Did you even read the link you provided:
Sheesh.
You don't know Jack S*it. Actually, you've proved yourself remarkably resilient to facts.
The Syria Thread: Everything you wanted to know or say about it
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
Did you even read the link you provided:
Sheesh.
You don't know Jack S*it. Actually, you've proved yourself remarkably resilient to facts.
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former...
The reason Bush went into Iraq at the time...
Later they were debunked.. blah, blah, blah..
Better than an imaginary Red Line set by Obama as an excuse to attack a sovereign nation against International Laws.
Immediately prior to Obama's reckless step into the abyss, will he return his Nobel Peace Prize?
Saddam gave material support to Al Qaeda.
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My hero!!
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations timeline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In 2003, American terrorism analyst, Evan Kohlman, said in an interview:
While there have been a number of promising intelligence leads hinting at possible meetings between al-Qaeda members and elements of the former Baghdad regime, nothing has been yet shown demonstrating that these potential contacts were historically any more significant than the same level of communication maintained between Osama bin Laden and ruling elements in a number of Iraq's Persian Gulf neighbors, including Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Qatar, and Kuwait.[1]
In 2006, a report of postwar findings by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that:
Postwar findings have identified only one meeting between representatives of al-Qa'ida and Saddam Hussein's regime reported in prewar intelligence assessments. Postwar findings have identified two occasions, not reported prior to the war, in which Saddam Hussein rebuffed meeting requests from an al-Qa'ida operative. The Intelligence Community has not found any other evidence of meetings between al'Qa'ida and Iraq.[2]
The same report also concluded that:
Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support.[2]
The result of the publication of the Senate report was the belief that the entire connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda was an official deception based on cherry picking specific intelligence data that bolstered the case for war with Iraq regardless of its reliability. One instance of this reaction was reported in a BBC news article, which stated:
Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War
A declassified report released yesterday by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence revealed that U.S. intelligence analysts were strongly disputing the alleged links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda while senior Bush administration officials were publicly asserting those links to justify invading Iraq.
Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."
The report also said exiles from the Iraqi National Congress (INC) tried to influence U.S. policy by providing, through defectors, false information on Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons capabilities. After skeptical analysts warned that the group had been penetrated by hostile intelligence services, including Iran's, a 2002 White House directive ordered that U.S. funding for the INC be continued.
What it would have sufficed just clicking on the link...???
Pulling a Blackleaf. :lol:
Once again;
In 2006, a report of postwar findings by the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence concluded that
Thought so. You didn't actually make it past the first line.
N o I think the issue is that you posted a wiki link that you said proved the link between Saddam and Al Qaea, when in fact the link does the exact opposite. I suppose in desperation, Goober pasted half the link.
But, as stated earlier, you have proved remarkably resilient to facts.
Nope- But posting some info from a link is usual. Helps to look for the pertinent information. Like I did- fast and easy.
Just trying to make things easier for those that do not always open links. Like myself from time to time.
Nope - I misread his post. As did you. Read it again- He made no such claim.
Boomer- My bad.
C'mon guys. The US has such a long history of lying and propaganda and false-flag attacks to further their imperialistic designs I don't see how anyone can believe anything that comes from them. I doubt that anyone was gassed at all unless the US did it.
Zipperfish, you female.. I mean the art of twisting words and trying to shape them into something else is a talent most women master after the first 5 years of marriage..
All I did was compare the reason behind Bush's invasion of Iraq to Obama's potential attack on Syria.
The United States had just been attacked in the worst terrorist attack since Pearl Harbor, thousands died.. he invaded Iraq thinking there was a tie between Saddam and Al Qaeda and other governments supported his findings.. the collocation of the willing. (later debunked along with WMD's)
Obama's reason is the use of Poisons Gas and a red line that if used, the USA would retaliate. The difference here is that International community is not backing him and have doubt to the facts provided by the USA.. other nations have proof that otherwise states it was Al Qaeda that used the gas..
The USA was not attacked, there is no provocation for the USA to act outside International Laws, other than Obama's reputation is now at stake and the USA will look week if they don't attack.
This is all about how the USA will look to the world.. political posture.
Zipperfish
Thank you Sir.
Well, Doctors Without Borders said 355 died, but they do not know who was responsible.
US Intelligence says that the Assad Gov't used Chemical Weapons ... LOL
We know how good US Intelligence is, after all wasn't it US Intelligence claimed a movie was responsible for Benghazi??
Intelligence on Benghazi attack - YouTube
At least 355 died from the attack.
Syrian chemical weapons claims: How strong is the evidence? - CSMonitor.com
The French summary also says the country's intelligence thinks it likely many more died. Quoting from the French government translation to English of their summary: "Other independent assessments, produced for instance by the NGO “Doctors without borders” mention at least 355 deaths.
Syria chemical weapons attack blamed on Assad, but where's the evidence? - CBS News
But no official death toll has been given. The international aid group Doctors Without Borders said it tallied 355 people killed and more than 3,000 displaying symptoms typical of a nerve agent like sarin gas, but no independent organization has yet confirmed that it was sarin gas used in Ghouta. Nor has it been confirmed what the delivery method was.
2013 Ghouta attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doctors Without Borders said three hospitals it supports in the eastern Damascus region reported receiving roughly 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" over less than three hours on after the morning, when the attack in the eastern Ghouta area took place. Of those, 355 died.[63] The Local Coordination Committees of Syria claimed that of the 1,338 victims, 1,000 were in Zamalka, among which 600 bodies were transferred to medical points in other towns and 400 remained at a Zamalka medical centre.[8] According to a spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, at least six medics died while treating the victims.[64] The deadliness of the attack is believed to have been increased due to Syrians fleeing the regime bombardment by hiding in basements, where the heavier-than-air chemical agents sank to these lower-lying, poorly ventilated areas.[65] Some of the victims died while sleeping.[58]
The day after the alleged chemical attacks, 22 August, the Syrian army bombarded the Ghouta area.[66]
My question is:
Is it a casus belli justifying the death of 7 billion naked apes and the planet on which they reside?
Is it a casus belli justifying the death of 7 billion naked apes and the planet on which they reside?
Last edited:
Nope- The action if any should have been taken earlier - But the US had no ffn clue as to who the parties were /are on the rebel side - Obama's Foreign Policy is well, can anyone find it????
from kate
Amateur (hour) 8 Years
It's important in diplomacy to know who your friends are. I completely understand Obama's perplexity over Iran not supporting the US.
Sigh.
Amateur (hour) 8 Years
It's important in diplomacy to know who your friends are. I completely understand Obama's perplexity over Iran not supporting the US.
Sigh.
On Foreign Policy he has been a loser-
Iraq & Afghanistan are the only high points of his FP.
He has surrounded himself with young inexperienced staff.
And he is using Syria as a warning to Iran on their Nuke program.
They also claimed Bin-Laden masterminded and funded 9/11 from a remote cave in Afghanistan, that Iraq had a huge stockpile of WMDs and depleted uranium shells are not a cause of cancer & birth defects etc, etc, etc. I wouldn't believe them if they said rain fell from a cloudy sky.