Guest INXS Report post Posted June 16, 2004 http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1139657,00.html The official inquiry into the September 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon has said there was no link between Iraq and al Qaeda. Authorities had used a possible link as one of the reasons for going to war with Saddam Hussein. The report said Osama bin Laden had met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but there was no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped al-Qaeda carry out the devastating strikes on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 in which about 3,000 people died. I thought i'd bring this up seeing as many right thinkers still claim that there was a connection between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda/9/11. It also shows that the public were misled (whether deliberately or not) by the government into thinking that Saddam was connected to 9/11. I know that defenders of the Bush admin will cry that it is the intelligence agencies fault for supplying them with incorrect information, but when the info is used as a reason to go to war and then proven to be incorrect,questions need to be asked. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 16, 2004 I should've been outraged a few months ago when the Bush administration officially stated that there was no link... and then Cheney said there was a link a short time afterward on Larry King (guess he didnt get the memo) ... but I just found it to be in a way, very funny Either way, expect the debate here to begin again... strangely enough, those of us who believe there wasn't a link can say that we're backed up by, of all people, the Bush administration Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 I'm not saying there IS a link, but I certainly wouldn't take the word of a British paper at face value. They have their own political axes to grind on the subject. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Cerebus Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Well the inquirty did say as much. Not that I take anything this inquiry as anything but a politically charged soap boxes for ambitious politicians to get on tv and point fingers. This comission is a fucking joke, its really too bad that so many people are taking what they say as gospel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 16, 2004 I'm not saying there IS a link, but I certainly wouldn't take the word of a British paper at face value. They have their own political axes to grind on the subject. Uh..it's the report on the findings of the official enquiry. Sky isn't a british newspaper either - Sky News is a highly credible news channel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zorin Industries 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 And I would like to add that Sky News is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 16, 2004 This is news if you take the Commission seriously. No, I don't take them seriously. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 16, 2004 So you think that there were ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda and 9/11? This is an independent comission. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 16, 2004 So you think that there were ties between Saddam's Iraq and Al Qaeda and 9/11? This is an independent comission. The 9/11 commission is independent, and not a sad, political little dog-and-pony show? Suuure. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
snuffbox 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 You tell the world what the ties are then Mike... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 16, 2004 You tell the world what the ties are then Mike... There's a book coming out detailing them. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JangoFett4Hire 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 This is news if you take the Commission seriously. No, I don't take them seriously. -=Mike True. Tough letting facts get in the way of a good argument. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JangoFett4Hire 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 You tell the world what the ties are then Mike... There's a book coming out detailing them. -=Mike Will it be a pop-up book so that President Bush can follow along? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 16, 2004 You tell the world what the ties are then Mike... There's a book coming out detailing them. -=Mike Oh... well then that must prove it! I hope the Administration reads it because as I've stated, and I'll keep stating... they seem to be on the other side of the argument Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Firestarter 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Jesus, you people are stupid. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Jesus, you people are stupid. I was wondering why we had to suffer another Jango appearance. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 The fact is, Bin Laden wanted/wants Shariah law across the middle east and the world, Hussein was a secular leader, therefore they were at odds due to political and religious reasons to start off with, and Bin Laden wanted to invade Iraq along with his Mujahdradeen(spel?) in 1991, but Saudi Arabia blocked him, as it would have split the coalition along with Israel. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 16, 2004 The fact is, Bin Laden wanted/wants Shariah law across the middle east and the world, Hussein was a secular leader, therefore they were at odds due to political and religious reasons to start off with, and Bin Laden wanted to invade Iraq along with his Mujahdradeen(spel?) in 1991, but Saudi Arabia blocked him, as it would have split the coalition along with Israel. But Hussein LOVED pretending he was a devout Muslim whenever he had problems witht he West. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vanhalen 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Oh yeah, no arguments there Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vyce 0 Report post Posted June 16, 2004 And I would like to add that Sky News is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News But wait, I thought that particular individual..... .....who owns a certain network..... ....that has been known to cause us all to engage in uproarious fits of laughter.... .....in this year of our Lord two-thousand-AUGHT-4..... .....was an ultra-conservative and thus everything related to his networks was biased and couldn't be trusted? Jesus, you people are stupid. Sadly, I cannot disagree with you. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Riots bloodlust Report post Posted June 16, 2004 I have never been able to take seriously people who say that there is NO connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. There is at least one very large and very obvious one. After the first gulf war, US troops remained in Saudi Arabia as a defence against possible Iraqi aggression. These infidel troops in the holy land are, supposedly, the 'official' reason for such hostility against the US by Al Qaeda. Now, you can argue about the merrits of the connection(s), but not their existence. You may not think the above example is very large, or serious, but it is there. If you are talking about a connection from Iraq to 9/11, that's a completely different creature, and should be treated as such. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest thebigjig Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Jesus, you people are stupid. you again? I thought I felt a sudden chill in the air Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 16, 2004 And I would like to add that Sky News is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News But wait, I thought that particular individual..... .....who owns a certain network..... ....that has been known to cause us all to engage in uproarious fits of laughter.... .....in this year of our Lord two-thousand-AUGHT-4..... .....was an ultra-conservative and thus everything related to his networks was biased and couldn't be trusted? Jesus, you people are stupid. Sadly, I cannot disagree with you. Sky News aren't the only news service to carry the inquiry findings - just about every news service in the USA and the UK are. The issue isn't the source..I could have pulled the story from the BBC, Fox, CNN, Yahoo..anywhere. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Jesus, you people are stupid. Yeah, so dumb. It's beyond obvious that Saddam and Bin Laden were in cahoots..Bush even said so! Forget the findings of an independent inquiry. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 16, 2004 And I would like to add that Sky News is owned by none other than Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News But wait, I thought that particular individual..... .....who owns a certain network..... ....that has been known to cause us all to engage in uproarious fits of laughter.... .....in this year of our Lord two-thousand-AUGHT-4..... .....was an ultra-conservative and thus everything related to his networks was biased and couldn't be trusted? Jesus, you people are stupid. Sadly, I cannot disagree with you. Sky News aren't the only news service to carry the inquiry findings - just about every news service in the USA and the UK are. The issue isn't the source..I could have pulled the story from the BBC, Fox, CNN, Yahoo..anywhere. Hey, everybody here reported on the Tawana Brawley accusations back in the 1980's. Didn't make the accusations truthful. Just because it's "widely reported", doesn't mean it's TRUE. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Uh, this isn't an accusation...it's the results of an OFFICIAL INQUIRY! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 16, 2004 Uh, this isn't an accusation...it's the results of an OFFICIAL INQUIRY! An official inquiry done by a horribly flawed, partisan, joke of a Commission. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 17, 2004 Uh, this isn't an accusation...it's the results of an OFFICIAL INQUIRY! An official inquiry done by a horribly flawed, partisan, joke of a Commission. -=Mike Obviously. The inquiry failed here because MikeSC KNOWS that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MikeSC Report post Posted June 17, 2004 Uh, this isn't an accusation...it's the results of an OFFICIAL INQUIRY! An official inquiry done by a horribly flawed, partisan, joke of a Commission. -=Mike Obviously. The inquiry failed here because MikeSC KNOWS that Saddam had a hand in 9/11. Yup. It's obvious to people who don't have their heads embedded in their asses. -=Mike Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest INXS Report post Posted June 17, 2004 Your train of thought is actually quite scary. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
