If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Is there a proven link between Iraq and Al Qaeda?
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do you think we should go to war with Iraq? has Bush/Blair provided enough evidence against Iraq to justify this?
Do you believe there is a proven conection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Or are we just being taken in by the media and government spin?
Do you believe there is a proven conection between Al Qaeda and Iraq? Or are we just being taken in by the media and government spin?
0
Comments
The fact that Hussein compensates the families of Palestinian "martyr/suicide" bombers could be construed as support for terrorism.
What any amateur strategist can see is that the coming war in Iraq has little to do with WMD/terrorism. Its about getting the middle east in a strategic chokehold with the west in charge. Iraq is only the start.
Whether this is justified or not is debatable. But it should be debated, and the fact that we are being misled into thinking its about Hussein and WMD is IMOO wrong...
Until conclusive proof is shown, we would do well not to follow Bushie and Blair down the road of "assumption=irrefutable evidence". Bush for certain wants to grasp at any twig that might allow him to play with all his nifty toys of destruction even if Blair is a tad bit more rational.
The media (certainly the US media at any rate) is doing a good job of pandering to Bush's fearmongering and generating the type of public unrest and stress that Bush wants so that noone will stand up and question his appalling record on most scores, or his bullyboy foreign policy.
Interestingly enough, reports out today have indicated that should we go to war, the Administration WILL be cracking down on all Iraqi Americans just in case they might want to retaliate.
Now if that doesnt smack of a return to the dark days of US history when we interred Japanese Americans "just in case", nothing does. Nevermind that most of these Iraqi Americans are more than likely decent law abiding folk like any other racial or ethinic group in our society.
However, is the media criticising or alerting the American public to this repeat of government abuse? certainly not CNN that's for sure!
I for one find myself wondering how much more of this my fellow countrymen are going to let Bush get away with (having stupidly handed him a Republican Congress) before they wake up and see that the real threat to world peace (and our own domestic security, not to mention constitutional rights) is the Bush administration!
Havent we learned anything from decades of watching Israel bash the Palestinians in the name of security to no avail? Seems warmongering will only bury us deeper in the quicksand of hatred and revenge. Perhaps we should be doing something about fighting poverty and oppression around the globe so others could enjoy the opportunities we take for granted these days.
Maybe then potential converts to terrorist violence could busy themselves with making a decent life for themselves and their children. Hope and opportunity go alot further toward changing perceptions than bombs, media spin, and double standards ever will.
We don't need no steenking connection...they are there and that is quite enough!
Stay tuned, action in a few days on a tv near you!
Becides CONUS has some new toys to try out...everyone loves the Hellfire missle...well not everyone but you know what I mean.
And soon no more manned fighters...!
I really dont think Sadam has global interests at present, i think its more likely he is trying to emulate Abdul Nasser status as a leader of the Arab world rather than attack the west. I believe Iraq is possibly trying to elevate its status to that of a world power and given the media representation of Iraq we are led to beleive this would be a bad thing and that his agenda would be antagonistic. If preventing Sadam from creating WMD was really the Whitehouse agenda why do we keep hearing ' regime change' ?
Read somewhere that the public see Bush as greater threat to world peace that Sadam. Yikes!!!
Ok attack me! Ive prob been really naivee
Invading a sovereign state to set up another state government's agenda is both politically unsound as well as a contravention of international law, but the media again raises no real public objection since supporting the warmongering appears to be good for ratings.
In the end, Bush and Blair will likely get their war regardless of the results of the inspection process. What follows from that will over time likely be revealed to be even worse than the current situation in the Middle East, but since Bush wont be President by then he couldnt give a toss what messes he leaves behind. One need only look at seriously he has followed up our military action in Afghanistan with concrete support to improve and stabilise the social situation there to see that.
Sadly, voices of reason are being drowned out by those who prefer the more brash (but extremely shortsighted) options at our disposal. In the end there may well be much contrition for having stupidly allowed Bush to determine the rules of this current "game".
I only wonder how much suffering there will be on all sides before the whistle is blown. :rolleyes:
I think we will see a lot more programs on tv in the coming months about the plight of the Iraqi people. This is the goverments best chance of convincing the British Public that it is right to go to war in order to free the opressed.
I would like to have seen how Clinton would have handled 9/11 and the entire war against terror.
(feels lucky that will not be beheaded for speaking against gov)
It's all a matter of what if's of course, but I suspect the invasion of Afghanistan would have certainly happened. Likely though that Clinton would not have gotten sidetracked into a personal crusade against Saddam and would have remained focussed on the task of hunting down Al Queda. He also would have likely not left Afghanistan to the warlords as it has been, for all intents and purposes, by the Bush admin. If things dont change, I suspect the Karzai govt wont remain in power for long.
*N.B. Then again, I have my own pet theory (of course conspiratorial) as to why and how 9/11 ever occurred, which take heavily into account the political climate of the Bush presidency at the time.
Not that it will or can ever be proven since all the scrap from the buildings has long since been disposed of.
At any rate, im entering my midnight rambling phase now so I'll just call it quits for the night.
Sleep well all!
Beyond that, our more vodiferous military members here also tried to advance that claim.
Nevertheless, others of us here dismissed such a claim knowing full well the difference between Al Queda and an aging neutered despot like Saddam. however heinous each in its own right may be.
I wasnt implying i think there in a link between the two.
Issue was raised by lecturer at uni that public seemed to have accepted the Al Qaeda and Sadam are the same enemy even though the media or gov have not produced any evidence to support this.
I think the willingness of the public to make this assumtion highlights the prejudice in the UK public, ie muslim appearance, men in turbans ect = same people/terroists = taliban.
:eek:
And we wonder why the shit has come home to roost. :rolleyes:
If evidence was produced, then the percentage of supporters would probably rise to about 80% as it did when evidence of Al-Qaeda being in Afghanistan and that it was them who bombed the USA.
In the USA however, the government and the rightwingers don't want to wait for evidence, they just want to bomb them anyway.
Hmm interesting theory though that is, let me remind you that the US and UK once supported Saddam. Hardly coming from the same approach were they, yet they had the same goals....
Is the 50/50 split in support proven or just your opinion? C4 did a report on the propaganda war & the stats they produced was roughly 13% in favour 7% against and the rest undecided.
I am one person you dont need to point out such things to, you should know that by now.
To suggest that there is no link between ALQaeda and Iraq purely because of ideology is a joke when you consider the example I mentioned - especially as you often remind us of it.
There would be a potential link if they both felt that they had a common goal.
To be honest, I don't think it matters either way. If there is or if there isn't both support terrorism...
As for both being terrorist, yes i suppose in each their own fashion they are, however for the purposes of Bush's WoT Saddam cannot be called a "terrorist" by the current definition. He is cruel, despotic, murderous indeed, but he does not operate internationally with transnational acts of violence (hijackings, bombings, etc) in order to set the international agenda such as Al Queda and other such shadowy cell groups do. Nor is he seeking converts to the Baath Party cause. :rolleyes:
Does he terrorise his own people into submission though, indeed he does! So by the broadest definition he is a terrorist, but then that's a matter of semantics and not proper factual categorisation according to accepted international definitions.
Surely you contradict youself there.
You dismiss it based on their ideology. What I suggest is that this isn't a reason.
BTW I'm not certain there is a link either, but I won't dismiss it completely.
Good job I didn't call him a terrorist then. I said he "supports terrorism"..and this includes financial support...
I must say I cannot see a single thread of evidence to support a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda. The whole thing just seems a cheap attempt to associate the war on terror, which currently is not making terrible progress, with action on Iraq, which despite all the lobbying and accusations that can be mustered remains unjustified to the world.
It is rather obvious that the US has an agenda on Iraq and does not wish the UN inspection to succeed. This article makes interesting reading
Which underlines the point I am making, that ideology is no bar to support. A common goal is usually enough...
Certainly one of the first and easiest sources to prove such a link would be financial transactions. This has clearly been shown to be nothing more than an allegation without factual support.
Best to deal with each as the separate issues they are within their own proper contexts and not subscribe to the manic obsession of Bush to consider "allegation" to equal "fact" whenever and wherever he can to justify his warmongering.
Guess you forgot the attempt on G. Bush during the Clinton years...
Furthermore, given the mess the Bush family has made on the US international political scene can we really say such an attempt is without merit?
I think seriously though, you need to stop playing semantics like our president is so fond of doing and stick to internationally accept definitions. Else we would then have to concede that we ourselves (US Gov that is) has committed terrorist acts in the past. Remember, the CIA was once known for knocking off the occasional thron in our side.
(edited to say..oops sorry Aladdin, didnt read your post before posting myself)
You are correct. If G. Bush had still been the CIC, then an argument could be made for being a legitimate military target. Clinton was the Commander in Chief at the time though, so it was terrorism.
If such were the case then youd be forced to concede that our own government advocates terrorism as well (as already pointed out previously).
Try again old boy, youre grasping at straws here.
The current definition. Terrorism rarely actually creates terror, so your definition is lacking, Clandestine.
If it wasn't for the Iranians and Iraqis, we might have trouble calling the Palestinian suicide bombers terrorists.
current US Dept of Defence definition:
US Dept of Defense
The calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.
.
And I suppose you can consider the current demeanor of the US public to be one of calm comfort and relaxation?? And of course, the Israeli's are certainly not afraid of further suicide bombings from Palestinian extremist! :rolleyes:
Sorry pal, Terrorism, if it is to meet the definition of terrorism, must induce an extended condition of insecurity and fear.
Assassination attempts on lone individuals do not meet the criteria. For example if the DC gunmen had stopped after 1 killing, we would call Muhammed and Malvo simple murderers not terrorists. Further, if we go by your view, then the admitted interest of the Bush administration (as initially claimed by Ari Fleischer, Bush's spokesman) and those that think like them would be an admission of advocacy for the use of terrorism to achieve our ends in Iraq.
Best watch your consistency rating, its slipping dramatically