Saddam and Al Qaeda link proven?

[Razor]

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200604100727.asp

 

[Murray]

If they're not written in crayons like the other reports, I may pherhaps give it a raised eyebrow.

 

[Razor]

The thing that a lot of people didn't know was that Saddam Hussein actually gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out their attacks successfully.

 

[$kelet0r]

The thing that a lot of people didn't know was that Saddam Hussein actually gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out their attacks successfully.

loads of people know that - and it doesnt prove a damn thing about links to terrorism
that was merely good publicity for him

 

[Razor]

loads of people know that - and it doesnt prove a damn thing about links to terrorism
that was merely good publicity for him

Giving money to the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism :thumbs:

 

[kirovman]

Well, in that case, I guess we're guilty of giving money to the families of the 7th July bombers.

 

[CptStern]

The thing that a lot of people didn't know was that Saddam Hussein actually gave money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers who carried out their attacks successfully.

how is that any different than arming government forces who then massacre it's civilian populace, like what happened in El salvador for instance? or iran, or honduras, or chile?

Giving money to the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism :thumbs:

the US has been supporting terrorism for decades ..how is that any different?

 

[SAJ]

Dont forget Nicaragua, most blatant example of US funding of terrorism to date.

 

[Tr0n]

We loves us some drugs.

 

[B_MAN]

Giving money to the families of suicide bombers is supporting terrorism :thumbs:

the US gave Al Qaeda money.. and weapons.. and training

 

[K e r b e r o s]

B_Man, your missing the point.

Towards the end of the Cold War, no one honestly thought that after training the Afghanistan Fedayeen that they'd turn against us.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

B_Man, your missing the point.

Towards the end of the Cold War, no one honestly thought that after training the Afghanistan Fedayeen that they'd turn against us.

They didn't technically either. The Taliban wrestled control after long struggle and was never OUT of war. Northern Alliance/Anti Taliban forces were ALSO part of the fighters we armed against Russia- and they remained friendly to the US to even today as they are now in seats of power there.

We armed and supplied the Fedayeen and a vast anti communist resistance movement headed by the local warlords- not just Bin Laden's group and such.

 

[UltraProAnti]

the US is currently supporting the MKK, an iranian terror group, in the hope they'll sabotage iran's nuclear facilities. in the past they've funded the contras, assorted central american death squads and numerous assassinations, trained terrorists at ft bening, and are currently providing asylum to known terrorists such as the guy who downed that cuban airliner. they have probably the worst record for supporting terrorism of any country on earth, and that's just retail terrorism. their wholesale (i.e. state) terrorism record is even worse

 

[UltraProAnti]

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200604100727.asp

since part of the anti-war argument rides on the allegation that bush etc lied about saddam's links with terrorism (uh, and remember the original insinuation was that he had a hand in 9/11 specifically...), you'd think he'd been falling over himself to get the evidence this NRO hack refers to out into the open ASAP.

that this didn't happen, and still hasn't happened 3 years after the invasion, is pretty suggestive. is it actually strong as this neocon goon makes out? or was it perhaps collated AFTER the invasion, and therefore could not have formed any part of the case for war? or do the bushies simply not care enough about the terrorism argument to bother? given that the attack on iraq had ****all to do with terrorism anyway, that's a strong contender imho

 

[K e r b e r o s]

they have probably the worst record for supporting terrorism of any country on earth, and that's just retail terrorism. their wholesale (i.e. state) terrorism record is even worse

It would be no better then Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, the United Emerate States, Kuwait, Algeria, or Egypt. This is'int counting between seven to twelve more countries throughout Africa that support or use terrorism.

It's evident the world uses this for its own gains, that much we do know. And by world, I mean the countries who are active in it.

or do the bushies simply not care enough about the terrorism argument to bother? given that the attack on iraq had ****all to do with terrorism anyway, that's a strong contender imho

That depends on your viewpoints. Iraq had fired Scud Missles into Tel-Aviv during the 1970's and 1980's. It was there during the Yom Kippur War, supporting Egyptian terrorists with training and equipment, aswell as supplying a ground force of over 100,000 to occupy the borders between Syria and Israel just in case Saddam thought it feasible to invade and control Israel.

It was there during the sixth day war, a war which every middle-eastern war prophet firmly declared that they're would be a second holocaust against every jew in the middle east.

This is indeed something that needed to be stopped. This was indeed another sort of terrorism, and I'm not denying what our government has done either.

I'm just saying putting Sodamn Insane out of power was a wise thing to do, but could've been done in the first gulf war if our dolt congress had'nt yanked us out of there in the first place.

 

[Rupertvdb]

I agree with lots you just said, but the whole "at least Saddam is gone" argument is really beginning to get my back up. This is not a reasonable basis for justification bearing in mind the plethora of sadistic bastards that occupy positions of power currently at large.

 

[Razor]

how is that any different than arming government forces who then massacre it's civilian populace, like what happened in El salvador for instance? or iran, or honduras, or chile?




the US has been supporting terrorism for decades ..how is that any different?

It isn't any different, it is all equally bad and evil.

 

[15357]

how is that any different than arming government forces who then massacre it's civilian populace, like what happened in El salvador for instance? or iran, or honduras, or chile?




the US has been supporting terrorism for decades ..how is that any different?

right state sponsered terrorism =/= left state sponsered terrorism + religious fanaticism induced terrorism.

 

[CptStern]

It isn't any different, it is all equally bad and evil.

so then continuing with your logic, we should invade the US because they support terrorism

 

[Rupertvdb]

He didn't say that we should invade nations of the basis of their terrorist sympathies (I don't think) it's only if you follow the logic of the administration that attempted to use the Al-Qaeda argument as a justification for war. This is really a non-issue though. Everybody with a grain of sense knows that this is no justification for war and that it was a spurious argument from the get go designed to pacify a domestic audience by playing off of their fears of terrorism. I loathe the Bush administration for many reasons, this being one of them. They used terror as a weapon against their own people to pacify dissent against administrative error. Nice one.

P.S. It isn't just the American government that supports terrorism in many countries, it is also private citizens. For example, members of your population have consistently supported and donated to the efforts of the IRA in Northern Ireland.