No collaboration between Iraq and Al-Qaeda

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 16, 2004, 12:19 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

So can the few who cling to this notion please stop bringing it up now?
kthx

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 12:30 pm

Im sure you belive OJ was innocent to?

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 16, 2004, 12:35 pm

Get a grown up to read the article to you you fucking prick

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » June 16, 2004, 12:36 pm

The panel concludes: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

What about co-operating against others? They also have a lot of evidence, but none they deem credible.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 12:44 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Get a grown up to read the article to you you fucking prick

I can read it myself dunder head, And I find nothing in there that disputes Iraq was helping Al-Queada.

I guess the UN panel was looking for Billboards on the roadside, You guys will believe anything.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 16, 2004, 12:46 pm

Just because Iraq may or may not be helping AQ (I beleive they did) that doesn't mean that they were involved with 9/11 itself, as the panel set out to find.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 16, 2004, 12:47 pm

It's your governments investigation and has nothing to do with the UN you drooling cretin.

And I guess the other brainiac who has so far replied missed this:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

Post by **Sylvus** » June 16, 2004, 12:49 pm

Cartalas wrote:I can read it myself dunder head, And I find nothing in there that disputes Iraq was helping Al-Queada.

That Article wrote:It said Iraq "never responded" to Osama Bin Laden's requests to set up training camps and for help in buying weapons.

It also wrote:"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the statement says, adding: "Two senior Bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

The panel concludes: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 12:52 pm

"The panel concludes: "We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

Thats all they were looking for, they did not go into detail of the Iraq, Al-Qaeda cooperation.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 16, 2004, 12:56 pm

If you read that article and derw that conclusion you are, as I said, a fucking prick.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 12:58 pm

I knew most of this all along, but if you think that there was not a financial connection, you are smoking rock.

It would even have been smart for Hussein to destabilize the US and make us look towards Afghanistan. Of course he was not smart.

Post by **Sylvus** » June 16, 2004, 12:59 pm

"It said Iraq "never responded" to Osama Bin Laden's requests to set up training camps and for help in buying weapons."

That has nothing to do with 9/11 right there. It has to do with the AQ/Iraq connection.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."

See above.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 12:59 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:It's your governments investigation and has nothing to do with the UN you drooling cretin.

And I guess the other brainiac who has so far replied missed this:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

So they did meet?

Lets see!!! " Hey Abdula put something special on the BBQ a know terriorst is comming over for Dinner"

Abdul--- " Ok Mr. Hussien"

Sadamm--- " I am looking foward to meet with that fine statesman Osama"

Osama--- Whats up Dog lets say you and I get together and bomb the shit out of the U.S

Sadamm--- Ok Osama my man that will be fun but remember we never talked about this.

They fucking meet you idiot!! Why would a leader of a nation known to hate the U.S agree to meet with a known terrorist?

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » June 16, 2004, 12:59 pm

Look. The panel's final call isn't until the end of next month.
They ruled out any assistance with helping with attacks made on the US, of which there have been two, not counting insurgent attacks durring our occupation in both countries.

If they have enough evidence to rule out ANY assistance at all, even without Saddam's direct knowledge, again, fine, and I'll respect that call.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 16, 2004, 1:15 pm

Cartalas wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:It's your governments investigation and has nothing to do with the UN you drooling cretin.

And I guess the other brainiac who has so far replied missed this:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

So they did meet?

Lets see!!! " Hey Abdula put something special on the BBQ a know terriorst is comming over for Dinner"

Abdul--- " Ok Mr. Hussien"

Sadamm--- " I am looking foward to meet with that fine statesman Osama"

Osama--- Whats up Dog lets say you and I get together and bomb the shit out of the U.S

Sadamm--- Ok Osama my man that will be fun but remember we never talked about this.

They fucking meet you idiot!! Why would a leader of a nation known to hate the U.S agree to meet with a known terrorist?

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 16, 2004, 1:16 pm

Until the commission comes up with hard evidence countering it, I won't discount the possibility Mr. Rogers had ties to Al-Qaeda.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 16, 2004, 1:18 pm

Can we lock this thread until the final non headline attention grabbing BS is over

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:33 pm

Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:It's your governments investigation and has nothing to do with the UN you drooling cretin.

And I guess the other brainiac who has so far replied missed this:

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

So they did meet?

Lets see!!! " Hey Abdula put something special on the BBQ a know terriorst is comming over for Dinner"

Abdul--- " Ok Mr. Hussien"

Sadamm--- " I am looking foward to meet with that fine statesman Osama"

Osama--- Whats up Dog lets say you and I get together and bomb the shit out of the U.S

Sadamm--- Ok Osama my man that will be fun but remember we never talked about this.

They fucking meet you idiot!! Why would a leader of a nation known to hate the U.S agree to meet with a known terrorist?
While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship."

Did they Meet? yes, thats all the evidence I need.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 16, 2004, 1:35 pm

I met Prince Charles before Diana died, does that mean I was tied to her death?

You're a fucking idiot.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 16, 2004, 1:35 pm

No - like I posted, Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 16, 2004, 1:37 pm

They fucking meet you idiot!!

Saddam and Rumsfeld "meet" (sic) as well. Did Rumsfeld plot with Saddam to attack the WTC?

Anyway I'm just quoting the findings of your own government. If I don't believe them I'm an "idiot!!" and if I do I'm an "idiot!!".

As for locking it - why? This article was not a headline. Just because some mouth breathers are getting their pussies hurt I don't see a need to stop the discussion.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » June 16, 2004, 1:37 pm

Lynks wrote:I met Prince Charles before Diana died, does that mean I was tied to her death?

You're a fucking idiot.

Doesn't mean you weren't either!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 16, 2004, 1:39 pm

I think Cartalas has ties to al Qaeda. No hard evidence proves this wrong!

Anyway, I find it funny how Cheney in a speech the other week brought up the link 6 months after Powell said there was no hard proof.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:40 pm

Thess wrote:No - like I posted, Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden

Good then we agree there could of been involvment.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 16, 2004, 1:41 pm

Saddam and Rumsfeld "meet" (sic) as well. Did Rumsfeld plot with Saddam to attack the WTC?

Indeed. WTC was caused by Rumsfeld and Bush!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:42 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Saddam and Rumsfeld "meet" (sic) as well. Did Rumsfeld plot with Saddam to attack the WTC?
Indeed. WTC was caused by Rumsfeld and Bush!

Sure it was.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 16, 2004, 1:43 pm

Winnow wrote:
Lynks wrote:I met Prince Charles before Diana died, does that mean I was tied to her death?

You're a fucking idiot.
Doesn't mean you weren't either!

This is true, but no sane person would start accusing people of plotting something because of a meeting that no one knows about.

I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 16, 2004, 1:44 pm

Good then we agree there could of been involvment

Yes there "could of". That's what your government is investigating. However if you read the rest of the sentence you'll see the words that indicate they found no collaboration. Record those words onto audio tape and play them in a permenant loop while you sleep for the next 5 years and perhaps you'll get the fucking picture.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:45 pm

Lynks wrote:
Winnow wrote:
Lynks wrote:I met Prince Charles before Diana died, does that mean I was tied to her death?

You're a fucking idiot.
Doesn't mean you weren't either!
This is true, but no sane person would start accusing people of plotting something because of a meeting that no one knows about.

I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't exist anymore.

Not when you associate with known terrorist.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » June 16, 2004, 1:47 pm

Cartalas wrote:
Thess wrote:No - like I posted, Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden

Good then we agree there could of been involvment.

Jesus - how can you be so stupid. My original post was...

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship.''

This means that *NO* evidence of a relationship was found - Saddam sent someone to meet with him *ONE* time in 1994.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:48 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:
Good then we agree there could of been involvment
Yes there "could of". That's what your government is investigating. However if you read the rest of the sentence you'll see the words that indicate they found no collaboration. Record those words onto audio tape and play them in a permenant loop while you sleep for the next 5 years and perhaps you'll get the fucking picture.

I wonder how many people were at these meetings with Iraq and Osama? But go ahead take there workd for it.

Question why did Iraq meet with a know terrorist. Why have any association with him at all seeing Iraq was already on UN sanctions.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » June 16, 2004, 1:50 pm

Jesus fucking Christ to sink to your level of undertanding I'd have to be dead.
You drool-soaked, meat-headed fucking moron.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:53 pm

Thess wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
Thess wrote:No - like I posted, Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden

Good then we agree there could of been involvment.
Jesus - how can you be so stupid. My original post was...

While Saddam dispatched a senior Iraqi intelligence official to Sudan to meet with bin Laden in 1994, the commission said it had not turned up evidence of a "collaborative relationship.''

This means that *NO* evidence of a relationship was found - Saddam sent someone to meet with him *ONE* time in 1994.

and how can you be so dense to think that because the commison cant find anything, to think nothing was had. Was there a 3rd party sitting there? recording the whole meeting? No there was not so you , I and the commision do not know what was said.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 1:55 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:Jesus fucking Christ to sink to your level of undertanding I'd have to be dead.
You drool-soaked, meat-headed fucking moron.

Now back to the moron across the pond.

You really are a ignorant fuck arent you?

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 16, 2004, 2:01 pm

I would like to hear the reason why you think Tanc is ignorant. Seriously.

Shut the fuck up. Why can't you participate in a normal adult conversation. At least when Midnyte talks, he doesn't start spewing racial comments, he says his arguments in a calm manner (although I disagree with 99% of his posts). I bet if I take your last 50 posts, i might be able to find 5 posts where you don't act like a fucking jackass. This is the current events forum, if you want to act like this, get the fuck out and start shit in the general forum. This is for grown ups and maybe someday you'll understand that.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 2:02 pm

Lynks wrote:I would like to hear the reason why you think Tanc is ignorant. Seriously.

Shut the fuck up. Why can't you participate in a normal adult conversation. At least when Midnyte talks, he doesn't start spewing racial comments, he says his arguments in a calm manner (although I disagree with 99% of his posts). I bet if I take your last 50 posts, i might be able to find 5 posts where you don't act like a fucking jackass. This is the current events forum, if you want to act like this, get the fuck out and start shit in the general forum. This is for grown ups and maybe someday you'll understand that.

Grown ups hahahhahhahahah

Suck my cock!!!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 16, 2004, 2:03 pm

I rest my case.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 2:03 pm

Lynks wrote:I rest my case.

And I re establish mine

Blow me.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 16, 2004, 2:14 pm

So Cart.. you're 14, right? If not I'd be embarrassed..

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 2:14 pm

Kelshara wrote:So Cart.. you're 14, right? If not I'd be embarrassed..

Awwww so cute Kelshara comming to the rescue.

Fuck off

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » June 16, 2004, 2:18 pm

How did I know you were going to say that...too predictable.

Drolgin Steingrinder · Post by **Drolgin Steingrinder** » June 16, 2004, 2:24 pm

Cartalas wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:Get a grown up to read the article to you you fucking prick
I can read it myself dunder head, And I find nothing in there that disputes Iraq was helping Al-Queada.

I guess the UN panel was looking for Billboards on the roadside, [glow=yellow]You guys will believe anything[/glow].

ahahahaha

the irony in this statement is so rich it could clear the national debt thrice over.

hahahahaha, thank you Cartalas, that's the funniest thing I've read in years - it's almost funnier than the SNL Christopher Walken special!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 2:32 pm

Drolgin Steingrinder wrote:
Cartalas wrote:
vn_Tanc wrote:Get a grown up to read the article to you you fucking prick
I can read it myself dunder head, And I find nothing in there that disputes Iraq was helping Al-Queada.

I guess the UN panel was looking for Billboards on the roadside, [glow=yellow]You guys will believe anything[/glow].

ahahahaha

the irony in this statement is so rich it could clear the national debt thrice over.

hahahahaha, thank you Cartalas, that's the funniest thing I've read in years - it's almost funnier than the SNL Christopher Walken special![/quote

Thanks, and to think Kooky thinks I dont contribute.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » June 16, 2004, 2:38 pm

Hey didn't you rag on me for screwing up a quote at one time? HAH!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » June 16, 2004, 2:39 pm

Ok now this sheds new light on the subject.

"The commission's report says Osama bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to (Saddam) Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship," the report said."

If this is true I will recant my position.

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » June 16, 2004, 10:31 pm

THe CIA probably has agents that met with Al Queda people. CIA agents met with KGB people i'm sure many times.

Meetings in the world of covert operations don't mean shit. Enemies meet probably much more frequently than we know. In fact it is probably tactically extremely foolish not to try to have points of contacts with enemies in this regard.

but furthermore, if we know that the results of points of contact was to distance themselves (Iraq) from Al Queda, that says enough.

THe problem was that Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al. wanted desperately to find information to support their aim to go to war which they thought was strategically a good decision. As such they bypassed committees and agencies with bits of information, thus avoiding the vetting process.

For instance this is how the single source who lied about the mobile Chem/Bio Trailer Labs was able to find his propaganda appearing in Powell's address to the UN. Powell was lied to by the Pentagon (they said they had multiple sources), and was livid when he found out. Look there were people besides us who wanted Saddam out. These people were Iraqis who recognized an opportunity for their own personal political game. They brilliantly worked for years in Washington to gain access to persons close to Dick Cheney, and they found somebody who was a very willing recipient of the stories that they told.

THe whole CHalabi thing is unbelievable...that in and of itself is proof this administration is completely incompetant. Add that to all the other things and it is unreal. Thank god we have such a good military or we would really be in trouble.

Asheran Mojomaster · Post by **Asheran Mojomaster** » June 16, 2004, 10:48 pm

Kelshara wrote:So Cart.. you're 14, right? If not I'd be embarrassed..

I hope hes not a teenager, he would be a bad representation for us all. He has to be 12 at the oldest, and if hes older then there is something seriously wrong.

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 1:16 pm

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... _11_bush_6

Bush disputing the commissions claims that there was no substantial link between AQ and Saddam. That's great Dubya. Now, SHOW US SOME FUCKING PROOF OR SHUT UP!

Caps lock for the win.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » June 17, 2004, 1:45 pm

Proving a negative is nearly impossible, we lack proof of a connection that does not mean one exists, nor does it mean one does exist.

Ye gods have none of you ever studied the rules of logic?

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » June 17, 2004, 2:48 pm

Kylere wrote:Proving a negative is nearly impossible, we lack proof of a connection that does not mean one exists, nor does it mean one does exist.

Ye gods have none of you ever studied the rules of logic?

Did you just try and fault me on logic after spewing that? If he says there was a connection, then he must have a reason for it. What is this reason? Show us the reason. It's so fucking simple it's logic even Bush can understand. It's not asking to prove a negative. It's saying lay down your cards, lets see if you were bluffing. Jesus you're stupid.