Iraq by the Numbers - or how to be dumb.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

If that isn't conspiracy theory, it's the next thing to it. It also quite forgets the events of Tuesday, September the eleventh. This seems insupportable in view of the London bus bombings, and the foiled transatlantic airline plot.

Please explain what that had to do with Iraq?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Refusal to understand that it's the same war is refusal to even try to win it, Ibram. Wars have theaters of action; this one has two or more.

We're involved, whether we like it or not. Israel's involved, whether they like it or not. Europe is at least in some measure involved, and may get raped by al-Quaeda or other bigot nasties into deeper involvement, whether Europe likes it or not. It's all one war, sprinkled over quite a bit of the planet's circumference especially thanks to modern travel.

[Ibby]

I'm waiting for an answer...

Please explain to me a SINGLE way that saddam hussein had anything to do with 9/11, besides the fact that he was "a damn dirty A-rab" or "Gas is expensive now!" (oh wait, that's not related to 9/11 either...)

[yesman065]

I just did a quick Google search and found this link.
"A translation of the document shows the al-Qaida terrorist Saddam's government had identified was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who emerged as one of the leading terrorists in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.

The document, dated Aug. 17, 2002, identifies the al-Qaida member as Ahmed Fadil Nizal Al Khalaylah, the real name of Zarqawi, and includes a series of photos.

A memo within the document shows that as early Aug. 8, 2002, Zarqawi was identified as a member of "Tanzeem al-Qaida," or the "Al-Qaida Organization”.

"This document provides startling documentation that at the very least that Saddam Hussein's government knew that al-Qaida was active and functioning in Iraq," Mansfield said.

She pointed out that although the document goes on to outline activities of the group, there is no indication the Iraqi government took any steps to stop al-Qaida from operating within Iraq, in clear defiance of international law.

"The U.S. Government has made no determination regarding the authenticity of the documents, validity or factual accuracy of the information contained therein, or the quality of any translations, when available."


http:Newly released document
links Saddam to al-Qaida

[yesman065]

Here's another one
Al Qaeda and the Iranian connection

One particularly interesting quote: "I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq."

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Ibram

I'm waiting for an answer...

You have received the correct answer -- not the answer you wanted to hear.

The better you suck it up, the realer you can be.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Here's another one
Al Qaeda and the Iranian connection

One particularly interesting quote: "I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq."

Hussein tried to get rid of al-Qaeda; problem was that they were based in the Kurdistan area--a no-fly zone. So in a way, the US bought al-Qaeda into Iraq.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Hussein tried to get rid of al-Qaeda; problem was that they were based in the Kurdistan area--a no-fly zone. So in a way, the US inadvertently nurtured al-Qaeda in Iraq.

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Hussein tried to get rid of al-Qaeda; problem was that they were based in the Kurdistan area--a no-fly zone. So in a way, the US bought al-Qaeda into Iraq.

Exactly how did you come up with that conclusion?

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

You have received the correct answer -- not the answer you wanted to hear.

The better you suck it up, the realer you can be.

No matter how pedantic you are, still no answer to what al-Qaeda had to do with Iraq. Unless you're even more sucked up to the White House spinmeisters than I expected you to be.

A memo within the document shows that as early Aug. 8, 2002, Zarqawi was identified as a member of "Tanzeem al-Qaida," or the "Al-Qaida Organization”.

"This document provides startling documentation that at the very least that Saddam Hussein's government knew that al-Qaida was active and functioning in Iraq," Mansfield said.

Another victim of the WH spinmeisters. al-Zarqawi settled in the North of Iraq with the Islamist Ansar al-Islam group that fought against the Kurds, outside the influence of Saddam, nicely protected by the Anglo-American enforced no-fly zone. a-Z was a small time little known terrorist until the US made him important, Bush's man for all seasons.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

OFGS, Hippikos. Wasn't al-Zarquawi's hospital stay in Baghdad enough evidence of the connection? Is it not so that the troubles in the world are largely going to come from the failed states, most of which are to be found in a contiguous belt straight through Araby and central Africa? Is it not so that the failed states easily pup out antidemocracy activists -- id est, terrorists? Was Ba'athist Iraq anything but a typical example of a failing/failed, despotic state?

I see the connections -- regardless of how obtuse you may care to be. As you know, no conspiracy theory makes it with me, either -- and here you are, trying unscrupulously and uncritically (at best) to purvey one. You do not persuade, sir.

[Torrere]

Originally Posted by yesman065

Here's another one
Al Qaeda and the Iranian connection

One particularly interesting quote: "I visited Iraq twice after the fall of Saddam Hussein and in April this year I was sure that pro-Iran Shia militants and Al Qaeda fighters were collaborating against the US in Iraq."

Al Qaeda is a Sunni organization. Their propaganda says that Shi'ites are heretics, and they have a history of bombing Shi'a festivals. Sunni Iran supported the US against the Taliban back in 2001. I'm dubious about a connection between Al Qaeda and Iran. If Al Qaeda were working with Shi'ites, it would probably be to promote sectarian strife.

[Hippikos]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

OFGS, Hippikos. Wasn't al-Zarquawi's hospital stay in Baghdad enough evidence of the connection? Is it not so that the troubles in the world are largely going to come from the failed states, most of which are to be found in a contiguous belt straight through Araby and central Africa? Is it not so that the failed states easily pup out antidemocracy activists -- id est, terrorists? Was Ba'athist Iraq anything but a typical example of a failing/failed, despotic state?

I see the connections -- regardless of how obtuse you may care to be. As you know, no conspiracy theory makes it with me, either -- and here you are, trying unscrupulously and uncritically (at best) to purvey one. You do not persuade, sir.

Yep, that's what Cheney said and of course you think whatever the VP says is true, right? Cause you suck up all the WH is excreting about Iraq. I'm sure you fully believed the WMD stories and Powell's bogus speech in the UN.

Also Cheney still was claiming, even after the story already proved to be a hoax, that Iraq secret agents were meeting with Atta in Prague. When will you realise that all US intelligence about Iraq were bogus and misused in order to convince gullible people like you? Who's making conspiracies here? Cheney or me?

Truth is more straight forward. US intelligence thought that Zarqawi had lost a leg in Afghanistan in 2002. But then, in May 2003, they concluded that he still had both legs. Cheney's "evidence" of an al-Qaeda-Saddam link via Zarqawi may be an intercepted phone call by Zarqawi from a Baghdad hospital in 2002, while his leg was being attended to. But then "Zarqawi" shows up in a video with both legs in the 2004 beheading of hostage Nick Berg.

Then again, you're entirely free to suck up everything Bush and Cheney are saying.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Hippikos, I'd say the gullibility is all inside your head -- hell, you've glommed my share, and welcome to it. I think you're talking through your hat.

And where's the point of your discussion about whether al-Z lost a leg or didn't? It certainly doesn't make your point, whatever it was. Is it not to be understood, even from what you put out, that al-Z was in danger of losing his leg to his injuries, but good medical treatment and maybe good luck saved the limb? Would it be the first time ever that the initial word on something was muddled? Hardly.

Nor, frankly, am I persuaded that the Atta meeting was a hoax. Iffy? -- possibly. Understand something: earlier in my life, I was an intelligence professional and I have considerable experience with how hedged and qualified intelligence info is. It is never the complete story in real time -- that only comes, if ever, some time well after the fact, from the piecing-together done by historians.

I remind you, since you evidently need reminding, that Republicans don't swear a blood oath to tell lies before each meal and before bed as a condition of joining the Republican Party. Your kind of thinking is exactly what keeps right-wingers believing they are smarter than left-wingers. Certainly I'm confirmed in this view, reading the guff I see here.

[Hippikos]

Hippikos, I'd say the gullibility is all inside your head -- hell, you've glommed my share, and welcome to it. I think you're talking through your hat.

I believe in facts, you believe in Cheney. Now who's gullible here?

And where's the point of your discussion about whether al-Z lost a leg or didn't? It certainly doesn't make your point, whatever it was. Is it not to be understood, even from what you put out, that al-Z was in danger of losing his leg to his injuries, but good medical treatment and maybe good luck saved the limb? Would it be the first time ever that the initial word on something was muddled? Hardly.

It makes all the difference, and it was you who dragged in this highly questionable intelligence fact, which in fact is more a rumor. The fact that it does not confirm your theory does not make it irrelevant.

Nor, frankly, am I persuaded that the Atta meeting was a hoax. Iffy? -- possibly. Understand something: earlier in my life, I was an intelligence professional and I have considerable experience with how hedged and qualified intelligence info is. It is never the complete story in real time -- that only comes, if ever, some time well after the fact, from the piecing-together done by historians.

Looking at what you write here I hardly believe that, but in the very unlikely event that it is true that you were an intelligence professional other than working on the post room, than you certainly would remember rule numero uno in intelligence: only rely on multiple and corroborated sources.

I remind you, since you evidently need reminding, that Republicans don't swear a blood oath to tell lies before each meal and before bed as a condition of joining the Republican Party. Your kind of thinking is exactly what keeps right-wingers believing they are smarter than left-wingers. Certainly I'm confirmed in this view, reading the guff I see here.

I don't see the relevance of this argument in this discussion, unless, as usual a feeble attempt to distract from the real issue.