9/11 Bombshell: New Evidence Of Iraq-Al Qaeda Ties?

CBS News ^ | Oct. 1, 2002 | David Martin

[piasa]

LOL, I think it is kind of sad how the libs keep claiming the two can't work together "because Hussein is a secularist and bin Laden is a religious fanatic" when it is well known that Iranian Islamic fundamentalists worked with Iranian communists to overthrow the Shah, and once in power, killed said communists as if they had never worked hand-in-hand. Then Iranian religious extremists routinely worked - and still do work- with Palestinian and Syrian secularists against Israel and the US.

Not to mention that Islamic fundamentalists worked with the Great Satan himself when they were fighting the USSR in Afghanistan.

It is quite possible to work with people you would normally prefer to see dead so long as there is one common interest overriding the differences. Case in point- the Democratic Party's willingness to work hand-in-hand with communists who would, if they ever obtained power, kill Democrats right along with Republicans, Libertarians, and anyone else who they see as a threat. And another example is Hitler working with Stalin in the early days of WW2 when those two forms of socialism - nationalist Nazisim and internationalist-communism would normally not be compatible. Yet another example is the World Council of Churches, which works hand-in-hand with atheist communism.

The desire to bring down the US is the common interest of Iraq and the fundamentalist Islamics... if they managed to succeed in it and in wiping out Israel, they would lose their common interest and then they would fight among themselves with all the vehemence they currently direct our way. But until then, we are their mutual target.

[GOPJ]

bump

[RaceBannon]

bump

[justa-hairyape]

"It's good that we don't." said Cheney, "because we're not ready to do anything about it."

At the height of the Cold War we were always minutes away from firing enough nuclear weapons to kill just about every communist on the planet. We have come from that stage of alertness to the 'not ready to do anything about it stage'. Your earlier assumptions of black mail apply here. If we knew Saddam Hussien was involved in the anthrax mailings from the get go and we did not nuke him immediately, there better be some darn good reasons. Otherwise, Saddam and all the radical Islamists know our WMD's are paper tigers.

[Sacajaweau]

Saddam is exceedingly devious. Don't be surprised if he kills a few of his people and says they found them playing with some anthrax. Saddam protests that he can't believe it! This is awful. The world will think my government was involved and we knew nothing of these people until the discovery of the anthrax farm. The world can not harm us if we were not responsible for its' existence...blah, blah, blah!!

[Poohbah]

At the height of the Cold War we were always minutes away from firing enough nuclear weapons to kill just about every communist on the planet.

The odds of the US President actually opting to do so in the absence of an imminent Soviet nuclear (or 'nuculear') attack were about the same as the odds of me scoring with both of the Barbi Twins and surviving the wrath of my wife when she finds out :o)

We have come from that stage of alertness to the 'not ready to do anything about it stage'.

Again, we're not going to lob nukes all over the place without a much higher level of provocation than an ineptly executed anthrax attack.

[PhilipFreneau]

Why would Saddammnnnn and Al-Qaeda work together? What do they have in common anyway? Yeah, they hate America and they have both killed innocents, so what. This smells like an Israeli plot.

My question would be, why would they NOT work together? There are some outside the Bush Administration that believe there might be a link:

In this October 18, 2001 Frontline Interview journalist Laurie Mylroie discusses the possible role of Iraq in the 1993 Trade Center bombing.

In this October 14, 2001 New York Times interview former Iraqi Army Captain Sabah Khodada discusses the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak.

[hchutch]

Agreed. Bush is getting things set up just right. But I also think we are devleoping a TON of intelligence so Iraq's leadership can be rendered "combat ineffective" on Day One - so the "go" codes for any attack will die before they are sent.

[Johnny Shear]

If we knew Saddam Hussien was involved in the anthrax mailings from the get go and we did not nuke him immediately, there better be some darn good reasons.

I guess the phrase "Civilian Casualties" is someting you've never heard?

[justa-hairyape]

And I guess your too young to have lived through the Cold War. You do realize that we not only targeted the Soviets nuclear forces, but we also targeted every major communist city.

[justa-hairyape]

The odds of the US President actually opting to do so in the absence of an imminent Soviet nuclear (or 'nuculear') attack were about the same as the odds of me scoring with both of the Barbi Twins and surviving the wrath of my wife when she finds out :o)

I have posted previously that if the Soviets had blown up both World Trade Center buildings during the hieght of the Cold War, the launch codes would have been released.

Again, we're not going to lob nukes all over the place without a much higher level of provocation than an ineptly executed anthrax attack.

The purpose of possessing WMD is two fold. They are a deterrent to stop others from using WMD on you and they give you the ability to by-and-large kill the entire population of an agressive enemy. We have now already nullified the purpose #1 of possessing them. There is absolutely nothing that will prevent the Muslim Terrorists from using a WMD on us now. All they have to do is acquire one. The soviets have been warning us that Checen 'rebels' may have smuggled some to the terrorists. Why do you think Putin has been so vocal lately. The Russians may be on the verge of eliminating the problem themselves (IE- not nullifying purpose #1).

[Poohbah]

No, we probably would have flattened the Kremlin or Yasonevo (KGB headquarters) with conventional bombs--and that would have been it.

[Johnny Shear]

You do realize that we not only targeted the Soviets nuclear forces, but we also targeted every major communist city.

I know that. But as you know, it was "Mutually Assured Destruction". You said we should have nuked Iraq if we had proof that Sadam was involved in the anthrax mailings. As bad as the anthrax mailings were, It doesn't call for glassing an entire nation.

[justa-hairyape]

It was MAD for the civilian populations by-and-large. The governments of both countries had plans for limited survival. It would have been folly to not have nuclear survival plans in place. There was also the seduction of launching first and thereby posibbly surviving the best. MAD weapons give you the ability to remake the entire population of the world. Hitler would have loved em. Concerning nuking Baghdad for the anthrax mailings, the appropiate response would have been to tactically nuke every single one of Saddams Palaces. That would have sent a clear message to the world. 'You screw with the US, you die.' Now the message is, 'You can screw with us as long as you dont kill too many of us or interrupt the football season.' Please note that last sentence was satire.

[justshutupandtakeit]

bump

[justshutupandtakeit]

Excellent examples refuting the RATmedia lies. Thanks.