NationStates Jolt Archive

I'll just repost it here so you can see it, but here's the link (http://www.foxnews.com/) to Fox News.

Never mind that the 9/11 commission said that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; forget that even George W. Bush himself has said that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks--Fox News wants to know what you think, so they've asked the question that appears in the above poll.

Go to it.

You know, I'm tempted to vote "yes" on the Fox News poll just to make their viewers look like morons.

I know that poll has no statistical significance whatsoever, but that's still scary. I can't believe over 50% of the people who go to Fox and voted on that poll still believe there's a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda.

Also, who voted yes on this poll?

Also, who voted yes on this poll?
Maybe I should have made it a public poll. Oh well, too late to change it.

I voted "No". I hate Bush for being a lieing asshat. I do not want to drop to his level :p

I know Iraq and al-Qaeda aren't linked, and I voted "No" in this poll, but I voted "Yes" in the Fox poll for the same reason Incertonia mentioned...

If you voted "No," it simply indicates that you haven't done your research. Sorry about that! :)

If you voted "No," it simply indicates that you haven't done your research. Sorry about that! :)

no, it indicates that we don't belive everything that right wing propaganda tells us.

If you voted "No," it simply indicates that you haven't done your research. Sorry about that! :)

Are you serious? You're kidding me right?

I mean, you do know, honestly-- don't joke here-- that even the bi-partisan 9/11 Comission said that there is no evidence whatsoever that Iraq and Al-Queda had anything to do with each other. There was one rumor that an Iraqi agent met with an Al-Queda agent, but there is no supportive evidence whatsoever, and it is believed to be nothing more than a rumor.

Please, if you're going to make statements that go against all credible evidence, site some sources. And please, no sites. I know google works for most people, but give me some real, analyzed information. Some information that has been thoroughly researched by some people with the ability and brains to research through data and tell you whether it's true or not.

If you need any on my part, read the 9/11 Report; it states that Iraq had no connection to 9/11.

Of course, it could be wrong. The only reason for it even existing is, well, studying 9/11. They probably know nothing.

there were connections
if he was not in power and had not invaded kuwait(sp) we would have diffrent middle east pollicy and the terrorists would see us as less of a threat to thier way of life

I couldnt find the poll

am I too tired... too stupid or both? ok dont answer that

The Katyn massacre was thought to be committed by the Nazis for decades. There were lots of rumours circulating that the Soviets had done it, but no proof - until the site was finally exhumed, and lots of Soviet small arms rounds were found amongst the remains.

The Left in the West used to deny they were in any way connected to the Soviet Union or the KGB in any way. They still do. But after the Soviet Union fell, and they allowed Westerners to view their records, it was found that indeed the KGB was a major funder of all sorts of "peace" groups and such, especially during the Vietnam War.

Saddam Hussein was involved in terrorism for years. Terrorists regularly found safe harbour and funding in his despotic regime. That's why most people believe he was involved, and that's why I do too.

there were connections
if he was not in power and had not invaded kuwait(sp) we would have diffrent middle east pollicy and the terrorists would see us as less of a threat to thier way of life


That's your connection?

Ok, well if the United States had never helped Afghanistan fight against the USSR then neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban would have formed. Therefore, there would never have been a 9/11 attack.

Ooh Ooh, I got another one, had the first man to discover fire had never discovered fire, then humanity would surely have died, and there would have not been a 9/11 attack.

Had a meteor not hit earth, dinosaurs would still roam the earth, there would be no humans, and no 9/11 attack would have occurred.

If the sun had collapsed on itself, then there would have been no earth, therefore no humans, therefore no 9/11.

Therefore, the Sun, fire, and the US were all part of 9/11. SHAME ON THEM.

I know this is one hell of an embellishment, but you get the point. That is one weak connection, nay I shouldn't even use that word. That's one weak theory as to how Iraq and 9/11 are connected.

Plus US policy towards Israel (which is the main reason Al-Queda attacked us) was planted in the 1970s, before Hussein.

The Katyn massacre was thought to be committed by the Nazis for decades. There were lots of rumours circulating that the Soviets had done it, but no proof - until the site was finally exhumed, and lots of Soviet small arms rounds were found amongst the remains.

The Left in the West used to deny they were in any way connected to the Soviet Union or the KGB in any way. They still do. But after the Soviet Union fell, and they allowed Westerners to view their records, it was found that indeed the KGB was a major funder of all sorts of "peace" groups and such, especially during the Vietnam War.

Saddam Hussein was involved in terrorism for years. Terrorists regularly found safe harbour and funding in his despotic regime. That's why most people believe he was involved, and that's why I do too.


One difference between your analogy and the present... we are in Iraq right now, visiting their sites, and if we had any proof about a 9/11 Iraqi connection then we would probably show it by now.

We didn't have access to East Germany or the USSR until the USSR fell.

So nice try, but no cigar.

Ah, the militancy of ignorance.

To think, the right accuse us of being conspiracy theorists.

I couldnt find the poll

am I too tired... too stupid or both? ok dont answer that

It took me a few minutes to find. You go to the link and scroll down. It's about 3/4 of the way down, on the right side.

And it's awful! 50,694 Yes votes! 54%! I know a few of those are joking NSers, but that's disturbing if it demonstrates the average Fox news viewers.

Ah, the militancy of ignorance.

To think, the right accuse us of being conspiracy theorists.

What you talking about Willis? Obviously Saddam orchestrated 9/11.

;)

It took me a few minutes to find. You go to the link and scroll down. It's about 3/4 of the way down, on the right side.

And it's awful! 50,694 Yes votes! 54%! I know a few of those are joking NSers, but that's disturbing if it demonstrates the average Fox news viewers.



ah thanks! :)

:D It makes me feel good about myself that I actually know better than tens of thousands of people... but then it makes me feel ashamed of my fellow countrymen and women and thats sad

The Emperor of Terra Zetegenia does note that Saddam was most definately supporting terrorists - checks of ~$25,000 were given to the families of suicide bombers in Israel. While he notes that this obviously does not prove the existance of a connection, it provides enough of a doubt for Terra Zetegenia's official answer to be "None of the Above."

If you voted "No," it simply indicates that you haven't done your research. Sorry about that! :)

Research? How much "research" do you need to listen, or read? I saw and heard Bush himself say there was no connection, I read the bipartisan 9/11 commission report saying there was no connection. Extreme stretches of so-called logic aside, what "research" are you refering to?

And for the record, I'm a Fox viewer, I like Bush, I love Bill O'Reilly, I voted "no" on this poll, and didn't participate in the Fox poll. So there. :D

Like I said in the original post--George W. Bush himself has said that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Hell, Randi Rhodes played it non-stop on her radio show for weeks--still might be for all I know.

No connection between 9/11 attacks and Saddam, Eutrusca. Got that?

Research? How much "research" do you need to listen, or read? I saw and heard Bush himself say there was no connection, I read the bipartisan 9/11 commission report saying there was no connection. Extreme stretches of so-called logic aside, what "research" are you refering to?

And for the record, I'm a Fox viewer, I like Bush, I love Bill O'Reilly, I voted "no" on this poll, and didn't participate in the Fox poll. So there. :D

TO ALL OF YOU:

You have all stated that you have read the 9/11 commission's report and concluded that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

You didn't read the report completely. It stated, conclusively, that Al Qaeda and Iraq had NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER as pertains TO THE ATTACKS ON 9/11. Connections between the two are not, nor have they ever been disputed, outside of the 9/11 attacks. Republicans and Democrats alike do not dispute the evidence of Al Qaeda/Iraq connections in general. There is a difference.

I have heard this quote (no connection) distorted for far too long. To summarize:

1. Al Qaeda and Iraq had no connections pertaining to 9/11.

2. These two organizations ARE connected in other areas, and at various levels.

TO ALL OF YOU:

You have all stated that you have read the 9/11 commission's report and concluded that there is no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

You didn't read the report completely. It stated, conclusively, that Al Qaeda and Iraq had NO CONNECTIONS WHATSOEVER as pertains TO THE ATTACKS ON 9/11. Connections between the two are not, nor have they ever been disputed, outside of the 9/11 attacks. Republicans and Democrats alike do not dispute the evidence of Al Qaeda/Iraq connections in general. There is a difference.

I have heard this quote (no connection) distorted for far too long. To summarize:

1. Al Qaeda and Iraq had no connections pertaining to 9/11.

2. These two organizations ARE connected in other areas, and at various levels.You're overgeneralizing. The 9/11 commission report specifically said that there was no collaborative or cooperative relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, irrespective of the 9/11 attacks. In other words, there were no meaningful connections between the two, certainly none worth going to war over.

And besides, what the hell does that have to do with the point of the thread?

You're overgeneralizing. The 9/11 commission report specifically said that there was no collaborative or cooperative relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, irrespective of the 9/11 attacks. In other words, there were no meaningful connections between the two, certainly none worth going to war over.

And besides, what the hell does that have to do with the point of the thread?

Didn't mean to hijack the thread. I have just gotten frustrated with the loose hurling of facts regarding the report. On the news, on NS, on the street...everyone seems to interpret in such a was as to support their position. Facts are facts.

Anyway, sorry to hijack your thread.

I was under the impression (and I will research it) that other collaborative or cooperative contacts were not covered, as they were irrelevant to the report. I personally believe that there were/are hard contacts between the two organizations, but not re: 9/11.

Funding, training, funneling of funds, knowledge and equipment, etc...knowing what I know of the area and groups (my work is in this field), there seems to be overwhelming evidence (if circumstantial, I admit) of collaboration.

The Katyn massacre was thought to be committed by the Nazis for decades. There were lots of rumours circulating that the Soviets had done it, but no proof - until the site was finally exhumed, and lots of Soviet small arms rounds were found amongst the remains.

The Left in the West used to deny they were in any way connected to the Soviet Union or the KGB in any way. They still do. But after the Soviet Union fell, and they allowed Westerners to view their records, it was found that indeed the KGB was a major funder of all sorts of "peace" groups and such, especially during the Vietnam War.

Saddam Hussein was involved in terrorism for years. Terrorists regularly found safe harbour and funding in his despotic regime. That's why most people believe he was involved, and that's why I do too.As your Nazi / Soviet examples proves, terrorists can have radically different ideologies. You talk about them as if they are one monolithic group or at least all get along, but they do not. Saddam was a secular tyrant who saw religious fundamentalism as a threat to his regime and hence tried to exterminate it. The idea that Saddam and Osama were best buddies is patently ludicrous. By your logic, fundamentalist Christian terrorists who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics in the U.S. would be in league with them as well.

As your Nazi / Soviet examples proves, terrorists can have radically different ideologies. You talk about them as if they are one monolithic group or at least all get along, but they do not. Saddam was a secular tyrant who saw religious fundamentalism as a threat to his regime and hence tried to exterminate it. The idea that Saddam and Osama were best buddies is patently ludicrous. By your logic, fundamentalist Christian terrorists who shoot doctors and bomb abortion clinics in the U.S. would be in league with them as well.

But they did share a common goal.

I agree that they weren't drinking buds...

I was under the impression (and I will research it) that other collaborative or cooperative contacts were not covered, as they were irrelevant to the report. I personally believe that there were/are hard contacts between the two organizations, but not re: 9/11.

Funding, training, funneling of funds, knowledge and equipment, etc...knowing what I know of the area and groups (my work is in this field), there seems to be overwhelming evidence (if circumstantial, I admit) of collaboration.
Well, I'll give you a little hint for a place to start looking. In the 9/11 commission report, where they mention the contacts between the two groups, spend a lot of time in the appendix with the end notes. Most every report of a contact is questioned by one intel agency or another, and while the main part of the report makes the relationship seem flimsy at best, the end notes really shred it.

I spent a lot of time on that when the report came out, because a lot of Bush supporters were making claims that just didn't exist.

And don't sweat the thread hijack--it happens all the time.

I wonder if AlQueda has any contacts in Iran, or Syria, or Pakistan? :eek:

Well, I'll give you a little hint for a place to start looking. In the 9/11 commission report, where they mention the contacts between the two groups, spend a lot of time in the appendix with the end notes. Most every report of a contact is questioned by one intel agency or another, and while the main part of the report makes the relationship seem flimsy at best, the end notes really shred it.

I spent a lot of time on that when the report came out, because a lot of Bush supporters were making claims that just didn't exist.

And don't sweat the thread hijack--it happens all the time.


Actually, thanks for the hint, but I have the report.

It states that there is not evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" and that there was no evidence of "cooperation with Al Qaeda on carrying out or developing attacka against the U.S.".

That does not address the issues of safe haven, asylum, porous borders, training camps, and other possible cooperative measures. A "collaborative operational relationship" means only that they weren't training or physically working together. This does not negate the possiblity of cooperation in other areas, their shared hatred for the U.S., "knowledge swapping" among underlings of both regimes, etc...

Bear in mind, I'm not stating unequivocally that there were these efforts, or that there were not. I only believe that the evidence, even if circumstantial and unsubstantiated, gives at least some credence to the claim that they weren't completely independent of each other. I believe it could literally be either way, but my instincts tell me that they were, at least at lower levels, working together.

It's like two different mob bosses with a shared hatred for the police...each boss dislikes the other because of territory, money, business, ideals, et al., but both share the disdain for the authorities, and could therefore have a "limited partnership" to address that specific disdain. Within the confines of hatred for U.S., they each had something to gain from the other. Example, Iraq had WMD's they desperately needed to hide (undisputed), and Al Qaeda would desperately want to have them...I'm not stating that this occurred. I'm only stating a scenario to illustrate my point.

You know, I'm tempted to vote "yes" on the Fox News poll just to make their viewers look like morons.

They do that well enough themselves.

They do that well enough themselves.

Thanks for the insult. I love it when the Dems (I'm independent) hurl nice little personal attacks and insults like this one from behind their banners of eternal peace and passivity.

Ain't nuttin quite like a good ole' contradiction.

"We must strive for eternal peace and brotherhood! We must engage our international brethren so that we may reach a peaceful and diplomatic solution! We must take the moral high road and love each other forever! In our enlightened society, there is no place for violence, pain and suffering. Don't you know that, you stupid, degenerate, simple minded moron?!!?? I can't believe how stupid you are!!! How the hell could you not agree with me, you narrow minded, egalitarian, war mongering bastard!!!!!"


Oops...excuse me. Was that my "outside" voice?

Thanks for the insult. I love it when the Dems (I'm independent) hurl nice little personal attacks and insults like this one from behind their banners of eternal peace and passivity.

Ain't nuttin quite like a good ole' contradiction.

I'm not "Dem".

"We must strive for eternal peace and brotherhood! We must engage our international brethren so that we may reach a peaceful and diplomatic solution! We must take the moral high road and love each other forever! In our enlightened society, there is no place for violence, pain and suffering. Don't you know that, you stupid, degenerate, simple minded moron?!!?? I can't believe how stupid you are!!! How the hell could you not agree with me, you narrow minded, egalitarian, war mongering bastard!!!!!"


Oops...excuse me. Was that my "outside" voice?

I can prescribe you some pills for that.

I can prescribe you some pills for that.


I'm not "Dem.

A thousand apologies, o venerable "non Dem".

A thousand apologies, o venerable "non Dem".

I apologise if my comment offended you but if you watch Fox News for other reasons than to point and laugh then you must have a character flaw. This, we can help you with.

Actually, thanks for the hint, but I have the report.

It states that there is not evidence of a "collaborative operational relationship" and that there was no evidence of "cooperation with Al Qaeda on carrying out or developing attacka against the U.S.".

That does not address the issues of safe haven, asylum, porous borders, training camps, and other possible cooperative measures. A "collaborative operational relationship" means only that they weren't training or physically working together. This does not negate the possiblity of cooperation in other areas, their shared hatred for the U.S., "knowledge swapping" among underlings of both regimes, etc...

Bear in mind, I'm not stating unequivocally that there were these efforts, or that there were not. I only believe that the evidence, even if circumstantial and unsubstantiated, gives at least some credence to the claim that they weren't completely independent of each other. I believe it could literally be either way, but my instincts tell me that they were, at least at lower levels, working together.

It's like two different mob bosses with a shared hatred for the police...each boss dislikes the other because of territory, money, business, ideals, et al., but both share the disdain for the authorities, and could therefore have a "limited partnership" to address that specific disdain. Within the confines of hatred for U.S., they each had something to gain from the other. Example, Iraq had WMD's they desperately needed to hide (undisputed), and Al Qaeda would desperately want to have them...I'm not stating that this occurred. I'm only stating a scenario to illustrate my point.

Look, no matter how you put it, there was no credible source or evidence that linked Al Qaeda and Iraq. Sure, there are tibits here and there, but our intelligent agencies basically say that they're just circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove much, if anything. Your biggest argument seems to be your gut feeling. And while that may work well for an individual, a state should never accept its "gut feelings" for committing an action that has real and dangerous consequences in the real world.

There's no hard proof that Iraq and Al-Qaeda worked together for 9/11, before, or after. The CIA's analysis is that Iraq's secularism didn't mesh well with Bin Laden's jihad philosophy. Are they wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But to the best of their approximations, there's no link and there's no real evidence.

Gut feelings don't work in a debate, nor should they be an analysis technique for deciding who to declare war on.

I apologise if my comment offended you but if you watch Fox News for other reasons than to point and laugh then you must have a character flaw. This, we can help you with.

Your comment didn't offend me. I, as a rule, do not get offended.

I do watch Fox News, and not only for entertainment value. They do have some good programs, and I am intelligent enough to separate fact from spin / republican slant. It's not that difficult to pick the facts out of the story and ignore the commentary. I do the same thing with CNN, MSNBC, NBC, etc., all of which I watch at times. Most people equate Fox News with only O'Reilly (whom I actually like...but same thing...easy to separate fact from spin). Hannity and Combs, Greta, Linda Vester, Cavuto, and especially Fox and Friends, are quite entertaining and usually informative.

Nice of you to apologize, though...

That Bill O'Reilly is a laugh-a-minute. Especially when he cuts off his guests' microphones after a royal pwning.

Look, no matter how you put it, there was no credible source or evidence that linked Al Qaeda and Iraq. Sure, there are tibits here and there, but our intelligent agencies basically say that they're just circumstantial evidence that doesn't prove much, if anything. Your biggest argument seems to be your gut feeling. And while that may work well for an individual, a state should never accept its "gut feelings" for committing an action that has real and dangerous consequences in the real world.

There's no hard proof that Iraq and Al-Qaeda worked together for 9/11, before, or after. The CIA's analysis is that Iraq's secularism didn't mesh well with Bin Laden's jihad philosophy. Are they wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But to the best of their approximations, there's no link and there's no real evidence.

Gut feelings don't work in a debate, nor should they be an analysis technique for deciding who to declare war on.

You're almost exactly right. I agree with you as to the report stating the 9/11 collaboration, or lack thereof. There was no connection. You're right that there is no hard proof of any cooperation. I also agree that a government should not act on "gut feelings" alone. They're not an analysis technique, or a justification of any sort. They are only a suspicion, much like one you might get when you meet someone you just don't like, but don't know why.

Besides, as I stated, I don't have a gut feeling. Let's call it an "educated guess".

That Bill O'Reilly is a laugh-a-minute. Especially when he cuts off his guests' microphones after a royal pwning.

I honestly think O'Reilly means well...but you're right. He goes way overboard at times, and not far enough at others. Entertaining, though....

You're almost exactly right. I agree with you as to the report stating the 9/11 collaboration, or lack thereof. There was no connection. You're right that there is no hard proof of any cooperation. I also agree that a government should not act on "gut feelings" alone. They're not an analysis technique, or a justification of any sort. They are only a suspicion, much like one you might get when you meet someone you just don't like, but don't know why.

Besides, as I stated, I don't have a gut feeling. Let's call it an "educated guess".


An educated guess usually relies on evidence, proof, and facts.

There is very little evidence of that link, so that might be a misnomer as well.

An educated guess usually relies on evidence, proof, and facts.

There is very little evidence of that link, so that might be a misnomer as well.

An educated guess does not rely on evidence, proof, or facts. That's not a guess...it's evidence, proof, or facts.

An educated guess is made by someone who is very active/educated in the industry/field in question (WMD's/Nonproliferation/International affairs, as I am). The person makes a guess based on information (usually circumstantial) and bounces it off his/her experiences and knowledge and forms a conclusion. Scientists do it, for no apparent reason other than a "hunch", and sometimes are right, sometimes wrong. I could be wrong. I could be right...I don't profess either.

It's just a guess.

The Katyn massacre was thought to be committed by the Nazis for decades. There were lots of rumours circulating that the Soviets had done it, but no proof - until the site was finally exhumed, and lots of Soviet small arms rounds were found amongst the remains.

The Left in the West used to deny they were in any way connected to the Soviet Union or the KGB in any way. They still do. But after the Soviet Union fell, and they allowed Westerners to view their records, it was found that indeed the KGB was a major funder of all sorts of "peace" groups and such, especially during the Vietnam War.

Saddam Hussein was involved in terrorism for years. Terrorists regularly found safe harbour and funding in his despotic regime. That's why most people believe he was involved, and that's why I do too.

And that's why Reagan/Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld liked Saddam so much. Look who's talking about half truths.

Do you believe that Saddam Hussein was part of 9/11 attacks on U.S.?
a. Yes (54%)
52,185
b. No (38%)
36,022
c. I did, but no longer think that (2%)
2,176
d. None of the above (6%)
5,483
95,866 total votes

lol that doesnt let average american intelligence appear in a very good light. :D

My hope is that at least 25% of those who voted yes were taking the piss.

First things first, I'm conservative and support Bush over Kerry. I won't go into the reasons here.

That said, I don't think Hussein was directly tied to al Qaeda and 9/11. However, I do believe that Iraq was a hotbed for terrorism. I have seen documentaries (legit ones, not like the garbage that Michael Moore tries to pawn off as unbiased journalism) which followed troops as they found terrorist training stations located in Iraq. Yes, they had actual classrooms instructing people on how to be terrorists. Soldiers found instruction manuals showing how to make bombs, pass them and other weapons through airport security, how to attack buildings, etc. While Iraq may not have had direct connection to 9/11, anyone who truly believes they were not a terrorist threat is sorely mistaken.

WOW , that above poll is shocking, not even George Bush and co. sing that song anymore!!!

Anyway, I think the results of the nationstates poll are of a much more educated group of people.

WOW , that above poll is shocking, not even George Bush and co. sing that song anymore!!!

Anyway, I think the results of the nationstates poll are of a much more educated group of people.

Don't forget that many people, as even stated in this thread, are anti-Bush and are voting "yes" in the Fox poll to make pro-Bush people look stupid. You also have those who know the answer is "no" but they are too stubborn to admit it. So they'll vote "yes" just because they don't want to give in and go against their original beliefs (or they think there will be more evidence to eventually come out supporting their beliefs). I thought there was a chance that there could be some funding from Hussein (which can sometimes be tough to trace), but haven't seen any proof yet. Until I do, I have to believe that Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11. But, as I previously posted, it doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't a terror threat. It was (and still is to some extent, but will get better).

I'll just repost it here so you can see it, but here's the link (http://www.foxnews.com/) to Fox News.

Never mind that the 9/11 commission said that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; forget that even George W. Bush himself has said that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks--Fox News wants to know what you think, so they've asked the question that appears in the above poll.

Go to it.


Well according to the link, the Fox motto is "We report, you decide". Evidently Fox has reported the facts and its viewers have decided to make up their own minds, based on stupidity and prejudice.

First things first, I'm conservative and support Bush over Kerry. I won't go into the reasons here.

That said, I don't think Hussein was directly tied to al Qaeda and 9/11. However, I do believe that Iraq was a hotbed for terrorism. I have seen documentaries (legit ones, not like the garbage that Michael Moore tries to pawn off as unbiased journalism) which followed troops as they found terrorist training stations located in Iraq. Yes, they had actual classrooms instructing people on how to be terrorists. Soldiers found instruction manuals showing how to make bombs, pass them and other weapons through airport security, how to attack buildings, etc. While Iraq may not have had direct connection to 9/11, anyone who truly believes they were not a terrorist threat is sorely mistaken.

You can find all that stuff in CIA training centres not only in the US but throughout central america. Lets invade Rhode Island.

Don't forget that many people, as even stated in this thread, are anti-Bush and are voting "yes" in the Fox poll to make pro-Bush people look stupid. You also have those who know the answer is "no" but they are too stubborn to admit it. So they'll vote "yes" just because they don't want to give in and go against their original beliefs (or they think there will be more evidence to eventually come out supporting their beliefs). I thought there was a chance that there could be some funding from Hussein (which can sometimes be tough to trace), but haven't seen any proof yet. Until I do, I have to believe that Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11. But, as I previously posted, it doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't a terror threat. It was (and still is to some extent, but will get better).
I don't know that there are "many" who are trying to skew the poll. I'll admit that I discovered the poll because someone posted about it in a Daily Kos diary, but there was no mention of Freeping the poll when I read it there, and the percentages when I started this diary are pretty much the same as they are now. I don't think the poll has been affected much, if at all.

Don't forget that many people, as even stated in this thread, are anti-Bush and are voting "yes" in the Fox poll to make pro-Bush people look stupid. You also have those who know the answer is "no" but they are too stubborn to admit it. So they'll vote "yes" just because they don't want to give in and go against their original beliefs (or they think there will be more evidence to eventually come out supporting their beliefs). I thought there was a chance that there could be some funding from Hussein (which can sometimes be tough to trace), but haven't seen any proof yet. Until I do, I have to believe that Iraq wasn't connected to 9/11. But, as I previously posted, it doesn't mean that Iraq wasn't a terror threat. It was (and still is to some extent, but will get better).


riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!

Even if the 77 who were informed enough to vote no on the NS poll went over to the FOX poll and voted yes (which I'm sure most didn't *I Didn't*), it still wouldn't have made much of a difference from the 52,185 that voted "yes" on teh FOX poll.

You know, I'm tempted to vote "yes" on the Fox News poll just to make their viewers look like morons.
I don't think you need to help Fox viewers to look like morons. They do a swell job of it all on their own.
Is it just me, or is the Fox website really hideous: too busy, too bright, crap layout, impossible to find anything. It seems to me designed solely to bring on epileptic fits.
I did notice Arnold signing a law banning the force-feeding of geese for foix gra. So he supports gay unions, protects animals from abuse for business purposes, is financially prudent, looks for involvement across the polictical spectrum on various topics...Are you certain he's a republican? Certainly not a Bush one.

But after the Soviet Union fell, and they allowed Westerners to view their records, it was found that indeed the KGB was a major funder of all sorts of "peace" groups and such, especially during the Vietnam War.

Saddam Hussein was involved in terrorism for years. Terrorists regularly found safe harbour and funding in his despotic regime. That's why most people believe he was involved, and that's why I do too.
Can you provide examples or evidence for any of this? Evidently most people don't think Saddam was involved.

95,866 total votes

lol that doesnt let average american intelligence appear in a very good light. :D

Given our total population, and the fact that mostly conservatives watch Fox, this hardly represents the "average" American intelligence. :) I'm a conservative independent, and smart enough to filter out the spin most of the news stations, regardless of which way they lean, tend to pack into their newscasts.

I heard that Al-Qaeda and Hussein were enemies.

Who cares about that anymore?
You would have supported an invasion of Greenland if someone had repeated the phrase "9/11" enough times...

You can find all that stuff in CIA training centres not only in the US but throughout central america. Lets invade Rhode Island.

Didn't the CIA train Osama bin Laden if I remember correctly?

WOW , that above poll is shocking, not even George Bush and co. sing that song anymore!!!

Anyway, I think the results of the nationstates poll are of a much more educated group of people.

Why, because this one substantiates your own point of view? I could go ahead and say that most of the NS'ers that voted are stupid but that would:
A: Incriminate myself
B: Be grossly inaccurate

Someone who believes differently from you does not necessarily make them less intelligent. Sometimes we just have to "agree to disagree".

Someone who believes differently from you does not necessarily make them less intelligent.
not necessarily, but when you are discussing matters of objective reality then it usually does. if i believe that throwing a ball into the air will be followed promptly by that ball falling back towards the earth, and if somebody chooses to argue that the ball will, instead, transform into a flock of pastel fairies and fly away, then one of us is right and the other is not. if i argue that World War Two was fought in the 20th century and somebody else argues it occured during the Roman Empire then i am right and they are wrong. if somebody were to argue that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 then they are wrong, because empirical evidence proves that that was not the case.

now, if somebody is arguing any of those equally ludicrous points for FUN then they are just a silly person taking the piss. but if somebody around here honestly believes that the ball will become fairies or that Saddam bombed the WTC on 9/11 then they are either insane, deliberately ignorant of reality, or irretrievably stupid.

Someone who believes differently from you does not necessarily make them less intelligent. Sometimes we just have to "agree to disagree".

But this isn't a matter of opinion. It isn't something that can be agreed on or disagreed on. It's just a true fact that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.
If you want to exercise your right to believe things that aren't true, go ahead. But you aren't just disagreeing with people, you're disagreeing with the actual and objective state of the universe.

i wish they had done a scientific poll.

the iraq-9/11 liink was one of the lies that bush "told" leading up to the invasion. (NOOO hes such a good god fearing christian man that those words never left HIS mouth. he just allowed people to draw that conclusion from what he and his lackey said and didnt correct their misunderstanding. that not lying is it?)

id like to know how many people still believe it and how many of them are angry at being mislead. i am angry in behalf of my friends and relatives who believed it, now they either pretend to have never believed it or, well, they still DO believe it.

Um, is it just me, or did they REMOVE that poll from their past poll results page? It only shows polls up to sept 24th now.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111576,00.html

I'll just repost it here so you can see it, but here's the link (http://www.foxnews.com/) to Fox News.

Never mind that the 9/11 commission said that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; forget that even George W. Bush himself has said that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks--Fox News wants to know what you think, so they've asked the question that appears in the above poll.

Go to it.

I wish to God you were making this up.

I wish to God you were making this up.
Alas, no.

Alas, no.

Of course, considering it's Fox 'News' I'm not too surprised.

I'll just repost it here so you can see it, but here's the link (http://www.foxnews.com/) to Fox News.

Never mind that the 9/11 commission said that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein; forget that even George W. Bush himself has said that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks--Fox News wants to know what you think, so they've asked the question that appears in the above poll.

Go to it.

You need to actually go read the report, not just pick off the New York Times' regergitation. The Comission stated that Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with either funding or planning 9-11. However there are, as the Comission stated, numerous ties between Saddam's former regime and Al Quaeda, including but not limited to multiple training camps within Iraq, attendance of high ranking members of Saddam's cabinet and Republican guard at several Al Quaeda summits as well as direct membership of the same within Al Quaeda.

Its not too fine a line, but its an issue that leads itself easily to demagogery, hence why its in use this political season.

You need to actually go read the report, not just pick off the New York Times' regergitation. The Comission stated that Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with either funding or planning 9-11. However there are, as the Comission stated, numerous ties between Saddam's former regime and Al Quaeda, including but not limited to multiple training camps within Iraq, attendance of high ranking members of Saddam's cabinet and Republican guard at several Al Quaeda summits as well as direct membership of the same within Al Quaeda.

Its not too fine a line, but its an issue that leads itself easily to demagogery, hence why its in use this political season.Oh please. The question said "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein was part of 9/11 attacks on U.S.?" It's a simple fucking question, one that even the President somehow managed to get right eventually.

Oh please. The question said "Do you believe that Saddam Hussein was part of 9/11 attacks on U.S.?" It's a simple fucking question, one that even the President somehow managed to get right eventually.


Ummm... it was a reply to your comment underneath the poll, bright-one.

Ummm... it was a reply to your comment underneath the poll, bright-one.
I have read the report. In fact, I've quoted the report extensively in other threads on this very forum, especially the parts in the endnotes where the commission discounts the intelligence on many of the points you raised. They say that the intel couldn't be confirmed or that it was suspect at best. Try again. There was no collaborative or cooperative connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. None.

I have read the report. In fact, I've quoted the report extensively in other threads on this very forum, especially the parts in the endnotes where the commission discounts the intelligence on many of the points you raised. They say that the intel couldn't be confirmed or that it was suspect at best. Try again. There was no collaborative or cooperative connection between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and al Qaeda. None.

And thats just blatantly incorrect, to the point that when the media did jump on the concept that Saddam and Al Quaeda were completely unrelated, the comission held a press conference later that day to clarify the issue. That and its simply mind-bogglingly illogical to assume there is no connection between the two especially in light of current events and events during the war... though I'm not sure what you guys heard over here, and if some of it wasn't reported I'm pretty sure that means I can't get into it.

Anyway, torture the data enough and it'll confess. Have fun.

And thats just blatantly incorrect, to the point that when the media did jump on the concept that Saddam and Al Quaeda were completely unrelated, the comission held a press conference later that day to clarify the issue. That and its simply mind-bogglingly illogical to assume there is no connection between the two especially in light of current events and events during the war... though I'm not sure what you guys heard over here, and if some of it wasn't reported I'm pretty sure that means I can't get into it.

Anyway, torture the data enough and it'll confess. Have fun.It is best to ignore the blindly stupid and partisan on this site, Penguinista, and you have encountered one of the worst in Incertonia. He is just a puppet spewing all of Pelosi's and Michael Moore's idiotic talking points.

Oh I know about Inc boy, we had plenty of debates back in the primaries when he thought Dean would take it all and I tried to explain why he wouldn't make it past the primaries.

That's your connection?

Ok, well if the United States had never helped Afghanistan fight against the USSR then neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban would have formed. Therefore, there would never have been a 9/11 attack.

I'm sorry to break this to you, but Osama's parents doing the horizontal bop led to the formation of Bin Laden, and not the Mujahadeen.

That's your connection?

Ok, well if the United States had never helped Afghanistan fight against the USSR then neither Bin Laden nor the Taliban would have formed. Therefore, there would never have been a 9/11 attack.

Ooh Ooh, I got another one, had the first man to discover fire had never discovered fire, then humanity would surely have died, and there would have not been a 9/11 attack.

Had a meteor not hit earth, dinosaurs would still roam the earth, there would be no humans, and no 9/11 attack would have occurred.

If the sun had collapsed on itself, then there would have been no earth, therefore no humans, therefore no 9/11.

Therefore, the Sun, fire, and the US were all part of 9/11. SHAME ON THEM.

I know this is one hell of an embellishment, but you get the point. That is one weak connection, nay I shouldn't even use that word. That's one weak theory as to how Iraq and 9/11 are connected.

Plus US policy towards Israel (which is the main reason Al-Queda attacked us) was planted in the 1970s, before Hussein.


Actually Bin Laden has denounced the US for NOT helping them fight against the USSR. US aid to the Mujahadeen never totaled more than roughly $100,000 cash and towards the end, as the Mujahadeen had been driven out and were fighting back from Pakistan, the US famously delivered some stinger missle systems. Bin Laden's attacks originally were against the US for allowing Afghanistan to be torn apart and against the Saudi's for general corruption and not aiding the Mujahadeen.

That and if you actually read the report, the Comission states that Iraq was not involved in 9-11 specifically but does have ties with Al Quaeda. I realize that may be too fine a point for some, but I'm sure someone who's clearly as well read as you can distinguish the difference.

And thats just blatantly incorrect, to the point that when the media did jump on the concept that Saddam and Al Quaeda were completely unrelated, the comission held a press conference later that day to clarify the issue. That and its simply mind-bogglingly illogical to assume there is no connection between the two especially in light of current events and events during the war... though I'm not sure what you guys heard over here, and if some of it wasn't reported I'm pretty sure that means I can't get into it.

Anyway, torture the data enough and it'll confess. Have fun.


Actually, Incertonia's points are correct. The 9/11 Report does go on to mention that the "evidence" is largely unreliable and cicumstantial. You can make the argument for some sort of Al-Queda-Iraq connection, but it won't be a good argument.

As to your current event argument, what exactly are you talking about? I have, as of yet, read nothing (and I tend to read a lot about this stuff) of an Al-Queda presence in Iraq or Al-Queda aiding Hussein (or vice-versa).

Actually Bin Laden has denounced the US for NOT helping them fight against the USSR. US aid to the Mujahadeen never totaled more than roughly $100,000 cash and towards the end, as the Mujahadeen had been driven out and were fighting back from Pakistan, the US famously delivered some stinger missle systems. Bin Laden's attacks originally were against the US for allowing Afghanistan to be torn apart and against the Saudi's for general corruption and not aiding the Mujahadeen.

That and if you actually read the report, the Comission states that Iraq was not involved in 9-11 specifically but does have ties with Al Quaeda. I realize that may be too fine a point for some, but I'm sure someone who's clearly as well read as you can distinguish the difference.

I've read the report multiple times. Your assertions are iffy... at best. As I stated on the other post, their is evidence, but some evidence is rarely enough to build a bonafide case.

Of course Bin Laden is going to denounce America's lack of helping the war in Afghanistan. He can't very well say, "Hey, they helped us before, but now we got to kill them." Anyway, my post was sarcasm to attack the other posts hypothesis that Iraq and Al-Queda were linked because Iraq led to the Persian Gulf War, which led to American militarization in the Gulf, which led to the formation of Al-Queda. It wasn't suppose to be taken as an actual cogent argument.

Hey, don't worry about it then.

As far as Al Quaeda fighting for Saddam during the war... if the press hasn't reported on it... then... ummm... I have no idea and it never happened and you didn't hear about it from me...

;)

Sorry for two posts in a row. As far as the Comission report, the circumstantial and "iffy" area, if you look at it again, is not that there is a connection its how deep the connection goes. You have high ranking officers withiun the Republican guard associated with Al Quaeda. The question is whether they act on their own or in concert with their responsibilies within the Iraqi army, and how much Saddam is actually ties into these contacts. But that a tie is there is clear, the question, once again, is how high up it goes.

Sorry for two posts in a row. As far as the Comission report, the circumstantial and "iffy" area, if you look at it again, is not that there is a connection its how deep the connection goes. You have high ranking officers withiun the Republican guard associated with Al Quaeda. The question is whether they act on their own or in concert with their responsibilies within the Iraqi army, and how much Saddam is actually ties into these contacts. But that a tie is there is clear, the question, once again, is how high up it goes.

True, but if you read the 9/11 Report it says that there were Czech and Polish reports alleging that Iraqi personnel either met with an Al-Qaeda member or were forwarned of an attack on America. Again, the modifier alleging is importing, because it neutralizes the claims. It neither supports the claims as factual or as fiction, but it's definetely not an endorsment of the evidence pointing to Al-Qaeda and Iraq being in collusion.

True, but if you read the 9/11 Report it says that there were Czech and Polish reports alleging that Iraqi personnel either met with an Al-Queda member or were forwarned of an attack on America. Again, the modifier alleging is importing, because it neutralizes the claims. It neither supports the claims as factual or as fiction, but it's not an endorsment of the evidence pointing to Al-Queda and Iraq being in collusion.

Except we have placed at the meeting where we know 9-11 was planned a Republican Guard Colonel and several Iraqi operatives. Once again, its not conclusive to say that Iraq "knew" or planned 9-11, but it is evidence of some type of link. To say they have nothing to do with each other is just as incorrect as saying they are 100% in cahoots.

Except we have placed at the meeting where we know 9-11 was planned a Republican Guard Colonel and several Iraqi operatives. Once again, its not conclusive to say that Iraq "knew" or planned 9-11, but it is evidence of some type of link. To say they have nothing to do with each other is just as incorrect as saying they are 100% in cahoots.


Sorry, but can you give me a source of some sort? I don't remember reading that in the 9/11 report, or anywhere else, and I can't find it now. As I remember Khalid Sheikh Mohammed basically planned the operation on his own with the help of Yousef.

And yes, it's incorrect to say they had nothing to do with each other, but that's an extreme statement that I'm not making. My statement, is that there is no proof of any real collusion between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Or more cogently, there is not enough proof of any link strong enough to have us invade Iraq.

Sorry, but can you give me a source of some sort? I don't remember reading that in the 9/11 report, or anywhere else, and I can't find it now. As I remember Khalid Sheikh Mohammed basically planned the operation on his own with the help of Yousef.

And yes, it's incorrect to say they had nothing to do with each other, but that's an extreme statement that I'm not making. My statement, is that there is no proof of any real collusion between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. Or more cogently, there is not enough proof of any link strong enough to have us invade Iraq.

lol sorry for the cop out but its 1 am and I have no desire to find the original info placing the Rep guard Col at the planning meeting. All I'm saying is that your statement, that there is no collusion, is also incorrect, because there is evidence of some connection between the two. As far as how much, whether or not it adds up to direct cooperation, or its simply two groups that hate AMerica keeping in touch is unclear. As far as not enough of a link to invade Iraq, thats also a quantitative statement that is really undefinable. At what point is a connection strong enough to merit action? And does support of terrorism constitute a threat, or simply support of Al Quaeda? What we do know is that these terrorist groups do have ties between each other, loose ties but ties nonetheless, reaching back to the first real international terrorist group Al-Islam in Egypt in the 70's, from which Bin Laden gained his training and reputation and which branched in Hesbola, PLO, and so forth.

I know that poll has no statistical significance whatsoever, but that's still scary. I can't believe over 50% of the people who go to Fox and voted on that poll still believe there's a connection between Iraq and Al-Queda.

IRAQ AL-QUEDA
...^....^
...|____|
There is an OBVIOUS link there...

:headbang:

But we all new how smart they were when they dicided to lauch the War On Terror... they were actually going to go out and KILL terror.

The probably got guys to walk down the street, and say "BOO!" to people... then if the person showed ANY signs of terror, BANG! they were dead.

Next i think they should have a war on indecision...

Then they weill walk down the street and ask people "What do you like most? Curtains or Ducks?!" and when you think about it they shoot you. so what you'll need to do is learn just to say "DUCKS" as soon as they ask you.. that'll work, of course, only until they have a war on ducks.

But still with the War on Terror, i thought I'd do my bit to help them out. I'd killed 3 blokes named Terry before a realised that I'd heared it wrong. Well they were all pretty terrorfied when i came at them with a knife, so i guess it can't have been all bad

Bin Laden didn't appreciate Hussein or Iraq because of the liberties, yes, liberties Hussein advocated over the more hardline religious interpretation of the laws in Koran, like in Saudi Arabia.

lol sorry for the cop out but its 1 am and I have no desire to find the original info placing the Rep guard Col at the planning meeting. All I'm saying is that your statement, that there is no collusion, is also incorrect, because there is evidence of some connection between the two. As far as how much, whether or not it adds up to direct cooperation, or its simply two groups that hate AMerica keeping in touch is unclear. As far as not enough of a link to invade Iraq, thats also a quantitative statement that is really undefinable. At what point is a connection strong enough to merit action? And does support of terrorism constitute a threat, or simply support of Al Quaeda? What we do know is that these terrorist groups do have ties between each other, loose ties but ties nonetheless, reaching back to the first real international terrorist group Al-Islam in Egypt in the 70's, from which Bin Laden gained his training and reputation and which branched in Hesbola, PLO, and so forth.

The cop out is fine I guess, but I can't just take your word for it.

Again, my statement is that there wasn't enough evidence of a link between Al-Qaeda and Iraq. Of course, the question as to whether the evidence justified war is rather subjective, but there has to be a threshold of intelligence, evidence, and proof that supports a claim before you take action. You don't just imprison a man for murder if one witness comes forward, or, if you do, you can't seriously claim to be democratic, just, or fair. You look at all the other evidence and facts that surround a case and make a logical, intelligent decision as to what the evidence states. The evidence here is weak at best, almost non-existent at worst. Going to war is obviously a more dangerous, costly, and morally poignant act than sending someone to prison; as such, the evidence should be more evident and more precise then evidence for holding a man guilty of a crime. I believe my argument here is cogent; you might disagree, but I think it's fair to say that at worst the evidence should be beyond a reasonable doubt. That wasn't done with Iraq. There was plenty of doubt, among the CIA, among the Richard Clarke, and among Sec. of State Powell about the intelligence gathered. The link was weak, even according to the National Commision on Terrorist Atacks upon the United States-- a group that arguably has in its best interest the appearance of American propriety in its invasion of Iraq.

Evidence is a funny thing, because if you're smart enough and resolved enough, you can find evidence for even the most ludicrous claims. True, the more ludicrous the claim, the harder it is to build a decent case, but I'm sure that if someone with half a brain decides to find evidence for the Iluminati, or the NWO, or aliens, or big-foot, they can find a decent amount of evidence. Still, we do not just jump up and say, "Run, the aliens are coming." We hold that some evidence is not good enough to convince us of the existence of most of these things; as such, some evidence of an Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection shouldn't be good enough to prove the existence of a connection. Intelligence can get things wrong (as we found from the WMD fiasco) and rumors, innuendo, and eye-witness accounts can many times be unrealiable.

"lol sorry for the cop out but its 1 am and I have no desire to find the original info placing the Rep guard Col at the planning meeting."

Well by all means, continue to make statements and then when asked to defend them, just say you don't have the desire to do so. Granted, one cannot be expected to immediately recall where and when they read about something, but at the same time it should say something when you don't have the "desire" to source a fact that you had stated.

OOH OOH! I FOUND AN EASIER LINK!

Neither country has English as it's first language! That's why bush doesn't Like Korea or France, either!