an over and over again. It is absolutely tiresome, you acknowledge nothing, and ignore people who point out what the problem is with your evidence, then pop up again a month later to paost the same exact crap!!!! Only to have yet someone else tell you that you are wrong, that your "facts" don't claim what you think they do and you ignore them too!?!?

At times I think I am talking to a 2 year old who screams I am rubber you are glue :doh: :hammer:

[Mad Mike]

Jesus effing christ, what is your major malfunction private pyle????

Larry ripped you apart on this the other time, I did it previously, as have HALF THE FREAKING BOARD HAS!!!!!!!!!!

Look at what you highlighted!!!!

While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network

Do you understand what that means???? Can you comprehend??? It means THERE WAS NO CONNECTION!!!!

All it says is at ABSOLUTE BEST (and this is how intel works, the absolute best scenario) he was willing to use people who were connected to Al Qaeda, as long as he could control them.

It does NOT say there was a collaborative relationship. It does not say he was training, it does not say he was working with, it says in fact the opposite!!!!

These documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network

Christ, why is it so hard to comprehend that there was no working between the two???

Answer ANY of my questions, pick one, debate it, roll over it, stomp out the truth, all you do is post the same exact crap over an over and over again. It is absolutely tiresome, you acknowledge nothing, and ignore people who point out what the problem is with your evidence, then pop up again a month later to paost the same exact crap!!!! Only to have yet someone else tell you that you are wrong, that your "facts" don't claim what you think they do and you ignore them too!?!?

At times I think I am talking to a 2 year old who screams I am rubber you are glue :doh: :hammer:

Read much?

Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely.

This created both the appearance of and, in some way, a "de facto" link between the organizations.

Yeah. I'm the child.

For those who lack the functional brain power... Iraq DID train foreign terrorists. Some of them WERE trained in how to hijack planes. We have no idea who these people are or where they went. Chomerics would have us all assume that this has nothing to do with 9/11. I am saying that it's very possible this training helped al Qaeda.

Again from the report:

Captured Iraqi archives reveal that Saddam was training Arab fighters (non-Iraqi) in Iraqi training camps more than a decade prior to OPERATION DESERT STORM (1991).

[chomerics]

Chomerics would have us all assume that this has nothing to do with 9/11. I am saying that it's very possible this training helped al Qaeda.

Jesus effing christ you have got to be the most ignorant person I have ever had the unfortunate luck of running across!!!!

I am not saying it our frigging government is!!! Our damn government is the one that says there was nothing to do with 9-11, and it HURTS THEIR CREDIBILITY!!!

What would it take Mike for you to admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11?

1. The president saying it? Nope

2. The pentagon saying it? Nope

3. The 9-11 commission saying it? Nope

What would it take to convince you that there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11??? What??? If you can't answer that question then you don't even deserve to debate anyone.

[Redskins Diehard]

Jesus effing christ you have got to be the most ignorant person I have ever had the unfortunate luck of running across!!!!

I am not saying it our frigging government is!!! Our damn government is the one that says there was nothing to do with 9-11, and it HURTS THEIR CREDIBILITY!!!

What would it take Mike for you to admit that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11?

1. The president saying it? Nope

2. The pentagon saying it? Nope

3. The 9-11 commission saying it? Nope

What would it take to convince you that there was no connection between Iraq and 9-11??? What??? If you can't answer that question then you don't even deserve to debate anyone.

Does non-involvement in 9-11 = non-involvement in terrorism?

I don't expect you will answer that question.

[mjah]

While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely.

Hey, watch this fun and exciting thing I'm going to do here:

While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Reagan regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Reagan was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Reagan could have these terrorist-operatives monitored closely.

Equally true. Well, except that Reagan wasn't even interested in the "having them monitored closely" part.

Mike, you seem to be accidentally arguing that the US should have been invaded by a "coalition of the willing" in the mid-1980s, and Reagan deposed (or worse -- I'll let you comment on those details).

Either you're with the current administration or you're against it, and Reagan was CLEARLY against it by giving direct aid to extremist Muslim terrorists.

Right?

[chomerics]

Does non-involvement in 9-11 = non-involvement in terrorism?

I don't expect you will answer that question.

No it does not. . .what is DOES mean is non-involvement with Al Qaeda.

Heck, every country deals with terrorists, we funded terrorists on the CIA's payroll. . .heck we trained Bin laden for cripes sakes. To say because YOU have funded terrorists, when the terrorists had nothing to do with 9-11, it is only a distinction used for making an argument. . .but to say that because you have funded terrorists is a reason for invasion? When the terrorists are not even the ones who attacked us??? Come on now, you can't invade a country for that, we funded terrorists, and we still do. Every country in the ME funds terrorists according to Bush, and the biggest culprit is Saudi Arabia.

It is funny how Saudi Arabia can promote an anti-American agenda, but we can't promote an anti-Saudi agenda isn't it. . .don't you think the Bush family is a little too close to the Saud family over there? Do you think that has any influence on our politics?

We were sold a bill of goods connecting Iraq with Al Qaeda, Iraq had NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING to do with Al Qaeda. Did they have dealings with terrorists? sure every country in that neck of the woods, has, especially Saudi Arabia. . .you know the country where the hijackers were from?

[Jumbo]

No more giant font, please. Thanks.

I have fun working with kids.

[BigMike619]

No more giant font, please. Thanks.

I have fun working with kids.

what if i went like this?

that was too long for that...

[BigMike619]

No more giant font, please. Thanks.

I have fun working with kids.

sorry yoda

[mjah]

sorry yoda

Fun with kids, working, he has.

(From ES banned, temporarily will I get. Keep typing like this, I should not, hmmmm?)

[Jumbo]

sorry yoda

short green old with huge tufts of gray hair growing out my ears.

i didn't know we'd met.

[bu7ch]

I'm not going to pretend to read 40 pages of a thread but this book is a great read:

http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/0446580759

It pretty much puts most conspiracy theories to rest just based on politics alone...I'm almost done with it and highly recommend it. Instead of conspiracy theories and aliens, think of incompetence and lack of communication.

[Jumbo]

I'm not going to pretend to read 40 pages of a thread but this book is a great read:

http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/0446580759

It pretty much puts most conspiracy theories to rest just based on politics alone...I'm almost done with it and highly recommend it. Instead of conspiracy theories and aliens, think of incompetence and lack of communication.

And that would be the 5th time in 40 pages someone who didn't want to pretend to read the thread posted a link to that book.

[bu7ch]

And that would be the 5th time in 40 pages someone who didn't want to pretend to read the thread posted a link to that book.

LOL. Sorry about that. I knew it'd take days to go through the entire thread and to be honest, I wasn't sure how popular this book was because I got it as a gift.