• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

new evidence coming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!! (1 Viewer)

ProudAmerican

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
2,694
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

I'm just going to tell you what your going to get... IT'S FOX IT'S FOX!!!! & This proves nothing.....& It's all fake ....LOL
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Calm2Chaos said:
I'm just going to tell you what your going to get... IT'S FOX IT'S FOX!!!! & This proves nothing.....& It's all fake ....LOL


already gotten that response from one leftist. I was prepared for it.

nevermind the guys credintials doing the interpreting. its FAUX NEWS so its B.S.

:mrgreen:

classic.

also, I will get a lot of

"you cant prove they were going to harm America"

not that this was ever an issue BEFORE the proof there were ties to terrorists. the left likes to change the rules midstream.

leftist: Saddam had no ties to terrorists!!!!
oponent: sure he did. here are some translated documents proving it!!!!
leftist: But that doesnt mean he was going to attack AMerica!!!!!

wtf? you never said that was a pre requisite for action untill I showed you that you were wrong about his lack of ties to terrorists!!!

this is where the debate would go from here.......

oponent: ok, we just found a translated document that he planned to attack America
leftist: but you dont know he was going to use toxic nerve gas!!!!

LOL.

they simply forget about the point you just proved them wrong on, and make up a new point you must now prove proof of. its an unwinable debate because they continue to change the rules.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

I don't think the argument is that Hussein didn't support terrorists. We have check stubs made out to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The question is whether Iraq was actively in cahoots with the Taliban/al'Qaeda.

The 9/11 Commission points out that there were some high-level meetings between them, to discuss a relationship that appears to have never culminated into anything. The document Fox news is referring to doesn't seem to add anything to that. I see in that document that Falzur Rahman believes the Taliban would like to work cooperatively with Iraq against Russia.

"They (RR: probably the Taliban) want Iraq to intervene with Russia."

And the Iraqi Vice-President appears to have disagreed with that idea:

"It is better that Afghanistan solves his own problems and not depend on foreign countries."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

So I don't understand how this document constitutes "proof" of a collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and the Taliban. Did I miss something?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

So I don't understand how this document constitutes "proof" of a collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and the Taliban. Did I miss something?

yes, you did.

should we have waited to go into Iraq untill that collaborative operational relationship developed?

this document is clear proof that is something the taliban wanted to persue. and had the Iraqi government not wanted to persue it as well, then why meet?

Im not at all surpised by your response, and have predicted the same from many on this site will be similar.


the left (or oponents of this war) have done a brilliant job of making it IMPOSSIBLE to ever give them what they ask for. anything short of a photo of Saddam shaking hands with Bin Laden simply will not do. and even if we gave you that, you would simply again change the rules and claim they were just discussing dinner plans for the weekend.

maybe the oponents could give us an alternative reason for a meeting between these folks.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

So I don't understand how this document constitutes "proof" of a collaborative operational relationship between Iraq and the Taliban. Did I miss something?

yes, you did.

should we have waited to go into Iraq untill that collaborative operational relationship developed?

this document is clear proof that is something the taliban wanted to persue. and had the Iraqi government not wanted to persue it as well, then why meet?

Im not at all surpised by your response, and have predicted the same from many on this site will be similar.


the left (or oponents of this war) have done a brilliant job of making it IMPOSSIBLE to ever give them what they ask for. anything short of a photo of Saddam shaking hands with Bin Laden simply will not do. and even if we gave you that, you would simply again change the rules and claim they were just discussing dinner plans for the weekend.

maybe the oponents could give us an alternative reason for a meeting between these folks.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
oponent: ok, we just found a translated document that he planned to attack America
Okay, I definately didn't see where it said that.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
yes, you did.

should we have waited to go into Iraq untill that collaborative operational relationship developed?
Not necessarily, but that "relationship" should not have been used by the Bush Administration to sell the war when it didn't even exist.


ProudAmerican said:
this document is clear proof that is something the taliban wanted to persue. and had the Iraqi government not wanted to persue it as well, then why meet?
This document does not provide anything new that was not already documented in the 9/11 Commission Report.

ProudAmerican said:
Im not at all surpised by your response, and have predicted the same from many on this site will be similar.


the left (or oponents of this war) have done a brilliant job of making it IMPOSSIBLE to ever give them what they ask for. anything short of a photo of Saddam shaking hands with Bin Laden simply will not do. and even if we gave you that, you would simply again change the rules and claim they were just discussing dinner plans for the weekend.

maybe the oponents could give us an alternative reason for a meeting between these folks.
I'm willing to debate the issues with an open mind if you're willing to not label me as a left-wing radical. Deal?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Not necessarily, but that "relationship" should not have been used by the Bush Administration to sell the war when it didn't even exist.

I havent conceded it didnt exist. I believe more information will come out from these documents that proves it did. But im sure none of it will convince anyone who is invested in us being wrong about it. (im not saying YOU specifically here)

This document does not provide anything new that was not already documented in the 9/11 Commission Report.

I cant debate that as I have not read that report in its entirety.

I'm willing to debate the issues with an open mind if you're willing to not label me as a left-wing radical. Deal?

My apologies if thats what you thought I was doing. I suppose from some of the arguments I have had with a few on this site I have begun to stereotype when I shouldnt. I have not debated you at length on any topic that I can remember, and should not lump you into the same category I lump some others in.

I do however think its a legitimate request to ask for an alternative reason for these people meeting?
If Iraq didnt want some sort of relationship with the taliban, why would they have met with them to begin with?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
I havent conceded it didnt exist. I believe more information will come out from these documents that proves it did.
You could be right about that, but I guess we'll have to wait for the rest of the translations to be sure.

ProudAmerican said:
I cant debate that as I have not read that report in its entirety.
Here are the references to meetings between Iraq and al'Qaeda that the 9/11 Commission Report mentions:

"There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74"

"In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75"

"Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides’ hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76"

I bolded the parts that I think answers your question about why the meetings probably took place. They didn't really like each other and they didn't really trust each other, but they shared a common resentment of the United States and that's why they met. But even that resentment was for different reasons. They were feeling each other out over a period of several years, and it's reasonable to believe that this might have eventually led to a collaborative relationship. But I think it's apparent that there is yet still no proof of this relationship.

ProudAmerican said:
My apologies if thats what you thought I was doing. I suppose from some of the arguments I have had with a few on this site I have begun to stereotype when I shouldnt. I have not debated you at length on any topic that I can remember, and should not lump you into the same category I lump some others in.
No problem, I understand what you mean. Extremists are hard to argue with. :2razz:
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.76"

I believe this statement is key.

There are those of us that simply dont believe an attack against the United States had to be in the works to justify our presence in Iraq.

We had ALREADY been attacked by Al Queda. So if they were cooperating with Iraq AT ALL I believe we had a right to go there. They simply didnt have to be "cooperating with al queda in developing or carrying out an attack against the U.S." because by the time we went into Iraq, al queda had already attacked us....so if all they were doing was collaborating with Iraq on a superbowl party for the steelers.....we had a right to do something.

does that make any sense to you at all?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
I believe this statement is key.

There are those of us that simply dont believe an attack against the United States had to be in the works to justify our presence in Iraq.

We had ALREADY been attacked by Al Queda. So if they were cooperating with Iraq AT ALL I believe we had a right to go there. They simply didnt have to be "cooperating with al queda in developing or carrying out an attack against the U.S." because by the time we went into Iraq, al queda had already attacked us....so if all they were doing was collaborating with Iraq on a superbowl party for the steelers.....we had a right to do something.

does that make any sense to you at all?
Yes, I think that makes perfect sense. In fact, I should apologize because I may have misrepresented my position. I didn't meant to imply that the Iraq war is unjustified. Whether he supported al'Qaeda or not, Sadaam Hussein supported terrorism and this is a war on terrorism. I believe that UN Resolution 1441 alone provided the legal grounds for invading Iraq, although I also believe the UN inspectors should have been given the extra time they were asking for 2 months before the invasion.

My only argument here is that this document does not appear to provide any proof that Iraq and al'Qaeda had established an operational relationship. That proof may reveal itself as more of these documents are translated, but as of yet it hasn't been proven as far as I can tell.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Yes, I think that makes perfect sense.

:rock

you give me hope.

In fact, I should apologize because I may have misrepresented my position. I didn't meant to imply that the Iraq war is unjustified.

again, I take the burden of blame here for assuming and lumping you into the "radical nutjob" category.

Whether he supported al'Qaeda or not, Sadaam Hussein supported terrorism and this is a war on terrorism. I believe that UN Resolution 1441 alone provided the legal grounds for invading Iraq, although I also believe the UN inspectors should have been given the extra time they were asking for 2 months before the invasion.

I will agree. The only debatable point here is giving the inspectors additional time. One could argue that 10 years (or however long it had been) was long enough.....but I certainly wouldnt have had a problem with a definite length of time to give them as long as it was reasonable.....and I would say 2 months is reasonable.

My only argument here is that this document does not appear to provide any proof that Iraq and al'Qaeda had established an operational relationship. That proof may reveal itself as more of these documents are translated, but as of yet it hasn't been proven as far as I can tell.

proof? well thats a hard thing to provide. IMO, it provides more ammunition to our side of the argument that America was right in starting this extension of the war on terror in Iraq.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
There are those of us that simply dont believe an attack against the United States had to be in the works to justify our presence in Iraq.

What would be justification?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Lachean said:
What would be justification?

Violation of the cease fire agreement from the gulf war
resolution 1441
supporting terrorists through money, training facilities, logistics.
congress full support

just to name a few.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
I will agree. The only debatable point here is giving the inspectors additional time. One could argue that 10 years (or however long it had been) was long enough.....but I certainly wouldnt have had a problem with a definite length of time to give them as long as it was reasonable.....and I would say 2 months is reasonable.
During those 10-12 years, Clinton should have responded more strongly when Iraq stopped giving UN inspectors unfettered access. After Bush threatened war, for about 2 months before the invasion, Iraq had re-granted full access to the inspectors and continued to do so until they were removed by the U.S. in lieu of the invasion.

I don't know how much extra time the inspectors were asking for, or if they were even specific, or if it would have made a difference considering how much contraband might have been relocated or hidden while Hussein played his games. But I think it's noteworthy that Hussein did finally decide to cooperate under the very real threat of another war with the U.S., and it's likely that this cooperation would have impeded whatever WMD efforts they were actually involved in. This implies to me that, at least the threat of war was effective, but an actual invasion might not have been necessary in order to curtail Iraq's WMD program, such as it was. The whole point was to make sure Iraq was not producing WMDs, and that could have been accomplished by giving Hussein one last chance to never again fail to comply with the inspectors. This is based on the assumption that war should be a last resort, instead of a preemptive strike, so YMMV.

ProudAmerican said:
proof? well thats a hard thing to provide. IMO, it provides more ammunition to our side of the argument that America was right in starting this extension of the war on terror in Iraq.
I agree that these meetings are relavent and should be given due consideration, but they are ammunition for the case of war only if we make assumptions about what they really amount to. Bin Laden's goal was the destruction of the U.S., while Hussein's goal was simply to maintain and/or expand his power. The U.S. was a mutual enemy but for different reasons, so I'm not surprised that they discussed a relationship nor am I surprised that these discussions didn't go very far. I can't, in good conscience, justify war based on meetings that evidently never resulted in any kind of agreement. That's not to say there weren't other justifications, because there were, I just think this particular one isn't very strong.

It would be a stronger case if Muhammad Atta's trip to Prague was true, as Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed." It would be a stronger case if Iraq had actually trained al'Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gasses as Bush said in a speech in Cincinatti. It would be a stronger case if the evidence of a link was "overwhelming" as Cheney claimed on CNBC's Capital Report. I guess "overwhelming" is in the eye of the beholder.
 
Last edited:
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
Violation of the cease fire agreement from the gulf war
resolution 1441
supporting terrorists through money, training facilities, logistics.
congress full support

just to name a few.
Also repeated attacks on our pilots patrolling the No-Fly-Zone. Another thing Clinton should have responded more strongly to.
 
Last edited:
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

ProudAmerican said:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

I have no doubts this wont change the minds of the partisans.....but if you have been demanding proof that Iraq had ties to terrorists before we got there.....it doesnt get much better than this.

and much to the dismay of the left, this is going to be an entire series.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199053,00.html

all I can say is.....ITS ABOUT TIME.

IMO this information should have come out a long time ago.

All I can say is there is nothing new or shocking in what you posted, only the promise of something new and shocking. Nor does the allience discuss equate to an allience of terrorist. More regional and ethnic.

I'm open to evidence, but some needs to be actually presented. And keep in mind, no one in the ME can hold a meeting without someone there with known ties to terrorism, so we need something more direct.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Binary_Digit said:
Also repeated attacks on our pilots patrolling the No-Fly-Zone. Another thing Clinton should have responded more strongly to.

Under what authority did these "No Fly Zones" get created?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

zymurgy said:
Under what authority did these "No Fly Zones" get created?


There was no real authority for them and the attacks on pilots was more an annoyance than anything else. Meaningless in context.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

zymurgy said:
Under what authority did these "No Fly Zones" get created?
"
the US, Britain and France created a northern 'safe haven' and a so-called 'no fly zone' under the auspices of Resolution 688.

A similar no-fly zone was set up in southern Iraq in 1992, and extended in 1996."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2246037.stm


BigDog said:
the attacks on pilots was more an annoyance than anything else. Meaningless in context.
I highly doubt if our pilots who had rockets fired at their planes would agree they were meaningless. Would you feel the same way if a rocket actually brought one of our planes down? I mean seriously, successful or not they were deliberate attacks on the U.S. military.
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Binary_Digit said:

"
the US, Britain and France created a northern 'safe haven' and a so-called 'no fly zone' under the auspices of Resolution 688.

A similar no-fly zone was set up in southern Iraq in 1992, and extended in 1996."



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2246037.stm

So you claim resolution 688 is the document that allowed for no fly zones to be created?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

Discussions of al Zarqawi's possible successor led to the identification of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born terrorist, as the likely guy for the job. The identification of al-Masri prompted Powerline to post the following background on al-Masri and his links to the former Iraqi regime...

According to the information provided by the U.S. military, al-Masri traveled to Iraq in 2002 before Zarqawi and established the first al Qaeda cell in the Baghdad area. From both his nationality and connections with al Qaeda second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahiri, it can be reasonably concluded that al-Masri was a member of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that al-Zawahiri headed prior to his merger with bin Laden's organization. This is significant, given the 9/11 Commission report's cryptic note that al-Zawahiri had "ties of his own" to the former Iraqi regime and al-Masri's presence in Saddam's Baghdad.

With the advantage of hindsight, it appears that al-Masri was one of two "senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad associates" that then-CIA Director George Tenet referenced to Senator Jack Reed before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

SEN. REED: I--I--the issue is--and I want to be clear. I understand your response. This issue is his relationship to Saddam Hussein, to Baghdad, to--if he is operating in concert explicitly with Saddam Hussein, or is there for the--his own convenience and safety--can you comment on that?

TENET: The argument--the specific line of evidence and argument we have made is they're providing safe haven to him. And we know this because a foreign government approached the Iraqis twice about Zarqawi's presence in Baghdad, and he disappeared. The second troubling piece of this, sir, is, as I mentioned yesterday, the two dozen other associates and two senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad associates that's indistinguishable from al Qaeda because they merged there. And the third piece I'd say to you is Baghdad's not Geneva. It is inconceivable that these people are sitting there without the Iraqi intelligence services knowledge of the fact that there is a safe haven being provided by people to people who believe it's fairly comfortable to operate there. That's as far as I can take the story today.

SEN. REED: All right. Following up, the presence--all of these individuals you've cited are in Baghdad, based on your information?

TENET: Yes.

SEN. REED: Do you have any information that, beyond providing the safe haven, as you seem to have clear evidence, that the Iraqi regime is facilitating their operations?

TENET: That's what we're trying to understand more of, sir.

It should be noted in the exchange cited above that Sen. Reed acknowledged to Director Tenet that there appeared to be "clear evidence" that the Iraqi regime was providing safe haven to Zarqawi and two senior Egyptian Islamic Jihad associates (one of whom was al-Masri). Secretary Powell later described these same individuals before the U.N. Security Council as having "established a base of operations" in Baghdad where they could "coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq . . . they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/333iynoa.asp

Paraphrasing a couple of additional points made by Powerline...

Two further aspects of al-Masri's career cut deeply into critics' understanding of Zarqawi and his organization. While some have alleged that bin Laden and Zarqawi existed as rivals prior to the invasion of Iraq, this interpretation is belied by General Caldwell's statement that Zarqawi first met al-Masri at al-Farouk, an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, and has had a "very close relationship" with him since arriving in Iraq.

The acknowledgement by Caldwell that al-Masri was in contact with al-Zawahiri likewise belies critics' charges that no real connection exists between al Qaeda in Iraq and its parent organization headed up by OBL. For example, see the calls among Zarqawi's online followers for bin Laden to appoint a new emir of al Qaeda in Iraq so that their jihad can continue. Clearly, whatever the differences between Zarqawi and bin Laden, they were more than willing to cooperate when it came to killing Americans.

The relentless parsing of the Iraq - al Qaeda relationship reminds me a bit of a teenager when asked "Have you finished your homework?", and the response is "Define finished." Ok, so how did the CIA define "operational or collaborative" in coming up with their description of the Iraqi - al Qaeda relationship, or more accurately, their conclusion as to "no operational or collaborative relationship"? What criteria did they use, and given their decidedly mixed record of accuracy in so many of the other Iraq-related intel assessments, why should anyone assign a strong belief level to this one?
 
Re: new evidence comming forward. the radical left isnt gonna like this!!!!

zymurgy said:
Under what authority did these "No Fly Zones" get created?


nevermind. already answered.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom