General discussion


Iran, Saddam, & Osama: A Continued Report

By maxwell edison ·
"As time goes on, we can expect more and more evidence to be piled up. Indeed today there is enough proof of the allegations of ties between Saddam and Bin Laden, and between Iran and Bin Laden to make any lawyer?s job easy. But the media ignores it, or ridicules it. And so I warn you, don?t be over-optimistic that the media will one day understand the connections and accept the Administration?s allegations. No matter how much evidence piles up regarding these connections, the media?s ignorance will always be the best friend of the state sponsors of terrorism?and an enemy of America?s leadership in the War on Terror."

REMOVE SPACES from the pasted URL.

"......the media?s ignorance will always be the best friend of the state sponsors of terrorism....."

That's a scary thought.


?Was Saddam Hussein involved in September 11? Was Saddam Hussein involved directly with Al-Qaeda in that? The real issue is, Saddam Hussein was involved in this loosely put together terrorist movement and was a big player in it. And would help them with regard to raising funds and would help them with regard to training assistance... It?s a much more loosely connected group who have a common ideology. Or maybe you could call it a common hatred of America, the modern world and countries that represent that. And then they find ways of cooperating with each other.?

-Rudy Giuliani


When history shows - and proves - that there were indeed ties between Saddam Hussein's Iraq regime and various terrorist groups, groups that ALSO had ties with Osama bin Laden, how many of today's naysayers will admit that they were wrong and President Bush was right?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

39 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam and Osama

by maxwell edison In reply to Iran, Saddam, & Osama: A ...

"OSAMA BIN LADEN and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990s to 2003 that involved training in explosives and weapons of mass destruction, logistical support for terrorist attacks, al Qaeda training camps and safe haven in Iraq, and Iraqi financial support for al Qaeda--perhaps even for Mohamed Atta--according to a top secret U.S. government memorandum obtained by THE WEEKLY STANDARD."

"The memo, dated October 27, 2003, was sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to Senators Pat Roberts and Jay Rockefeller, the chairman and vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee......."

REMOVE SPACES from the pasted URL.

Collapse -

I dodn't address

by Oz_Media In reply to government's secret memo ...

In my lasy post I didn't address the fact that WMD could exist between these two regimes.

I see it that ANY terrorists group, whether in a Middle Eastern country or a small group of backyard terrorists in ?? USA, has the ability to develop weapons that create devastating destruction. Obviously a larger power such as Saddam's regime or AlQueda are going to be a much greater threat and have mush better resources than a backyard mafia.

These men need to be remobed from power, their terrorist regimes must be destroyed or minimized at worst.

When you really look at it though, these terrorists also have WMD without the need of chemical labs and missiles. To them, Boeing is a WMD!

They needed to be removed, this would have been nice to see if by a global allied effort that was carefully planned and executed after the neccessary evidence was undeniable.

What I object to is the assumptions, the misleadings and the lack of support to make this a much more successful and accurate campaign. The only reason I see for this not being done right is that President BUSH jumped the gun and as a result this has turned into a long occupation, with no end in sight to the war or the terrorism, needless to say neither Saddam
OR Bin Laden have been captured or confirmed dead, making me see it as a nearly fruitless effort.

These men have been greatly reduced and will find it hard to nearly impossible to rebuild support and a new regime as long as the US is in occupation. Unless the US or someone else is willing to permanently occupy these countries it is almost inevitable that these regimes will rise once again and become stronger than before. With Bush assumed to be already talking about a quick democratic resolution and pulling out of Iraq possibly in 6 months, I see permanent occuption is not in the cards.

I see it as the right idea, but the wrong action.

The only person responsible for the US action is President Bush, not Saddam, not the UN. IF Saddam had let the UN unspect, it MAY not have happened, but it was Bush who declared war.

Collapse -

It's always been possible I suppose

by Oz_Media In reply to Iran, Saddam, & Osama: A ...

When looking at the multitude of knowledge that American intelingence has gathered on both of these men and thier associates, I would see it as (you'll like this)CLOSED MINDED to think that these men did not have even closer ties to each other.

They were neighbours, the relationship between the two would stand to be much greater than any developed by North American or Western European counties.

Considering that the USA has had close supportive, combat and military funding relations with both of these people in the past, they MUST also have even closer relations to each other. Especially with thier common dislike of America

I don't feel that I have ever been a 'naysayer' with respect that these two men have similar objectives and therefore still hold strong dislie to Bush's actions as I have voiced so many times.

These reasons for war were not given as a reason to invade Iraq. They were given as a reason to show Saddam as the terrorist he is and add him to the growing list of terrorist associations that America and her allies were in action to rid the world of.

If you are suggesting that they now are or always were the reason for invading Iraq, I strongly disagree and see it as another story to cloud the reality of the premature and unsupported war efforts.


If this WAS President Bush's reason for invading Iraq, I will assume it was avoided carefully as it wouldn't have recieved public or allied support as a reason for full scale invasion while the Afghanistan efforts were still incomplete.


If this WAS President Bush's reason for invading Iraq, he carefully used the media to instill so much fear of WMD that his true reasons were uneccessary and he could achieve the same result WITH the full support of the public. (Unfortunately this didn't convince the allied forces). After the initial invasion, that reason was questioned, the tables quickly turned to liberating Iraq, building a democratic nation and those horrible mass graves the Brits found are now this weeks justifications.

I did take time to read the article you linked to and although it is just someone's scrapbook of events a personal opinions, I agree with most of what was said. I don't thnk that it is groundbreaking news though and should have been assumed all along, as I'm sure it probably was by most.

Collapse -


by Cactus Pete In reply to Iran, Saddam, & Osama: A ...

Rudy probably had mo more insight into whether or not Hussein and Al Qaeda were in cohoots than any other average American.

To that, whowever, he covered his statement with "Or maybe you could call it a common hatred of America, the modern world and countries that represent that."

But let us not forget that The US had ties with Hussein, we built him up - he is our fault. The same goes for bin Laden.

We made these [and other] men what they were. I would like the current administration to say that.

Something like, "We acknowledge that the US put these men in a position to be what they are. It is a mistake we must correct immediately - we would like your understanding and help with this matter."

Doesn't that sound honest? Doesn't that sound like someone actually thought about it before making the decision? Wouldn't it be much more pallatable to say, "We've tried to ask you for help at an open and honest level. We regret that you now choose to leave us alone in our work, but we must clean up after this mess we've made."

That's taking responsibility. That's admission to a guilt. That's worthy of respect.

Collapse -

Re: Rudy's insight on a scale of 1-10

by maxwell edison In reply to Rudy

On a scale of 1-10, where 10 is full insight into all aspects of foreign policy and/or intelligence, and a 1 is absolutely none, I would probably place the "average citizen" at a 1, possibly a 2 for the very well informed (like you and me). But most people don't know anything and would probably be a 1, not much more. I would place the current (and past, to some extent) administration officials (President, security council, etc.) at a 10.

I think that Rudy Giuliani would fall somewhere in-between, but certainly higher than the average guy, especially considering the fact that he was the chief executive of New York City, America's largest city, home to the U.N. Headquarters, and one of the two cities attacked by terrorists. I would think that he's privy to a lot more than you think. Add into the equation the fact that Rudy Giuliani is both a friend and supporter of President Bush, he worked extensively with the current administration during the darkest days of 9-11, he most likely belongs to organizations that study foreign policy and related matters, he is considered a strong possibility for the White House in 2008, and he could probably get his phone calls answered personally by the President, I would put Rudy at an easy 5, perhaps as high as a 6 or 7.

My scale rating one's insight into various aspects of foreign policy and/or intelligence:

1 - The average citizen
2 - The well informed citizen.
3 - The extremely well informed citizen, some members of government, the average press, etc.
4 - Some "average" think-tank" members, but must focus on government, foreign policy, etc. Most high level state and local government officials. Some very savvy members of the press. Some business leaders.
5 - Some "prestigious" think-tank" members, but must focus on government, foreign policy, etc. Some state and local government officials from major states and/or cities. Select business leaders.
6 - Some "prominent" think-tank" members (Henry Kissinger, et al), but must focus on government, foreign policy, etc. Some "very select" state and local government officials.
7 - Average members of the House and Senate, some low level government, military officials, CIA, FBI, etc.
8 - Tom Clancy
9 - Members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, high level government, military officials, CIA, FBI, etc.
10 - Top level administration and military officials. Top level CIA, FBI, etc.

This is just a list that I compiled without giving it much thought, and you could, of course, add or subtract to the categories, juggle it around a bit, change the wording (for example, low level officials does not necessarily mean all lower level), and so on. But I wanted to show that different people do indeed have different levels of understanding of such matters.

Wait a minute. Clancy might be a 9.

Collapse -

The scale

by Cactus Pete In reply to Re: Rudy's insight on a s ...

Well, I'll give you that scale at this time. I see no reason to really argue that at all, and it seems reasonable.

However (you knew that word was coming, didn't you?) I still doubt that Rudy was let in on much more than the normal citizen. Granted, I can see giving him access to talk to people that would be in the know, but I can't see him actually having access to the data. So anything he heard from someone else is hearsay, really.

Yes, his city was hit hard by terrorists. But him knowing who is in bed with whom - and to what extent - on the other side of the world... I don't see how this should help Rudy help New York. And I certainly hope that the people with access to the data itself aren't telling their friends who don't have clearence. This would be a serious breach, and I hold the higher offices to a higher standard on things like that.

Rudy's remarks, I think, can't be taken as much more than his impressions on almost identical news feeds from political mouths that we common folk get. At least, I really hope so.

Just because Rudy's a good guy, this doesn't let his buddy tell him things of National Security...

For that reason, I take his comments as additional propaganda from a political entity.

This brings me back to what I hate about politics - you don't necessarily lie, but you spin everything around to look good from your angle. They all do this, and they all have to to stay in their position or move up. Sigh, oh well.

Collapse -

He doesn't know? Sure he knows.

by maxwell edison In reply to The scale

Sure, having direct access to raw data versus just knowing what's going on are two different things. And with Rudy, I'm sure it's mostly the latter.

Remember he gave 10 million back to some Arab sheik (who donated to a 9-11 relief fund) because of the guy's ties to terrorists, or at least the guy was known to have financed some of them?

I still think he knows more than you give him credit for.

Collapse -


by Cactus Pete In reply to He doesn't know? Sure he ...

I don't give out credit easily, so you just may be right.

Collapse -

8 - Tom Clancy

by road-dog In reply to Re: Rudy's insight on a s ...

LOL! Especially ahead of Henry Kissinger!

What level do you have to be at to get the secret handshake on the UFO conspiracy?

Collapse -

Steven King

by Oz_Media In reply to 8 - Tom Clancy

Well he is a King and all...

Back to IT Employment Forum
39 total posts (Page 1 of 4)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums