The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

[Supercharts]

The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.
***
Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/27/ixportaltop.html

[Ladewig]

I know that you took your thread title from the story's headline, but I cannot consider it very accurate. The documents show that people high up in the Iraqi intelligence department were meeting with al-Qa'eda and were hoping to meet with Bin Laden. That does not mean Hussein knew of these meetings and plans. If R. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were allowed to deny all knowledge of "rogue agent" Lt. Col. Oliver North, then I think Hussein should be allowed the same perogative.

[Baker]

Thanks for the info Supercharts I hope this turns out to be the real thing this time.

[Captain_Snort]

oh, the telegraph found more handy documents? anyone think they may be the choice of the intelligence services?

the good old daily Torygraph

Originally posted by Ladewig
I know that you took your thread title from the story's headline, but I cannot consider it very accurate. The documents show that people high up in the Iraqi intelligence department were meeting with al-Qa'eda and were hoping to meet with Bin Laden. That does not mean Hussein knew of these meetings and plans. If R. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were allowed to deny all knowledge of "rogue agent" Lt. Col. Oliver North, then I think Hussein should be allowed the same perogative.

Somehow I don't think anyone in Iraq would have had the guts to do an end-run around Saddam, do you?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by LukeT
Somehow I don't think anyone in Iraq would have had the guts to do an end-run around Saddam, do you? I heard a number of stories how Saddam would dispatch those he believed were disloyal. I don't know how true they are but one told of a man who had secretly met with Iranian officials during the war in hopes of finding a solution to the protacted and costly war. When he informed Saddam of his "success" in front of Saddam's advisors Saddam did not say anything. Later the man was delievered to his family in butchers paper drawn and quartered. Normaly I would dismiss such a story but aparently there are lots of such stories that have been documented including a taped meeting of saddam killing those he suspected of disloyalty.

Anyone have any proof of my story, the infamous meeting or others like it?

[Ian Osborne]

The CIA had already thoroughly searched that building, and then left. Then the Telegraph moved in and found all sorts of documents they'd missed. Does anyone else wonder whether they were planted, not overlooked?

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The CIA had already thoroughly searched that building, and then left. Then the Telegraph moved in and found all sorts of documents they'd missed. Does anyone else wonder whether they were planted, not overlooked?

You were there and saw the "thorough" search? Of course, the article says it was found in rubble. I think Occam's Razor should be your guide.

Hey, at least it's different from the near- daily threads screaming 'We found the WMD proof'... ;)

[Ladewig]

Somehow I don't think anyone in Iraq would have had the guts to do an end-run around Saddam, do you?

There were some Nazi officers who tried to assissinate Hitler in 1944 despite being aware of how ruthlessly he dealt with his enemies.

Also, some people are so enamored of a religious Jihad that it clouds their reasoning.

I'm not saying it is likely that all this (if true) was happening without S.H.'s knowledge, I'm saying that it is possible.

[crackmonkey]

Actually, I think what you're saying is
" I can't bear the fact that there is evidence of Bush being right".

[DavidJames]

Ladewig can confirm what he meant when he said "I'm saying that it is possible." But after reading it closely, I think what he is saying is that "...it is possible."

I'm curious, considering the huge amount of unsubstantiated claims of WMD and others stuff coming out of Iraq. Why are you, on a skeptic forum, challenging a skeptical comment about yet another single source claim? Can you offer genuine proof to the claim?

The proof that Bush worked with bin Laden ?

http://emperors-clothes.com/news/bushladen.htm

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
You are most related to the topic.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Baker
Thanks for the info Supercharts I hope this turns out to be the real thing this time.

Sounds like a true believer.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
The CIA had already thoroughly searched that building, and then left. Then the Telegraph moved in and found all sorts of documents they'd missed. Does anyone else wonder whether they were planted, not overlooked?

I was not aware that the CIA had already thoroughly searched the building. I didn't see reference to that in the story linked.

Where did you learn of this?

Thanks. :)

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Actually, I think what you're saying is
" I can't bear the fact that there is evidence of Bush being right".

Amen, brother.

JK

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Ladewig
The documents show that people high up in the Iraqi intelligence department were meeting with al-Qa'eda and were hoping to meet with Bin Laden. That does not mean Hussein knew of these meetings and plans. If R. Reagan and G.H.W. Bush were allowed to deny all knowledge of "rogue agent" Lt. Col. Oliver North, then I think Hussein should be allowed the same perogative.
If the allegations are true, then from the perspective of the United States, does it matter much if Saddam was in the loop or not?

Also, it seems to me that "plausible deniability" at the very highest levels of government is substantially less plausible in a rigid autocracy like Iraq's than it would be in the United States.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
If the allegations are true, then from the perspective of the United States, does it matter much if Saddam was in the loop or not? Funny how we can get sidetracked on minutiae. No it does not matter at all. If Saddam's regime was connected it was connected and that is all that matters.

Though I personally doubt that there is a plausible scenario for this end-a-round. Trying to assassinate Hitler to spare ones country of ignominious defeat is one thing. Pissing of a murderer for no good reason is another.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by Supercharts
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
By Inigo Gilmore
(Filed: 27/04/2003)

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.
***
Over the past three weeks, The Telegraph has discovered various other intelligence files in the wrecked Mukhabarat building, including documents revealing how Russia passed on to Iraq details of private conversations between Tony Blair and Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister, and how Germany held clandestine meetings with the regime.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/04/27/ixportaltop.html

There is not direct proof, read it:


Papers found yesterday in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.


"Invited" does not mean, shared chemical weapons and decided to run airplanes into buildings together.

Interesting "There are three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia and lettering of the Mukhabarat" ... handwritten pages easy to fake?

BTW: I'm still waiting for the CIA to "find" WMD.

[crackmonkey]

It certainly shows an interest in working together, something that the anti-war crowd sneered at as ridiculous.
The WMD is being tracked down. You'll hear plenty soon... it's early yet.
How do you prefer your crow? Rare? Well done?

[Tmy]

Is this like the chemical weapons plant that wasnt, or the chem warheads that werent. So whats this one "Joe AlQueda took a crap in the Baghdad Airport Hilton 7 yaers ago." Every day theres a new story about the "smoking gun" that turns out to be bogus.

[ImpyTimpy]

So far all evidence is pointing to there not being any WMD's in Iraq, but hey, it's POSSIBLE that they exist so let's just believe it anyway. ;)

It's also possible that invisible pink unicorns exist, we just haven't found any yet.

Nothing like exercising pseudo skepticism eh crackmonkey?

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It certainly shows an interest in working together, something that the anti-war crowd sneered at as ridiculous.
The WMD is being tracked down. You'll hear plenty soon... it's early yet.
How do you prefer your crow? Rare? Well done?

[ImpyTimpy]

Why are we even CONSIDERING this as evidence? Come on people, this line should make your ************ meters go off:


Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have...

The Telegraph discovered secret intelligence documents?? I think we should forget the troops and inspectors, just send those journalists in. They'll find those alleged WMD's even faster!

:rolleyes:

[crackmonkey]

Oh, I see... you only believe documents provided by the government? Don't trust the press - at least if they report things you find displeasing.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
The WMD is being tracked down. You'll hear plenty soon... it's early yet.
They is?:eek:
Wall hush my mouf!:D

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
So far all evidence is pointing to there not being any WMD's in Iraq, but hey, it's POSSIBLE that they exist so let's just believe it anyway. ;)

It's also possible that invisible pink unicorns exist, we just haven't found any yet.

Nothing like exercising pseudo skepticism eh crackmonkey?


Most of the major networks are starting to report the story.
Maybe pink unicorns do exist:D

A chemical team checked the drums, one of which tested positive for cyclosarin (search), a nerve agent, and a blister agent which could have been mustard gas, Martin said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85273,00.html



Also, this deals with the same story from the Telegraph.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85256,00.html

[crackmonkey]

I do find it amusing that the same people who were advocating for an extension of the UN inspectors mission in Iraq to track down WMDs are ready to declare Iraq WMD-free after a couple of weeks.
Most curious... so you folks have THAT much faith in the US - you expect us to find in days the WMD that the inspectors couldn't locate in years? That's beautiful. Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys.

[Tmy]

I think its just a reaction the the "I told you so" crowd. Teh anti -war types have been quite humble if you ask me, but then youll get some pro invasion type saying "Oh you were wrong, we'll find this in that and prove your wrong." Of course until that happens you really cant take the highground,

I think all sides can agree that finding WMD's is not that easy> whether your hans Blix or the Us military.

[ImpyTimpy]

Do I even need to comment?

Let's see... From the first article:


nitial tests by Army equipment are designed to favor a positive reading, erring on the side of caution to protect soldiers. Further, more sophisticated tests will be necessary to determine whether the find is evidence of an illegal weapons program.

and


So far, no conclusive evidence of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons have been reported by coalition forces.

So your own article says that the find is yet to be confirmed and that no evidence has been found so far. Remember those pesticide drums they found? Same deal - they thought it was chemical weapons too...

Onto second article:


Journalists from the British Sunday Telegraph newspaper found documents revealing a meeting between an Al Qaeda (search) envoy and officials in Baghdad in March 1998.


Wow, they're reporting what the newspaper reported. Talk about some brilliant journalistic work. Hmm.. Let's see, what's on the front page of that magazine.. Oooh, looks good, let's report that!

Please, show some skepticism will you?

Originally posted by Baker

Most of the major networks are starting to report the story.
Maybe pink unicorns do exist:D




Also, this deals with the same story from the Telegraph.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85256,00.html

[ImpyTimpy]

Wow... First I hear inspectors are not detectives, they're there to 'inspect' now I'm being told that they were there to TRACK DOWN those alleged weapons but weren't doing it fast enough? So which is it?

We were told that the US knew Saddam had those weapons and showed pictures of sites where the weapons were stored in U.N. address. Now we're told US can't find the weapons and frankly doesn't know where to look...

So how did they know Iraq had WMD's if they don't even know where to find them?

Call me skeptical but it seems US just took a blind guess and went with it.


Originally posted by crackmonkey
I do find it amusing that the same people who were advocating for an extension of the UN inspectors mission in Iraq to track down WMDs are ready to declare Iraq WMD-free after a couple of weeks.
Most curious... so you folks have THAT much faith in the US - you expect us to find in days the WMD that the inspectors couldn't locate in years? That's beautiful. Thanks for the vote of confidence, guys.

[ImpyTimpy]

Sorry, I disagree. It seems US was certain Iraq possessed WMD's and knew all about their weapons programs. If they knew so much, why can't they find the weapons now? If I'm told because they were hidden, how did they know they were there in the first place? They just guessed?

Originally posted by Tmy
I think its just a reaction the the "I told you so" crowd. Teh anti -war types have been quite humble if you ask me, but then youll get some pro invasion type saying "Oh you were wrong, we'll find this in that and prove your wrong." Of course until that happens you really cant take the highground,

I think all sides can agree that finding WMD's is not that easy> whether your hans Blix or the Us military.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Sorry, I disagree. It seems US was certain Iraq possessed WMD's and knew all about their weapons programs. If they knew so much, why can't they find the weapons now? If I'm told because they were hidden, how did they know they were there in the first place? They just guessed?



Come on, we knew Bin Laden was in Afghanistan but we still do not know exactly where he is. We knew Saddam was in Iraq but do not know his exact location. It is possible to know something is in a country without knowing exactly where it is.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

So your own article says that the find is yet to be confirmed and that no evidence has been found so far. Remember those pesticide drums they found? Same deal - they thought it was chemical weapons too...


Oh but you are so sure they don’t have them.
And you have replied with nothing but ad hominem comments to any suggestion of possibly finding WMD.
Why take every post on subject so personally?

[ImpyTimpy]

Two huge differences. We didn't show pictures of where Bin Laden was hiding to U.N. and WMD's don't run away by themselves.

Originally posted by ssibal


Come on, we knew Bin Laden was in Afghanistan but we still do not know exactly where he is. We knew Saddam was in Iraq but do not know his exact location. It is possible to know something is in a country without knowing exactly where it is.

[ImpyTimpy]

I'm not sure psychic phenomena is real but I am yet to see evidence it is. Do you see where I am going with this?

Also it's funny how you failed to address any of the points I made. Argumentum Ad hominem for asking you to be more skeptical?

Look, this is a skeptical board. If you don't want to exercise critical thinking skills, that is your right but don't expect people to just take your word for facts. You provided shoddy evidence which I debunked pretty quickly. I hope you can be more skeptical when it comes to the issue of WMD's in Iraq and news reports.

Originally posted by Baker


Oh but you are so sure they don’t have them.
And you have replied with nothing but ad hominem comments to any suggestion of possibly finding WMD.
Why take every post on subject so personally?

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy


Look, this is a skeptical board. If you don't want to exercise critical thinking skills, that is your right but don't expect people to just take your word for facts. You provided shoddy evidence which I debunked pretty quickly. I hope you can be more skeptical when it comes to the issue of WMD's in Iraq and news reports.


Yes but you have to be skeptical in both sides of the argument.
You have never once showed any skepticism for the ant-war side.

But you seem bent on finding anything wrong with the pro war arguments.
I’m not buying your just being skeptical excuse if you where you would be showing fults on both sides.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Two huge differences. We didn't show pictures of where Bin Laden was hiding to U.N. and WMD's don't run away by themselves.

Right, they are moved by people, especially when they know which sites we knew about.

[ImpyTimpy]

I'm not the one making claims Iraq has WMD's.. I'm simply stating no evidence has been presented for their existence and the evidence which HAS been used was shoddy to say the least.

Now how about you actually address what I said properly rather then skip over the points I made and selectively quoting what I wrote? Or is it you agree that the evidence you provided is worthless but don't want to admit it.

Originally posted by Baker


Yes but you have to be skeptical in both sides of the argument.
You have never once showed any skepticism for the ant-war side.

But you seem bent on finding anything wrong with the pro war arguments.
I’m not buying your just being skeptical excuse if you where you would be showing fults on both sides.

[ImpyTimpy]

What people would they be? Moved to where? Are you saying someone threw a blanket over the trucks containing tons of Sarin/Mustard Gas/Anthrax so the satellites couldn't see them anymore? Then under the cover of the said blanket, they drove away deep into Syria maybe?

Seriously though, US is supposed to know about these sites so it's reasonable to assume they keep an eye on them. How then can those said WMD's just disappear from right under their nose?

*EDITED TO ADD*

Iraq would have to also develop the technology to cover up TRACES left behind at those sites from all those nasty chemicals.

Originally posted by ssibal


Right, they are moved by people, especially when they know which sites we knew about.

[DrChinese]

As with all such stories claiming some purported connection between person A and person B, what does it really add up to?

So what if A approaches B? What was discussed? When was it? Was it illegal? Was it for immoral purposes? The fact that there was communication is - by itself - meaningless. Don't you agree?

Oh, and by the way, I'm not referring to Saddam and Osama. I was referring to Saddam and then Vice President George Bush Sr., whom have met in person behind closed doors. What are we to make of that? Sinister stuff... I wonder if the CIA knows about that?

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I'm not the one making claims Iraq has WMD's.. I'm simply stating no evidence has been presented for their existence and the evidence which HAS been used was shoddy to say the least.

Yes, there will need to be farther test to confirm it.

There is also the report from an Iraqi scientist.

Baghdad, Iraq, April 20 — A scientist who claims to have worked in Iraq's chemical weapons program for more than a decade has told an American military team that Iraq destroyed chemical weapons and biological warfare equipment only days before the war began
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/21/international/worldspecial/21CHEM.html?ex=1051502400&en=558d236c00fc7bc9&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1



Now how about you actually address what I said properly rather then skip over the points I made and selectively quoting what I wrote? Or is it you agree that the evidence you provided is worthless but don't want to admit it.


And skipped over my comment of you only being skeptical of one side of the argument.
You need to practice what you preach.
Unless you can show where you showed skepticism to an anti-war post?

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Baker

Yes, there will need to be farther test to confirm it.
There is also the report from an Iraqi scientist.

So you do admit that what you posted as evidence wasn't actually evidence just more speculation.

As for the Iraqi scientist I think that was discussed here a fair bit already remember?

And skipped over my comment of you only being skeptical of one side of the argument.
You need to practice what you preach.
Unless you can show where you showed skepticism to an anti-war post?
How so? I answered you by saying I am not the one making claims for WMD's. So far all I've seen is a bunch of wild claims made with no evidence. If an anti-war person makes a claim you can be sure I'll be there asking for evidence. :)

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
What people would they be? Moved to where? Are you saying someone threw a blanket over the trucks containing tons of Sarin/Mustard Gas/Anthrax so the satellites couldn't see them anymore? Then under the cover of the said blanket, they drove away deep into Syria maybe?

Seriously though, US is supposed to know about these sites so it's reasonable to assume they keep an eye on them. How then can those said WMD's just disappear from right under their nose?

Are you aware that satellites cannot monitor an area, let alone a whole country, in realtime 24/7? If the government takes a sattelite photograph of a nuclear bomb I am building in my backyard I can load it into a truck and 'disappear' without them knowing where I took it. And I would not have to cover anything up with any blankets, neither would the Iraqis. The U.S. was probably keeping an eye on those sites but spying by sattelite is not quite the same as having someone across the street with binoculars.

Do you believe Iraq no longer has any of those weapons? Do you believe that they destroyed them as they claimed? You have said there is no evidence of the weapons, well where is the evidence of their destruction?

*EDITED TO ADD*

Iraq would have to also develop the technology to cover up TRACES left behind at those sites from all those nasty chemicals.



The government's claim is that they had mobile chemical cleanup facilities. But supposing that they did not have the technology, I doubt anyone would be convinced because we tested the sand somewhere and it came out positive for VX.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal


Are you aware that satellites cannot monitor an area, let alone a whole country, in realtime 24/7? If the government takes a sattelite photograph of a nuclear bomb I am building in my backyard I can load it into a truck and 'disappear' without them knowing where I took it. And I would not have to cover anything up with any blankets, neither would the Iraqis. The U.S. was probably keeping an eye on those sites but spying by sattelite is not quite the same as having someone across the street with binoculars.

That's not exactly correct. You're assuming whatever the site was Iraq could've just moved it in a few minutes. Yes, we can assume they had mobile labs but a lab on a truck isn't capable of producing large quantities of chemical or biological agents. Sure, it could make some VX in a beaker, but then so could your chemistry student with access to the right chemicals. It's a useless thing in a war situation, so we'd have to assume they had to have sites. So we have to move large quantities of the chemicals, this takes time. It's not hey, let's pack up and go.


Do you believe Iraq no longer has any of those weapons? Do you believe that they destroyed them as they claimed? You have said there is no evidence of the weapons, well where is the evidence of their destruction?

I could ask you to show me evidence that God doesn't exist... It's impossible to prove a negative and you should know that :)

Look, all I'm looking for is proof that they do have them, not proof that they don't have them - same way as proof with God, show me proof for God and I'll be the first to preach it but don't tell me I should believe God exists because I can't prove otherwise.


The government's claim is that they had mobile chemical cleanup facilities. But supposing that they did not have the technology, I doubt anyone would be convinced because we tested the sand somewhere and it came out positive for VX.
I for one would take it as a step to proving Iraq has programs for creation of WMD's, as would just about any other rational person.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

How so? I answered you by saying I am not the one making claims for WMD's. So far all I've seen is a bunch of wild claims made with no evidence. If an anti-war person makes a claim you can be sure I'll be there asking for evidence. :(

Oh really, you have never questioned them on any claims yet.
When have you asked for evidence that the war was for oil?
And that’s just one of many claims from the antiwar side.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

That's not exactly correct. You're assuming whatever the site was Iraq could've just moved it in a few minutes. Yes, we can assume they had mobile labs but a lab on a truck isn't capable of producing large quantities of chemical or biological agents. Sure, it could make some VX in a beaker, but then so could your chemistry student with access to the right chemicals. It's a useless thing in a war situation, so we'd have to assume they had to have sites. So we have to move large quantities of the chemicals, this takes time. It's not hey, let's pack up and go.

Maybe not a few minutes, but a few hours yes and without being detected by sattelites yes. If you remeber the first Gulf War, the Iraqis knew when the sattelites would pass over the country so they would hide their mobile SCUD launchers in a grove of trees and move them when the sattelites were on the other side of the planet. They could very easily have done this with the weapons.


I could ask you to show me evidence that God doesn't exist... It's impossible to prove a negative and you should know that :)

Look, all I'm looking for is proof that they do have them, not proof that they don't have them - same way as proof with God, show me proof for God and I'll be the first to preach it but don't tell me I should believe God exists because I can't prove otherwise.

Bad analogy. Asking for evidence that something was destroyed is not the same as asking for evidence that something never existed (and it is not impossible to prove a negative, I can prove my car is not pink or that the Earth is not flat). Asking for evidence that the weapons we knew they had at one point were destroyed is not asking to prove a negative. If you accept the premise that Iraq at one point had those weapons the next step is to ask what happened to them. Iraq claimed that they destroyed the weapons yet never provided any evidence of that. So, it is more reasonable to assume that they still had them hidden somewhere.

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by ssibal


Maybe not a few minutes, but a few hours yes and without being detected by sattelites yes. If you remeber the first Gulf War, the Iraqis knew when the sattelites would pass over the country so they would hide their mobile SCUD launchers in a grove of trees and move them when the sattelites were on the other side of the planet. They could very easily have done this with the weapons.

That's true but I'm still thinking it'd take a long time to move tons of agents around and you wouldn't exactly be able to do so in one go. Still you make a good point which the more I ponder about the more I agree with. I think I'm going to sit on the fence about this one until more proof is given.


Bad analogy. Asking for evidence that something was destroyed is not the same as asking for evidence that something never existed (and it is not impossible to prove a negative, I can prove my car is not pink or that the Earth is not flat). Asking for evidence that the weapons we knew they had at one point were destroyed is not asking to prove a negative. If you accept the premise that Iraq at one point had those weapons the next step is to ask what happened to them. Iraq claimed that they destroyed the weapons yet never provided any evidence of that. So, it is more reasonable to assume that they still had them hidden somewhere.
You can't prove something doesn't exist - that is proving the negative. As for what happened to the weapons? Who knows, they said they destroyed them, maybe we destroyed what was left of them in 1998 strikes...

So far we don't see any evidence for the weapons being there. Until I see it I am maintaining a skeptical eye on the situation :)

[ImpyTimpy]

I haven't seen anyone on this board claim that the war was solely for oil. Can you show me who claimed the war on Iraq was solely to secure oil?

Originally posted by Baker


Oh really, you have never questioned them on any claims yet.
When have you asked for evidence that the war was for oil?
And that’s just one of many claims from the antiwar side.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I haven't seen anyone on this board claim that the war was solely for oil. Can you show me who claimed the war on Iraq was solely to secure oil?


That has been the whole argument from the start of the war it wasn’t there only argument but one of the main ones.
There have even been threads on the subject.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284

[ImpyTimpy]

I see the title saying "Is oil the reason for..." but not "Oil is the reason for"... Big difference Baker. Randfan is asking a question not making a claim.

But getting to the heart of the dicussion... So has your stance on the evidence provided for the link changed or not? You are yet to provide a single response to my argument about your evidence being very shoddy. So far all you've done is twist and turn :p

Originally posted by Baker


That has been the whole argument from the start of the war it wasn’t there only argument but one of the main ones.
There have even been threads on the subject.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12284

[crackmonkey]

It seems some weapons inspectors would disagree with you about likelihood of WMD in Iraq...

Nukes? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32255)

[shecky]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
It seems some weapons inspectors would disagree with you about likelihood of WMD in Iraq...

Nukes? (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32255)

I recommend any info taken from worldnetdaily.com be taken with a grain of salt.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
I see the title saying "Is oil the reason for..." but not "Oil is the reason for"... Big difference Baker. Randfan is asking a question not making a claim.

I didn’t say he was the one making the claim.
Which I’m sure you know that and you are trying to side step the issue.
So you admitting that you are only questioning one side of the war debate?


But getting to the heart of the dicussion... So has your stance on the evidence provided for the link changed or not? You are yet to provide a single response to my argument about your evidence being very shoddy. So far all you've done is twist and turn


You are welcome to question the link no its not direct proof I have already told you that.

[ssibal]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
You can't prove something doesn't exist - that is proving the negative. As for what happened to the weapons? Who knows, they said they destroyed them, maybe we destroyed what was left of them in 1998 strikes...

The key is what they said, if they had claimed that we destroyed them all then it would be a somewhat different matter but they said that they destroyed them. Meaning they would know where, when, and how this happened (if it happened) and could provide the information to the UN inspectors. They did not, which leaves me to believe they were lying. Perhaps they were just habitual liars and really did not have the weapons, but I doubt it.

[crackmonkey]

You people can keep burying your heads in the sand if you wish... it only makes you appear absurd.

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1353992,00.html

[shanek]

Saddam link to al-Qaeda in doubt:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,5944-661840,00.html

BRITISH Intelligence officials have expressed doubt that Saddam Hussein established any working relationship with al-Qaeda despite the discovery of documents showing that an “envoy” for Osama bin Laden visited Baghdad in 1998.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
You people can keep burying your heads in the sand if you wish... it only makes you appear absurd.

http://www.oaklandtribune.com/Stories/0,1413,82~1865~1353992,00.html From your link:

Hindawi, imprisoned during the final weeks of Saddam Hussein's rule, is now free to talk about his experiences in the program, in which he says he was forced to work from 1986 to 1989 and again sporadically until the mid-1990s. (My emphasis.)

And

Even so, he said, there is little need for concern if U.S. military teams hunting for unconventional weapons stumble across such stockpiles: The arsenals would have degraded, he said.

"Even if it's all kept until now, don't worry about it," he said.

In addition, he said, Iraq was never able to make dried anthrax, a medium that would have made the lethal spores far more durable and easier to disseminate. Sounds like it was not much of a problem. Was that the point you were making?

[crackmonkey]

He said he worked in the bioweapons program into the mid-1990s. If you notice, that was after the Gulf War, during the time the inspectors were scouring Iraq for bioweapons. He was instructed to lie to inspectors about the program...
In other words, Saddam's WMD program was very much in operation while the inspectors were in Iraq, and the participants in the program actively deceived the inspectors.
"Inspections work"... they seem to have worked well for Saddam, anyway.

Any other questions? I'll be happy to help.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
He said he worked in the bioweapons program into the mid-1990s. If you notice, that was after the Gulf War, during the time the inspectors were scouring Iraq for bioweapons. He was instructed to lie to inspectors about the program...
In other words, Saddam's WMD program was very much in operation while the inspectors were in Iraq, and the participants in the program actively deceived the inspectors.
"Inspections work"... they seem to have worked well for Saddam, anyway.

Any other questions? I'll be happy to help. It was the phrase until the mid-1990s, that caught my eye. In other words, he provides no testimony that there has been any WMD program in approximately the last eight years. Consider this information with this comment about how these weapons degrade with time: "Even if it's all kept until now, don't worry about it". This guy’s testimony therefore would not appear to confirm that Iraq had WMD.

Can you therefore please explain how anyone who believes no evidence has yet been found for WMD is burying their heads in the sand? (If that was your point.)

[ImpyTimpy]

Originally posted by Baker

I didn’t say he was the one making the claim.
Which I’m sure you know that and you are trying to side step the issue.
So you admitting that you are only questioning one side of the war debate?

I am admitting no such thing. I said, if someone from the anti-war side makes a claim that is rooted in woo-woo dom, I'll challenge it. That's all, nothing more. Feel free to show me where anti-war makes a woo-woo claim recently and I'll be there guns blazing, I promise.


You are welcome to question the link no its not direct proof I have already told you that.
It is not proof of anything is the correct wording.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy

I am admitting no such thing. I said, if someone from the anti-war side makes a claim that is rooted in woo-woo dom, I'll challenge it. That's all, nothing more. Feel free to show me where anti-war makes a woo-woo claim recently and I'll be there guns blazing, I promise.
[/B]

And what constitutes a woo-woo claim?
You can’t find any faults in their arguments because you’re not looking for them.
Saying only the pro-war side is making unclaimed statements is ludicrous.

[ImpyTimpy]

Simple, claiming WMD's have been found and providing proof which states a suspect site was discovered.. Saying a link between terrorist organisations and Iraq has been discovered and providing an article which states some journalist found a secret document all by himself which proves it all. Saying WMD's will be planted by United States just because they will be...

That's a woo-woo claim :)

Hope that clears it up.

Originally posted by Baker


And what constitutes a woo-woo claim?
You can’t find any faults in their arguments because you’re not looking for them.
Saying only the pro-war side is making unclaimed statements is ludicrous.

[crackmonkey]

No... you miss my point. The point is Iraq DID in fact have a WMD program well after the war, continuing while the inspectors were certifying the country to be WMD-free. Saddam's henchmen were brewing up bioweapons right under the inspectors' noses - giving the lie to the nostrum "Inspections work".
It is a smoking gun in that it is testimony that Saddam had an active WMD program after the war - an allegation that the left had sneered at for months, just as they pooh-poohed the idea of Saddam seeking out bin Laden.
Talk about moving yardsticks... the left seems to be in a backward sprint at this point.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Saying a link between terrorist organisations and Iraq has been discovered and providing an article which states some journalist found a secret document all by himself which proves it all. Saying WMD's will be planted by United States just because they will be...
That's a woo-woo claim :)

Hope that clears it up.



It showed a possible link where did I imply that you where supposed to believe it and its hardy woo-woo claim as you call it.
How did come with woo-woo claim is that the full length of your vocabulary?

I noticed you ignored the rest of my comment.

[ImpyTimpy]

Baker, I think you need to go over and reread your own claims:

Originally posted by Baker]
Most of the major networks are starting to report the story.
Maybe pink unicorns do exist

[quote]A chemical team checked the drums, one of which tested positive for cyclosarin (search), a nerve agent, and a blister agent which could have been mustard gas, Martin said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,85273,00.html

<snipped>


That was your response to me saying no evidence so far has been presented to show Iraq has WMD's. You presented what you thought was evidence that WMD's were found. Unfortunetly, you haven't read the article very well and I showed you that your evidence doesn't say anything.

Yet here you are clinging to a strawman.

Just accept the fact you were wrong and check your proof more carefully.

Originally posted by Baker


It showed a possible link where did I imply that you where supposed to believe it and its hardy woo-woo claim as you call it.
How did come with woo-woo claim is that the full length of your vocabulary?

I noticed you ignored the rest of my comment.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Baker, I think you need to go over and reread your own claims:



That was your response to me saying no evidence so far has been presented to show Iraq has WMD's. You presented what you thought was evidence that WMD's were found. Unfortunetly, you haven't read the article very well and I showed you that your evidence doesn't say anything.

Yet here you are clinging to a strawman.

Just accept the fact you were wrong and check your proof more carefully.

[/B]


We have already been over this you where talking about a link between terrorist organisations.

Where did I say it was proof.
Do you want to have this arguement for the rest of the week?
You can't even admit that you have been only questioning one side since the war begain.

[ImpyTimpy]

I was talking about WMD's :rolleyes: You provided shoddy proof that there were some discovered, your proof was debunked. Now you're making straw men... You dodged my questions, you selectively qouted my responses and are asking for things I already replied to so you're right, this argument is pointless. I can't be bothered repeating the same thing over and over again.

Keep up the true believer mentality. :D

Originally posted by Baker



We have already been over this you where talking about a link between terrorist organisations.

Where did I say it was proof.
Do you want to have this arguement for the rest of the week?
You can't even admit that you have been only questioning one side since the war begain.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
No... you miss my point. The point is Iraq DID in fact have a WMD program well after the war, OK, I agree with that point.

For the record, I always thought Iraq probably did attempt to manufacture WMD after the first Gulf war. I’m just skeptical about how much they really had, and whether Iraq was any real threat to the US or the West.

[Baker]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Now you're making straw men... You dodged my questions, you selectively qouted my responses and are asking for things I already replied to



Funny I was going to say the same thing to your response.