There's also the Toronto Star's version of this story here (torontostar.com).
EDIT: ...and NOW, here's the AP version via the San Jose Mercury website (bayarea.com). Whoa!! Dig THIS:
Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials.
The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private trans-Atlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington.
What's horrible to realize is to look at the date here. France wasn't giving Iraq help during this war for some of these..... Sept 25, 2001.... 2 fucking weeks after Sept. 11. Bastards.
Rorschach: "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. You're locked up in here with me."
Originally posted by Scott SummetsWhat's horrible to realize is to look at the date here. France wasn't giving Iraq help during this war for some of these..... Sept 25, 2001.... 2 fucking weeks after Sept. 11. Bastards.
Originally posted by godkingSept 25, 2001.... 2 fucking weeks after Sept. 11. Bastards.
Yes, two weeks after the traumatic event that Iraq had nothing to do with.
So....if Iraq was working with Al Qeida as seems to be true, how do you know that.
I guess that proves that oftentimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend vis-a-vis Iraq and OBL getting working togethr even though they hate each other.
Maybe this isn't such a big deal after all? Click Here (guardian.co.uk)
The ABC network (that's the AUSTRALIAN ABC) even found a guy to explain the whole thing about the French talking to Iraq on 25 September 2001. Click Here (abc.net.au) Sounds as plausible as the alternative, I suppose.
Sure you can, and I'll stand by it. The idea of secular dictator Saddam Hussein working in cahoots with religious fanatic Osama Bin Laden is ludicrous, even if it does turn out to be true - it's up there with the Japanese allying with the racial-purity Germans during World War II for "stupidest alliance ideas".
That having been said, we don't have any proof that they met, or conspired, or did anything - just an unverified piece of paper that says that Saddam tried to arrange a meeting with Bin Laden.
And, yes, given the track record for "evidence" that's been trotted out for the two of them being in cahoots, I remain skeptical. This seems a little too convenient. I mean, the paper was supposedly in a building with hundreds of thousands of files that still litter the ground after it was blown up (and it wasn't one of the files destroyed), and frankly, if I was an Iraqi government official I can think of better ways to obscure Osama's name (since they tried to hide it) than whiteout - blacking out with a marker or pen or chopping it out with an X-acto knife are the two most obvious. I mean, grade-schoolers can remove White-Out.
The fact that it's the Star, a well-known liberal-leaning paper, reporting this is what's keeping my mind open. If it was the Wall Street Journal, I'd just say "whatever".
So....if Iraq was working with Al Qeida as seems to be true, how do you know that.
Even if the paper turns out to be true, what do we currently have evidence of? "Saddam tried to meet with Bin Laden three years before September 11th." That's not proof enough for "working with".
Also, in this hypothetical scenario, you're assigning guilt to the French when they were almost certainly unaware that Iraq was working with Bin Laden. That's kind of unfair, don't you think? Especially when most of the Al-Qaeda operatives that have been captured since September 11th were captured because of French intelligence.
You're comments before this do have some merit, I agree. But this...
Originally posted by godkingAlso, in this hypothetical scenario, you're assigning guilt to the French when they were almost certainly unaware that Iraq was working with Bin Laden. That's kind of unfair, don't you think? Especially when most of the Al-Qaeda operatives that have been captured since September 11th were captured because of French intelligence.
It's not exaclty like Iraq was the man in the white hat on September 25th, 2001. I mean they had only been dodging UN sanctions and inspections for ten years at that point. There are just a lot of problems with France passing on the info like that.
Originally posted by godkingThe idea of secular dictator Saddam Hussein working in cahoots with religious fanatic Osama Bin Laden is ludicrous, even if it does turn out to be true
I just want to relish that one turn of phrase.
"May God bless our country and all who defend her."
Sure you can, and I'll stand by it. The idea of secular dictator Saddam Hussein working in cahoots with religious fanatic Osama Bin Laden is ludicrous, even if it does turn out to be true - it's up there with the Japanese allying with the racial-purity Germans during World War II for "stupidest alliance ideas".
I believe these would be termed as "alliances of convenience." If I'm not mistaken they're quite common throughout history regardless of what kind of sense they appear to make. They also occur at every possible level, from interpersonal relations, to organizational relations, to world politics.
With Germany/Japan, extermination of all non-Aryans in the Far East would have resulted in an overall population of...not many. Thus, I believe there was an agreement between the two: Japan would stay the hell out of Europe and Germany would stay away from Southeast Asia.
With respect to the purported bin Laden/Hussein alliance, I'm sure Hussein would have been quite happy to support bin Laden's terrorist machinations towards the US as long as he didn't stir up too much religious shit for Hussein in Iraq.
One of the most powerful aspects of such alliances is the apparent contradiction. Here we all are saying, "It would be stupid/ludicrous/illogical for Osama and Saddam to ally with eachother." If I'm Saddam or Osama that's a feature, not a bug.
A truth which people believe cannot be is an even more effective weapon than those truths which are widely accepted.
And, just in case anybody was wondering, British intelligence already knew about the Al-Queda and Saddam thing and have dismissed it as "fleeting contacts" of little to no importance. (link}
Thread ahead: "Gee whiz, why can't they see that we're only trying to help?" Next thread: Heh, the Onion STILL rules. Previous thread: As if we needed another reason to hate Jerry Falwell
Time has done a top 25 crimes of the last century. Pretty interesting list. It covers everything from art heists to serial killers. http://www.time.com/time/2007/crimes/?cnn=yes