PDA

View Full Version : Suit Claims Iraq Ties To Al Qaeda

peptoabysmal
16th September 2003, 03:04 PM
Suit Claims Iraq Ties To Al Qaeda (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/09/16/iraq/main573517.shtml)

Looks like the al-Queda / Iraq connection is going to be tested in court! I don't know exactly what kind of law suit... wrongful death???


Documents recently found in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al Qaeda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998," the lawsuit states. "The documents reveal that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al Qaeda based on their mutual hatred of American and Saudi Arabia."
Ziggurat
16th September 2003, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by peptoabysmal

... based on their mutual hatred of American...


He's an annoying poster and all, but wow, Iraq must really hate him. :p
Mr Manifesto
16th September 2003, 06:14 PM
It'll be interesting to see how this one pans out. I'd heard about the meetings. IIRC, the two parties didn't really come to an agreement because Saddam's state was too secular for A-Q's tastes.

This argument:

For instance, the lawsuit alleges that bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, visited Baghdad in 1992 and 1998, and that contact between Iraq and al Qaeda increased markedly in 1998, the year the terror network bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa.

is, in the lack of further evidence (which I didn't see in the article), a non causa pro causa fallacy, as far as I'm concerned.
peptoabysmal
16th September 2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Ziggurat


He's an annoying poster and all, but wow, Iraq must really hate him. :p

LOL!

I thought of correcting the spelling, but you know, copyright violations and all.
peptoabysmal
16th September 2003, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Mr Manifesto
It'll be interesting to see how this one pans out. I'd heard about the meetings. IIRC, the two parties didn't really come to an agreement because Saddam's state was too secular for A-Q's tastes.

This argument:


is, in the lack of further evidence (which I didn't see in the article), a non causa pro causa fallacy, as far as I'm concerned.

Presumably, further evidence would be brought out in the trial.