Debate, and discuss, just dont Bore me.
We ask, you Decide
Published on July 1, 2005 By Dr Guy In Politics

The press has been having a field day with the 911 commision report that states there is no connection between the events of 9-11 and Iraq.  So much so that they are actually mis-speaking.  But that should not surprise anyone here.

My question to you, is do you believe there is a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and can you give reasons for yoru belief?

I am interested to see what the more informed members of the world think, versus the American MainStream media that cant tell a fraud from a source.


Comments
on Jul 01, 2005
My Answer: Yes, there is a connection.  That 727 fuselage in the desert was not used for training  Stewardesses.
on Jul 01, 2005
Of course Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Are we really supposed to believe that Iraq was seemingly the 1 "Al Qaeda Free Zone" in the whole world?

I think that's right up there with Baghdad Bob insisting that there are no Americans in Baghad and the Americans that are there are being beated to a pulp! ;~D
on Jul 01, 2005
I think it is obvious that there were relations there. That's why high ranking members ended up in Iraq when they fled Afghanistan.

Whether there is any connection with 9-11 or not is doubtful. I don't think the al Qaeda leadership would have trusted Hussein or his flukies with any such information. They might have been told that SOMETHING was going to happen, and some of the money that was used might have come from Hussein, but I don't think Hussein had anything to do with it operationally.

Which is really beside the point. There IS plenty of proof that Hussein poured money into terrorism, as evidenced by his committment to pay $10k to the families of suicide bombers from Palestine. It's the height of ignorance to say "Oh, well, just because he was paying to have people killed in Israel we shouldn't have stuck our noses in it." Israeli lives aren't less meaningful than American lives.
on Jul 01, 2005
Of course Al Qaeda was in Iraq. Are we really supposed to believe that Iraq was seemingly the 1 "Al Qaeda Free Zone" in the whole world?


Ah, you did not fall for the trap! Butr I did not expect you to!
on Jul 01, 2005
Whether there is any connection with 9-11 or not is doubtful.


I know. I was hoping some of the liberals would fall for the trap. The Press sure did!
on Jul 01, 2005
Well, Dr. Guy, you know the connection I have found and demonstrated in my two articles about the matter.
on Jul 04, 2005
9/11 and Iraq has no direct connection from what I know.

Now that doesn't mean we should have not gone into Iraq, but 9/11 was not caused by Iraq.

Iraq, unlike any nation in the world, even North Korea and Iran, has totally disobeyed about 16 security council orders after the first war in Iraq was supposed to make them honor them. I don’t think their is any country in the world that lost a war and totally disregarded the peace treaty.

In a post 9/11 world, that can not be allowed to continue. Not to mention the WMD's they claimed to have all the time, we had to go in a see for ourselves.


RANT
The only relation to 9/11 and Iraq is that in a post 9/11 world we can not allow countries like Iraq to be so against world order and civility.

If we are to call Iraq a supporter of terrorism then we can also call Saudi Arabia a terrorist supporter as well... but we seemingly need to do business with Saudi Arabia soooo... the are OK.

And you wonder why the Muslim pop. is so railed against he US? Since the 60's it was used as a pawn in a super power cold war battle, regimes supported were also very bad to their own people (including Saddam Hussein remember?), and Israel does actually get away with stuff they should not get away with on a consistent basis even though it is as simple as not to expand anymore (the claim of 'for safety' doesn't work when you have people living on the claimed lands).

Not to worry cause the US knows what is best. The USSR would have been far worst than the Saudi regime or Hussein. They should thank us.
END RANT

So in the end, post 9/11 is not directly related to Iraq or Iran, nor North Korea and other places BUT clearly we can not allow Cold War alliances and mistakes to mean that these places can continue doing what they do without consequences.
on Jul 06, 2005

Well, Dr. Guy, you know the connection I have found and demonstrated in my two articles about the matter.

Shhhh!  I am hunting wabbits. hehehehehehe

on Jul 06, 2005

9/11 and Iraq has no direct connection from what I know.

Now that doesn't mean we should have not gone into Iraq, but 9/11 was not caused by Iraq

Got one!

Joe, the question was not 9-11 and Iraq.  It was Al Qaeda and Iraq!

I am not going to argue with you on 9-11 and Iraq.  That is a dead horse.  But thanks for playing!

on Jul 06, 2005
Who's to say that Saddam wasnt training his own terrorists that were totally unrelated to Al Qaida?

I think if there is any connection at all between the two, it was informal at best. It is commonly known that Osama thinks very little of Saddam due to his "perversion" of Islam. The only real existing connection is after the fact in reality.

There was no Al Qaida involvement with Iraq until we invaded. Iran on the other hand...

I still say we attacked the wrong country.
on Jul 06, 2005
I think if there is any connection at all between the two, it was informal at best. It is commonly known that Osama thinks very little of Saddam due to his "perversion" of Islam. The only real existing connection is after the fact in reality.


It doesn't matter what Osama thought of Saddam. They both have a common enemy.
on Jul 06, 2005
Which is really beside the point. There IS plenty of proof that Hussein poured money into terrorism, as evidenced by his committment to pay $10k to the families of suicide bombers from Palestine. It's the height of ignorance to say "Oh, well, just because he was paying to have people killed in Israel we shouldn't have stuck our noses in it." Israeli lives aren't less meaningful than American lives.


I have to agree with you on that one, baker...the DIRECT connection argument is essentially a red herring.

I find it ironic that Amnesty International documented countless human rights violations under Saddam Hussein; in fact, while he was in power, his regime ranked pretty consistently among their top ten in several categories, and yet when a Republican president wants to go in, it's suddenly "a war for oil".

Frankly, I don't believe this war has been handled properly from the get-go (but, to be honest, I can't truthfully say how I would have handled it, so I'm somewhat reserving of my judgement), but that doesn't make it the personal vengeance war that many want to create.
on Jul 08, 2005

I still say we attacked the wrong country.

Oh I dont know.  We can directly link the stop payment on all Suicide Bombers to our Invasion, plus the defunding of several terrorist (whether they are al Qaeda or not), plus indirectly link the Syrian Pullout, and the Libya denuking.  Plus we get the added benefit of the cancer of democracy gaining a foothold there.

All in all, not bad bang for the buck.

on Jul 08, 2005

It doesn't matter what Osama thought of Saddam. They both have a common enemy.

In their case, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

on Jul 08, 2005

I have to agree with you on that one, baker...the DIRECT connection argument is essentially a red herring.

It really is a red herring, yet one the left continues to pound on like there are any claiming Saddam bought the plane tickets or something.  Bush has always stated it is a war on Terror, and the connection between Saddam and terror was never disputed by any but the looniest.