Missing Link??

[iceyshiver21]

The claim that they found a definate link between Saddam and Osama.......

THE FINDING, if verified, would appear to support Washington’s assertion of links between ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, one of the justifications for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
The paper said the documents, which its correspondent found in the wrecked headquarters of the Iraqi Mukhabarat intelligence service, showed Iraq brought a bin Laden aide to Baghdad in early 1998 from his former base in Sudan to arrange closer ties.
Iraqi officials sought to have the envoy pass on a verbal message setting up a direct meeting with bin Laden, the paper said.
The 1998 visit described in the documents would have taken place before bin Laden became a household name in the West, when Washington blamed him for the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa later that year.
According to the Telegraph, bin Laden’s name had been concealed in several places on the Iraqi documents with white correction fluid. Its correspondent scraped the fluid off with a razor to uncover the name.




In one document quoted by the paper an Iraqi official wrote: “We suggest permission to call the Khartoum station (Iraq’s intelligence office in Sudan) to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq.
“And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden.”
A handwritten note on the same page said the letter had been passed on to the deputy director general of the intelligence service, recommending that he “bring the envoy to Iraq because we may find in this envoy a way to maintain contacts with Iraq.”

The documents do not make clear whether the hoped-for meeting between Iraqi officials and bin Laden took place.
Before the war, Saddam’s government repeatedly denied any links with bin Laden’s al Qaida network.

© 2003 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

[mugsy]

I saw that too. I think it's great, but I decided not to post it because some of the dissenters would point out that it hasn't been verified. I have always believed that simply because the intelligence community has said so, but, for obvious reasons, can't reveal their sources, but, obviously, that's not good enough for some.

Those two guys are just the epitome of evil to me.

[KYS]

I also heard about it on the news last night.

Mugsy it's just an accuse when people ask
for certain intelligence sources at this time,
because they know it can NOT be revealed.
If intelligence revield their sources before
it was safe to do so, we would have NO intelligence.
(our sources would be all be dead/or afraid to
come forward)
It might be 10 or more years from now before sources
are revealed, but I have no doubt the proof is their,
and will eventually be brought out
in the open.

[Soledad]

Why don't you make it easier on yourselves and just mention my name like you want to, instead of pussy footing around.

I find it funny that you think I'm silly for not believing a stranger on the net who claims to be a member of the intelligence community. Wow, I must have no scruples. LOL.

[mugsy]

Actually Karen, there are some things from WWII that are still classified. It just depends on the information and how sensitive it is. I know that both my BIL and Mike were in intel and both had a VERY high clearance and they both say that we don't want to know what they know. Trust me, that satisifed my curiousity REALLY fast! lol Intel is not something I would want to do.

Soledad, if I had meant only you I would have said so, but I do have a question. You say that you won't trust an internet source, but yet that's where you get most of your info, why is that? Not slamming you, just curious.

[Soledad]

An internet site provided by a government agency or a newspaper is different than simply trusting what some stranger on an internet board says.

I can't believe I had to explain that distinction to you.

[mugsy]

That's not the way I understood it. So sorry that you seem to think I'm stupid. For someone who is so sensitive to people being rude, your reply and rolled eyes certainly was rude.

[KYS]

posted by Soledad:
Why don't you make it easier on yourselves and just mention my name like you want to, instead of pussy footing around.
>>>>

I personally, was talking in general, and not pointing any one
person out.

[Soledad]

Mugsy, apologies. I just felt very attacked by people on here lately. It seemed to me, when I originally read it, that you were trying to make me look shady when I see no relation to the two sources. One is hearsay, one is published.

It's kind of like asking someone why they believe things that are in a book if they won't believe something someone they say they know wrote down on a piece of paper.

In that context, I'm sure you can understand my exasperation.

[Ann]

Even if this turns out to be true, what does it prove? Just because Saddam met Bin Laden in 1998 doesn't mean he helped with the attacks on the WTC towers! If you reason that way you might just as well say the CIA helped with the attacks since they trained Bin Laden in the first place.

[iceyshiver21]

well who was too know he was a mad man...

[mugsy]

Ann I think you're oversimplifying the situation. There are definite ties to bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. They have been tied together on the first WTC bombing in '93 and there are intelligence sources that have tied them to 9/11.

I have to disagree about knowing that he was a madman. The guy came to power by murdering his way to the top and then just took over without ANYONE being able to stop him.

Now, as far as why we sided with Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war, at the time the U.S. viewed the Ayatollah as a bigger threat than Saddam Hussein. I'm sure looking back that perhaps we might have done things differently, but the past is the past and we can't change it.

Apology accepted Soledad, I kind of figured that was why you had reacted the way you did. I guess we both need to get a little tougher skin eh?

[marysmerrycats]

OH ok this is crap. I just can not believe you two, Ann and Soldedad....and I can't stand it anymore.

Soledad, we had our differences in the past then we got friendly. I would like to stay friendly too, I don't like to have bad feeling with anyone on here, but I have to say, WHY are you defending those murdering maniacs!?? whether or not saddam and bin laden met, they ARE BOTH madmen, and have to be taken out..at least out of power if not DEAD! dead, blasted, hung, whatever, just GONE! ok you didn't want war, fine I understand that, alot of people didn't. but it happend, and it was neccassary, in my opinion and in alot of peoples. we had to do something about him, how can anyone say otherwise. and the UN was never going to go along with it, could not wait anymore.

if there was a pic of saddam and osama would you question that too?(maybe it was a fake?) or a video, well maybe that was edited, not really them or not them at the same time together?)

the average person will never know alot of things, because of, like Mugsy said, we can't know certain things, and I agree that we should not(look what happens when the media finds out anything!) but I think we know enough to know our country or its leaders are not perfect, and not always the best people, but I think we are smart enough to know when something is true or not, and I think this is true, there are links.
I don't have to find out everything by personal experince... I know that if I run into the street I will be killed, I know that if I put my hand into a hot oven I will get burned!
ok maybe I am going on too much, but how can you question that they are pure EVIL! ?

now, Ann...

Even if this turns out to be true, what does it prove? Just because Saddam met Bin Laden in 1998 doesn't mean he helped with the attacks on the WTC towers! If you reason that way you might just as well say the CIA helped with the attacks since they trained Bin Laden in the first place.

even if this is true, what does it prove?..hmm.. I guess it proves nothing. they were there having tea and crumpets awaiting the arrival of the Queen. absolutely no terrorist intentions at all.
hey I bet if I mix 2 dangerous ingrediants together, if I really believe it will be ok, nothing will happen! I can NOT believe this DRIBBLE of yours!!
even if someone saw OJ, at the scene with the bloody knife in his hands that doesnt mean he killed nicole. of course not, he's "100% innocent"! as innocent as those 2 right?
and since I am at it, I want to tell you that your bull**** about ww2 is unbelieveable... did you all read what she wrote?
I don't care if a person is 79, or 150, if they did those things they should be held responsible , can't say oh they're old let them go!
I am just done , I can't even write anymore, so
I can't think or type right anymore.

here is what Ann posted...


USA to deport 79 year old man
--- Article (copied from BBC News, read original here)---
A judge in the United States has ordered the deportation of an elderly Ukrainian-born man accused of being a guard at a Nazi concentration camp during World War II.

Theodor Szehinskyj, 79, is accused of serving in a Waffen-SS Death's Head unit during the war and helping to guard prisoners in the Fross-Rosen, Sachsenhausen and Warsaw concentration camps from 1943 to 1945.

A retired machinist, he has told investigators in Philadelphia he was a farmhand during the war and had nothing to do with the Nazis.

Mr Szehinskyj was born in what is now Ukraine, and has lived in the US since 1950.
His American citizenship was revoked nearly three years ago after a federal judge in Philadelphia found he had participated in "the Third Reich's closed culture of murder".

Correspondents say that the case against him was based, in part, on papers and lists found in Nazi archives. The papers identified Mr Szehinskyj by name, birth date, hometown and his mother's maiden name.

Justice department lawyers have been trying to deport Mr Szehinskyj since September.

If the deportation order is not appealed, it is unclear how soon he would be forced to leave or where he might go. The deportation order could send him to Ukraine, or alternatively to Poland or Germany.
--- End of original article ---

Am I the only one who finds this to be wrong? Not only is this man old and frail, but he has lived in the USA since the 1950's! Besides, during World War II you really didn't have a choice; either you supported the Nazis or you were in big trouble. Whatever bad things this man has done, he really was forced into it. Even if he did belive in the Nazi cause, can he really be blamed for that? It's as if in fifty years from now the Iraq war is commonly seen as completely wrong, and all the soldiers are to be deported to god knows where (please note: I am just making an allegory, not stating my opinion). We all know today that the holocaust was a horrible crime against humanity, but back then... I'm not sure people really understood what it meant to be a Nazi.

Well, I figured this might be able to spark an interesting discussion... I hope so atleast!


do you people post this stuff just to irritate people?Ann you just wanted to "spark" peoples posts!

Even if he did belive in the Nazi cause, can he really be blamed for that?

[iceyshiver21]

I havnt found anything saying there isnt a link.....

[Soledad]

Mary, why are you assuming that I believe what Ann believes?

I would have thought our first priority was to get rid of Osama. He is still running around. Where is the justice in that? Why have we forgotten him?

Do you honestly think I LIKE Osama and Saddam? I think you've missed my point entirely.