Iraqi Officials Discover possible Hussein-al-Qaeda link

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-14 02:46am

here

No, I'm not ready to accept this as gospel truth yet, just wanted to put it out there. But this is big news if it pans out.

DPDarkPrimus · Post by **DPDarkPrimus** » 2003-12-14 02:49am

Seems rather convienient to me...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-12-14 02:50am

I call your attention to this part of the article:

The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.

Sounds like yet another group rehashing old bullshit.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-14 03:02am

It's the Iraqi Governing Council. Associated with Chalabi and his INC. Who were instrumental in feeding vast amounts of bullshit to Western intelligence and certain gullible media sources (Judith Miller at NYT) and passing it off as "intelligence" from "reliable sources". I have little doubt that this is yet more bullshit cooked up by them for their neocon buddies (just wait for the Weekly Standard to start harping about it) benefit. Don't expect it to recieve any serious attention from legitimate agencies.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-12-14 06:02pm

I thought it was pretty well known that the primary trainer of terrorists in Afganistan, Soudi Arabia, and Chechnya was paid for by the United States in an effort to put down that evil empire of communist Russia?

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » 2003-12-14 10:02pm

I'm suprised, but wierder things have happened. I mean, Saddam and international terrorism, its known, he sends lots of money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Al-Queda though? Big ideological differences there, even if war can make strange bedfellows. Six months ago I was sure that the whole Al-Queda/Saddam connection was bullshit, but I'm becoming a little less sure now, enough to say that I don't know whats true.

SPOOFE · Post by **SPOOFE** » 2003-12-15 09:42pm

Seems rather convienient to me...

...... So? How does supposed convenience factor in?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-15 09:54pm

The Yosemite Bear wrote:I thought it was pretty well known that the primary trainer of terrorists in Afganistan, Soudi Arabia, and Chechnya was paid for by the United States in an effort to put down that evil empire of communist Russia?

We funded the native Afghan rebellion against the Soviets, but never the Arab one, of which bin Laden was a part. That was a Saudi import. And the Saudis have been and remain the primary source of funding and training for Islamic terrorists, not the U.S, chief. It is astoundingly ignorant of you, to say the least, to make the big bad United States the culprit here.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-15 11:04pm

Joe wrote:
We funded the native Afghan rebellion against the Soviets, but never the Arab one, of which bin Laden was a part. That was a Saudi import. And the Saudis have been and remain the primary source of funding and training for Islamic terrorists, not the U.S, chief. It is astoundingly ignorant of you, to say the least, to make the big bad United States the culprit here.

And your source for this novel claim is?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-15 11:15pm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

I'm sure this will just be more neocon bullshit to you, but here it is.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-15 11:24pm

Joe wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

I'm sure this will just be more neocon bullshit to you, but here it is.

It is what it is. Bullshit.

Mayhap you should move beyond Fox News. You don't have to go very far. Trying to pretend there were two seperate rebellions going on is complete bullshit and historical nonsense. I'm sure it appeals to Fox News consumers though.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-12-15 11:31pm

Vympel wrote:
Joe wrote:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html

I'm sure this will just be more neocon bullshit to you, but here it is.
It is what it is. Bullshit.

Mayhap you should move beyond Fox News. You don't have to go very far. Trying to pretend there were two seperate rebellions going on is complete bullshit and historical nonsense. I'm sure it appeals to Fox News consumers though.

Mayhap you should blow me. Your article produces no evidence of a single dollar going to the Arab Afghans.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-12-15 11:34pm

Joe wrote:
Mayhap you should blow me. Your article produces no evidence of a single dollar going to the Arab Afghans.

Maybe you should grow a fucking brain. That moron Fox News article is so fucking ignorant they don't even mention the fucking Pakistani security services through which ALL CIA money went through- it's based on an entirely false premise for the benefit of idiots (at this point in time: you) who don't know a thing about the support for Afghanistan rebels or how it was done, and then sets up an irrelevant burden of proof to try and shirk the obvious historical fact that the CIA gave money to the ISI who then gave money to the Mujhadeen- with no evidence of any discrimnation. Let me put it in crayon for you:

As his unclassified CIA biography states, bin Laden left Saudi Arabia to fight the Soviet army in Afghanistan after Moscow?s invasion in 1979. By 1984, he was running a front organization known as Maktab al-Khidamar - the MAK - which funneled money, arms and fighters from the outside world into the Afghan war.
What the CIA bio conveniently fails to specify (in its unclassified form, at least) is that the MAK was nurtured by Pakistan?s state security services, the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI, the CIA?s primary conduit for conducting the covert war against Moscow?s occupation.

Rocket science or something ...