Probe rules out Iraq-9/11 links - DPChallenge Forums

//news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3812351.stm

06/16/2004 05:03:42 PM · #1

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/16/2004 07:38:50 PM · #2

cnn.com article about 911 commission and its findings
911 commission website

anyone still think we should have attacked and now occupied iraq because of 911, and in the process undermine the US around the world, decay our image even further and make it unsafe for americans to travel anywhere near the middle east all while turning a 200 billion budget surplus into a 340 billion dollar deficite?

jimmyn4

Canon EOS-7D

06/16/2004 07:43:32 PM · #3

I love the new ignore thread feature. It's such a breath of fresh air to know I won't have to see this on my homepage again. Thank you Drew and Langdon and everyone else for making this possible.

thelsel

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/17/2004 12:20:49 AM · #4

Ahhhh, read the commission's statement very carefully. It says "no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States." That's a pretty specific statement. Notice it doesn't say no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq period. It says no cooperation between Al Qaeda and Iraq with regards to the 911 attacks. This in fact coincides with statements the President made before. If you read the rest of the commission's report, it does mention various connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq. Unfortunately some media outlets forget to mention that part of the story. Now if you take that information and Al Qaeda's desire to acquire nuclear and biological weapons, it doesn't take an evil Republican to single out Iraq.

06/17/2004 12:44:09 PM · #5

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

06/17/2004 01:15:38 PM · #6

wait, i aparently there is proof.. my mistake.
the link
the link2

LoudDog

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

06/17/2004 02:27:27 PM · #7

This must mean that Iraq was the good guys and we attacked our friend by mistake!!! Poor Saddam! I feel so bad for him.
Saddam should ne released right away then. How about if they drop him off in front of your house?

RonB

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

06/17/2004 03:16:32 PM · #8

Originally posted by MadMordegon:

more

It's hard to give any credibility at all to an article that starts out with a lie. The article says, in its opening parargraph:
"Bluntly contradicting the Bush administration, the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday there was "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States."

Well, the administration never said that Saddam Hussein helped al-Qaida target the United States - ergo, the commission's statements that there was "no credible evidence" does not "bluntly contradict" the Bush administration.
So, if the article starts off with a lie, why should any of the rest of it be given any credence?

Ron

thelsel

Fujifilm FinePix S602Z

06/17/2004 03:33:00 PM · #9

Since the war in Iraq was NEVER based on Iraqi involvement in 911, this report isn't quite the antiwar Holy Grail it's made up to be.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/17/2004 03:35:29 PM · #10

since everyone is so good at finding links, why don't you find a link for me that proves bush ever said that saddam was behind 9/11.

just because liberals can't differentiate truth from lies doesn't mean they need to try and confuse the rest of us

Nikon AF Micro-Nikkor 60mm f2.8D

06/17/2004 04:51:07 PM · #11

Originally posted by achiral:

So why did the US invade Iraq again ?

It wasn't 9/11.
It wasn't because of Al Queda.
It wasn't because of Uranium purchases.
It wasn't for the WMD.

One of the main justifications seems to have been ignoring the UN, but that seems slightly ironic given the circumstances too.

Are we running out of reasons yet ?

Message edited by author 2004-06-17 16:56:26.

David Ey

Nikon D80

06/17/2004 04:52:30 PM · #12

Well, they needed it.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/17/2004 05:14:40 PM · #13

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by achiral:
since everyone is so good at finding links, why don't you find a link for me that proves bush ever said that saddam was behind 9/11.

just because liberals can't differentiate truth from lies doesn't mean they need to try and confuse the rest of us

So why did the US invade Iraq again ?

It wasn't 9/11.
It wasn't because of Al Queda.
It wasn't because of Uranium purchases.
It wasn't for the WMD.

One of the main justifications seems to have been ignoring the UN, but that seems slightly ironic given the circumstances too.

Are we running out of reasons yet ?

link please?

why don't you enlighten the world as to why we shouldn't have gotten rid of saddam? facts please no rhetoric or other common bs

Message edited by author 2004-06-17 17:17:39.

06/17/2004 05:16:14 PM · #14

Originally posted by achiral:

link please?

Link to what ? I was asking a question. It seems to have changed to so much I can't remember what the original justification was for invading another country. Afghanistan I could at least understand.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

06/17/2004 05:25:42 PM · #15

Originally posted by Gordon:

It wasn't 9/11.
It wasn't because of Al Queda.
It wasn't because of Uranium purchases.
It wasn't for the WMD.

"It wasn't 9/11" - well based on the after effects of 9/11 on the world and a rethinking of world security, I would definitely say 9/11 had something to do with it. i would just go back to the whole idea of a "War On Terrorism". That phrase probably makes you cringe but that basically amounts to a difference of opinion between you and the administration.

"It wasn't because of Al-Qaeda" - to a great extent you are correct although i will say there is a lot of evidence of Al-Qaeda being sheltered in Iraq as well as many other terrorist groups. so you are mostly right

"it wasn't because of Uranium Purchases" - again you are right here

"it wasn't because of WMD" - well where have you been the last 15 years?

so you have ruled those out as reasons for going to war in iraq. which leaves what? we went to war for oil, right? well that's a reason i've never heard from anyone conservative or liberal. so it basically comes down to we were bored and wanted to overthrow a country?

06/17/2004 05:27:47 PM · #16

Originally posted by achiral:

so you have ruled those out as reasons for going to war in iraq. which leaves what? we went to war for oil, right? well that's a reason i've never heard from anyone conservative or liberal. so it basically comes down to we were bored and wanted to overthrow a country?

No, I said nothing like that at all.

I asked a question. You brought up the issue of oil. The question still remains then, unless you have a handy link that answers it.

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

06/17/2004 05:44:34 PM · #17

Well, this might help.

The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq (H.J.Res. 114) was a resolution passed in October 2002 by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the 2003 invasion of Iraq under the War Powers Resolution. The authorization was sought by U.S. President George W. Bush, and it passed the House by a vote of 296-133 and the Senate by a vote of 77-23, receiving significant support from both major political parties. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.

The act cited several factors to justify a war:

* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
* Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and programs to develop such weapons, posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region"
* Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population"
* Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people"
* Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt of George Bush Sr, and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War
* Iraq's connection to terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda
* Fear that Iraq would provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against the United States

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

06/17/2004 05:51:53 PM · #18

Here's some quotes from the Colin Powell speech to the United Nations on February 6, 2003 relating to the connections between Iraq and al Qaeda:

"But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants."

"Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al Qaeda. These denials are simply not credible. Last year an al Qaeda associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was, quote, "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly."

"We are not surprised that Iraq is harboring Zarqawi and his subordinates. This understanding builds on decades long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda."

"Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al Qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with al Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al Qaeda."

"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

Saddam became more interested as he saw al Qaeda's appalling attacks. A detained al Qaeda member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist al Qaeda after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by al Qaeda's attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000."

Link to transcript HERE.

It seems pretty obvious to me that one of the major reasons that the US govt stated that they were going to war with Iraq was for the ties between the Iraqi govt of Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda.

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

06/17/2004 06:47:23 PM · #19

It is one thing to say Sadaam was a bad leader and needed to be taken out of power. (Though can the US really think the iraqi's lives have been better since the invasion?)
Even if Sadaam should of been relieved of power, it is another thing to go to war under false pretense and blatantly lie as to why you are going.
I think the american gov't and people, need to be a little humble and admit as painful as it is that
'we blew it'. And hope the UN and global community can help the iraqi people put their lives and country back together.
As an american living outside the US i feel sad for my family and countrymen who are spoon fed CNN and are blind to the views and cultures outside the US. Such views are not just 'patriotic' they can also be ignorant and harmful....tread with caution...

ericsuth

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/17/2004 06:49:39 PM · #20

Thank you for posting that link, it has many, many pages which we can reflect upon when considering why it is we went to war against Saddam Hussein's regime. We should read it. War is not for the weak of heart. It is ugly, horrible; the consequences should be carefully understood so if anything I think this discussion is great if it will allow others to truly search the truth as to why this conflict occurred.
But...do read it all, not search for singular quotes or a page that supports just your viewpoint. This situation has not occurred in a vacuum and it will not be solved in one either. But I do hope that this conversation remains polite and holds within it the ideal of searching for solutions not simply blame.

Not surprisingly, in an election year, there is an attempt to place this blame on President Bush. Now when I remember the polls of our country supporting his actions and those of congress when seeking actions against Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries which are suspected of being safe havens to terrorists we were strongly united as a country. Please do not stoop to the level the political parties would like to see. Although most people vote for in general, for one party or another, the majority votes according to what they feel; regardless of party affiliation. Now I as well as many others can see the republican party for what they are...money-grubbing, self-promoting, PEOPLE who have a vision of what they want and are willing to fight for it...and you know what democrats are the EXACT same. Neither side a demon, nor either an angel.
But back to topic...it is a good link please check it out...check it ALL out, and not just this one speech there are other speeches and document that reason why (and I'd guess many other secret documents you and I are not privy to), but do check what's available and make up your own mind.

Link to Transcript of Powell's U.N. presentation:
//www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.irq.powell.transcript/index.html

edited link to work correctly

Message edited by author 2004-06-17 18:52:24.

Malokata

Canon PowerShot G6

06/17/2004 07:06:38 PM · #21

We don't need a justification - just a villain. Though lacking in spandex, we are nonetheless a global superhero. We define what's bad, and since it's bad, we stop it. There is nothing wrong with our methodology, nothing hypocritical in our proclamations, nothing unstated in our motives; in short, there is nothing that should be questioned.

You're either with us -