|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 15, 2008 1:21 pm Post subject: Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 14, 2008
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/72906
WASHINGTON � A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.
The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.
The report, titled "Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," finds that:
� The Iraqi Intelligence Service in a 1993 memo to Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and was founded by Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
� In the same year, Saddam ordered his intelligence service to "form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil; especially Somalia." At the time, Al Qaeda was working with warlords against American forces there.
� Saddam's intelligence services maintained extensive support networks for a wide range of Palestinian Arab terrorist organizations, including but not limited to Hamas. Among the other Palestinian groups Saddam supported at the time was Force 17, the private army loyal to Yasser Arafat.
� Beginning in 1999, Iraq's intelligence service began providing "financial and moral support" for a small radical Islamist Kurdish sect the report does not name. A Kurdish Islamist group called Ansar al Islam in 2002 would try to assassinate the regional prime minister in the eastern Kurdish region, Barham Salih.
� In 2001, Saddam's intelligence service drafted a manual titled "Lessons in Secret Organization and Jihad Work�How to Organize and Overthrow the Saudi Royal Family." In the same year, his intelligence service submitted names of 10 volunteer "martyrs" for operations inside the Kingdom.
� In 2000, Iraq sent a suicide bomber through Northern Iraq who intended to travel to London to assassinate Ahmad Chalabi, at the time an Iraqi opposition leader who would later go on to be an Iraqi deputy prime minister. The mission was aborted after the bomber could not obtain a visa to enter the United Kingdom.
The report finds that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who is wanted by the FBI for mixing the chemicals for the 1993 World Center Attack, was a prisoner, and not a guest, in Iraq. An audio file of Saddam cited by the report indicates that the Iraqi dictator did not trust him and at one point said that he thought his testimony was too "organized." Saddam said on an audio file cited by the report that he suspected that the first attack could be the work of either Israel or American intelligence, or perhaps a Saudi or Egyptian faction.
The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.
The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."
A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."
A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.
"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."
The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.
March 14, 2008 Edition > Section: Foreign > Printer-Friendly Version |
http://www.nysun.com/article/72906 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But: There is no direct connection.
Repeat the mantra:
There is no direct connection.
There is no direct connection.
There is no direct connection. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 5:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. |
Well duh. When you attack people, they are usually "willing" to attack you.
As usual, your source has an agenda....
| Quote: |
The Sun was founded by a group of investors including Conrad Black with the intent of providing a non-tabloid alternative to The New York Times. ... The Sun's managing editor Ira Stoll had been a longtime critic of this policy of the Times, as well as what he considered to be liberal bias in Times reporting, in his media watchdog blog smartertimes.com. When smartertimes.com became defunct, its Web traffic was redirected to the Sun website.
Stoll has characterized the Sun's political orientation as "right-of-center," and an associate of Conrad Black predicted in 2002 that the paper would be "certainly neoconservative in its views." Editor-in-chief Lipsky describes the agenda of the paper's prominent op-ed page as "limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, economic growth ... standards in literature and culture, education." The Sun's roster of columnists includes many prominent conservative writers, including the late William F. Buckley, Jr., Michael Barone, Daniel Pipes, and Mark Steyn.
The Sun is "known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues"; in particular, it is "a strong proponent of Israel's right to defend itself." It has published articles by pro-Israel reporter Aaron Klein.
The paper courted controversy in 2003 with an unsigned February 6 editorial arguing that protestors against the Iraq war should be prosecuted for treason.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cbclark4
Joined: 20 Aug 2006
Location: Masan
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| luvnpeas wrote: |
| Quote: |
| The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. |
Well duh. When you attack people, they are usually "willing" to attack you.
As usual, your source has an agenda....
| Quote: |
The Sun was founded by a group of investors including Conrad Black with the intent of providing a non-tabloid alternative to The New York Times. ... The Sun's managing editor Ira Stoll had been a longtime critic of this policy of the Times, as well as what he considered to be liberal bias in Times reporting, in his media watchdog blog smartertimes.com. When smartertimes.com became defunct, its Web traffic was redirected to the Sun website.
Stoll has characterized the Sun's political orientation as "right-of-center," and an associate of Conrad Black predicted in 2002 that the paper would be "certainly neoconservative in its views." Editor-in-chief Lipsky describes the agenda of the paper's prominent op-ed page as "limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, economic growth ... standards in literature and culture, education." The Sun's roster of columnists includes many prominent conservative writers, including the late William F. Buckley, Jr., Michael Barone, Daniel Pipes, and Mark Steyn.
The Sun is "known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues"; in particular, it is "a strong proponent of Israel's right to defend itself." It has published articles by pro-Israel reporter Aaron Klein.
The paper courted controversy in 2003 with an unsigned February 6 editorial arguing that protestors against the Iraq war should be prosecuted for treason.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun |
The source is the Pentagon, the dame source used to originate the mantra.
We all know there was no direct link to Al Qaeda however as has been
documented time and again there were indirect links and encouragement.
The best known case linking Saddam to international terrorism is the case of Abu Nidal.
We have all come to accept the mantra.
There is no direct connection.
The fact is there were indirect connections.
The fact of these indirect connection even supports the mantra.
The mantra makes you comfortable and helps you to forget. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Adventurer
Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo, I think you posted this in response to what we were talking about that terrorism was a major factor in the invasion of Iraq when it was not.
It was not a major rationale for the invasion. As far as the killing of civilians, Iraq has not been recorded as far as I know to have killed Iraqi civilians, but British and American troops have done plenty of that since 1990. Just something to ponder. If we use terrorism as a rationale for invasions, so many countries have used terrorism indirectly or directly, and the UN has not been able to get countries to agree on the definition of terrorism. That should tell you something, and it is not the fault of only certain parts of the world, mind you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
="luvnpeas"]
| Quote: |
| The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. |
Well duh. When you attack people, they are usually "willing" to attack you.
As usual, your source has an agenda....
| Quote: |
The Sun was founded by a group of investors including Conrad Black with the intent of providing a non-tabloid alternative to The New York Times. ... The Sun's managing editor Ira Stoll had been a longtime critic of this policy of the Times, as well as what he considered to be liberal bias in Times reporting, in his media watchdog blog smartertimes.com. When smartertimes.com became defunct, its Web traffic was redirected to the Sun website.
Stoll has characterized the Sun's political orientation as "right-of-center," and an associate of Conrad Black predicted in 2002 that the paper would be "certainly neoconservative in its views." Editor-in-chief Lipsky describes the agenda of the paper's prominent op-ed page as "limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, economic growth ... standards in literature and culture, education." The Sun's roster of columnists includes many prominent conservative writers, including the late William F. Buckley, Jr., Michael Barone, Daniel Pipes, and Mark Steyn.
The Sun is "known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues"; in particular, it is "a strong proponent of Israel's right to defend itself." It has published articles by pro-Israel reporter Aaron Klein.
The paper courted controversy in 2003 with an unsigned February 6 editorial arguing that protestors against the Iraq war should be prosecuted for treason.
|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Sun[/quote]
It will be in other papers soon enough.
| Quote: |
| Well duh. When you attack people, they are usually "willing" to attack you. |
| Quote: |
| As usual, your source has an agenda.... |
As usual?
anyway. Lets put up the whole article.
| Quote: |
Editorial stance and relationship with The New York Times
The Sun was founded by a group of investors including Conrad Black with the intent of providing a non-tabloid alternative to The New York Times. It would put Manhattan and New York state news on its front page (in contrast to the Times' emphasis on national and international news over local issues). The Sun's managing editor Ira Stoll had been a longtime critic of this policy of the Times, as well as what he considered to be liberal bias in Times reporting, in his media watchdog blog smartertimes.com.[3] When smartertimes.com became defunct, its Web traffic was redirected to the Sun website.
Stoll has characterized the Sun's political orientation as "right-of-center,"[4] and an associate of Conrad Black predicted in 2002 that the paper would be "certainly neoconservative in its views."[3] Editor-in-chief Lipsky describes the agenda of the paper's prominent op-ed page as "limited government, individual liberty, constitutional fundamentals, equality under the law, economic growth ... standards in literature and culture, education."[5] The Sun's roster of columnists includes many prominent conservative writers, including the late William F. Buckley, Jr., Michael Barone, Daniel Pipes, and Mark Steyn.
The Sun is "known for its pugnacious coverage of Jewish-related issues";[6] in particular, it is "a strong proponent of Israel's right to defend itself."[4] It has published articles by pro-Israel reporter Aaron Klein.
The paper courted controversy in 2003 with an unsigned February 6 editorial arguing that protestors against the Iraq war should be prosecuted for treason.[7][8]
According to Scott Sherman, writing in the left-wing magazine The Nation (4/30/07), the Sun is "a broadsheet that injects conservative ideology into the country's most influential philanthropic, intellectual and media hub; a paper whose day-to-day coverage of New York City emphasizes lower taxes, school vouchers and free-market solutions to urban problems; a paper whose elegant culture pages hold their own against the Times in quality and sophistication; a paper that breaks news and crusades on a single issue; a paper that functions as a journalistic SWAT team against individuals and institutions seen as hostile to Israel and Jews; and a paper that unapologetically displays the scalps of its victims."[9]
In the same article, Mark Malloch Brown, Kofi Annan's chief of staff at the United Nations, describes the Sun as "a pimple on the backside of American journalism." According to Sherman, Brown "accepts that the paper's obsession with the UN translates into influence... he admits the Sun "does punch way above its circulation number, on occasion." He goes on to say, "Clearly amongst its minuscule circulation were a significant number of diplomats. And so it did at times act as some kind of rebel house paper inside the UN. It fed the gossip mills and what was said in the cafeterias."[9] Brown's insult was in the context of the Sun's reporting of the UN's central role in the Saddam Hussein Oil-for-Food scandal.
Adweek columnist Tom Messner calls the Sun "the best paper in New York" (5/14/07), noting that "The New York Sun is a conservative paper, but it gets the respect of the left. The Nation's April 30 issue contains an article on the Sun's rise by Scott Sherman that is as balanced an article as I have ever read in the magazine (not a gibe; you don't read The Nation for balance)."[10] |
Well then Saddam to stop trying to conquer the gulf. One of the reasons that Saddam wanted to conquer the gulf is that he wanted to use gulf oil to blackmail the US.
Saddam ought to have quit.
Here is the original report:
http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf
Anyway Saddam did support terror. Case closed. You wanna say otherwise?
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:25 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
Joo, I think you posted this in response to what we were talking about that terrorism was a major factor in the invasion of Iraq when it was not.
It was not a major rationale for the invasion. As far as the killing of civilians, Iraq has not been recorded as far as I know to have killed Iraqi civilians, but British and American troops have done plenty of that since 1990. Just something to ponder. If we use terrorism as a rationale for invasions, so many countries have used terrorism indirectly or directly, and the UN has not been able to get countries to agree on the definition of terrorism. That should tell you something, and it is not the fault of only certain parts of the world, mind you. |
Just one more thing that shows Saddam wasn't going to give up his war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Anyway Saddam did support terror. Case closed. You wanna say otherwise? |
You missed the point, as usual. China supports terror; China did to Tibet what Hussein wanted to do to Kuwait. We are falling over ourselves to be China's pal. The U.S. supports terror. We've supported Latin American death squads for years, training them, funding them. It has already been pointed out that, in fact, we supported Hussein when he was using chemical weapons. The lie told by the White House was that Hussein had a criminal involvement in the 9/11 attacks. That's the claim that was used to prop up the war, and it is a lie.
The report is no doubt mentioned elsewhere. The source you chose is rabidly pro-Israel, and neo-conservative, and its coverage has the predictable spin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="luvnpeas"]
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Anyway Saddam did support terror. Case closed. You wanna say otherwise? |
| Quote: |
| You missed the point, as usual. China supports terror; China did to Tibet what Hussein wanted to do to Kuwait. We are falling over ourselves to be China's pal. The U.S. supports terror. We've supported Latin American death squads for years, training them, funding them. It has already been pointed out that, in fact, we supported Hussein when he was using chemical weapons. The lie told by the White House was that Hussein had a criminal involvement in the 9/11 attacks. That's the claim that was used to prop up the war, and it is a lie. |
Saddam's invasion of Kuwait would have affected the strategic balance with the US.
Allowing Saddam to conquer Kuwait would have made Iraq more powerful at the expense of the US.
The US would have been crazy to allow Saddam's Iraq to become a powerful nation with Kuwait oil and nuclear weapons.
Saddam had no right to Kuwait oil and the US didn't have to allow him to possess it.
Well Saddam supported terrorists that were out to get the US.
That is the point.
The US gave far less to Saddam than Russia or France or Germany.
Remember the US sided with Saddam cause Iran was out the US \ and spread its revolution.
Khomeni was a fascist bigot too.
The US supported Stalin too.
I don't know much about Latin America but I do know that the Sandanistas
started it with the US and not the other way around.
And the cold war was defensive ,and justified . Not everything but most of it was.
| Quote: |
| The report is no doubt mentioned elsewhere. The source you chose is rabidly pro-Israel, and neo-conservative, and its coverage has the predictable spin. |
I don't know how you can prove rabidly pro Israel.
That is your own spin.
Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic thought it was good enough for his blog.
If it is good enough for him then it is good enough for me.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:44 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam........
..........and with that I am now convinced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam
Saddam 9-11 Iraq Al-Qaeda 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Osama Saddam 9-11 Iraq Khomeni 9-11 Saddam Osama Iraq Bathist 9-11 Saddam Al-Qaeda Iraq 9-11 Saddam Iraq 9-11 Bathist Khomeni 9-11 Saddam........
..........and with that I am now convinced. |
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
1. The amazing thing to me is that despite coming from a deeply neocon-leaning source, the report as quoted indicates so little in the way of any terrorist ties, and in fact much of it says what we knew, that there was no connection between Saddam and the Al Queda monsters who attacked America.
2. Saddam is bye-bye now. The ostrich cartoon is ludicrous. Sorry, but that's the way it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
1. The amazing thing to me is that despite coming from a deeply neocon-leaning source, the report as quoted indicates so little in the way of any terrorist ties, and in fact much of it says what we knew, that there was no connection between Saddam and the Al Queda monsters who attacked America.
2. Saddam is bye-bye now. The ostrich cartoon is ludicrous. Sorry, but that's the way it is. |
You could read the original report.
Anyway Saddam had ties to terror groups and he never gave up his war. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
luvnpeas
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
Location: somewhere i have never travelled
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
| [The fact is there were indirect connections |
The fact is, the indirect connections are so meaningless they are equally true of the US and Osama bin Laden. In fact, the connections between the US and bin Laden are much more direct than the connections between bin Laden and Hussein. Hussein and bin Laden are known to have been enemies (until the mutual enemy of the US brought them together). That's a connection!
"Indirect connections" means nothing but the vaguest connotations. An Iraqi diplomat met with an al-Qaeda representative....equally true of the Reagan administration and Iraq, Iran, and al-Qaeda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="luvnpeas
| Quote: |
| The fact is, the indirect connections are so meaningless they are equally true of the US and Osama bin Laden. In fact, the connections between the US and bin Laden are much more direct than the connections between bin Laden and Hussein. Hussein and bin Laden are known to have been enemies (until the mutual enemy of the US brought them together). That's a connection! |
Any indirect connections with the US and the Bin Laden
The US was against the Soviet Empire.
Saddam's cause and Al Qaeda' cause are sinister .
Bathists, Khomeni followers and Al Qaedists are nothing but Klansmen.
There is a difference |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
