Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Things to add

I know this is very incomplete. Some stuff to add...

• 9/11 Commission Report
• Doug Feith letter
• more official statements
• criticisms
• make names and places (and dates?) into wiki links

ObsidianOrder 04:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Add this to your list:

• Refutations of each one of these, as published by the 911 Commission, most major newspapers, and confirmed by the conclusions of nearly every intelligence agency on earth.

Seriously, this is a laugh. Nearly everything on your timeline is sourced from Weekly Standard, Washington Times, and other right wing publications. There's even a freerepublic link or two. Worse, the points made are innacurate, distorted, and completely counter to every bit of common sense (not to mention intelligence information) that we have. Meetings are cited that didn't take place, and many of your claims are based on Michael Moore-worthy innuendo. This crap has been refuted over and over again by legitimate journalists, but of course people keep perpetuating the claim because it serves their political interest. So now ObsidianOrder has copied his web page here, making us refute these mostly inaccurate statements one by one.

And WTF is up with the title of this page?? I looked at this a couple hours ago and it was something else. The current name is terrible but I guess it makes a point. But direct refutation might make the point more, umm, directly.

Anyway, thanks for wasting everyone's time, OO. I plan to refute this crap line by line over the next few months and hopefully anyone else researching this topic will join in. Eventually this page will be a snopes-style refutation of this tired and overplayed argument. --csloat 09:07, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I copied my page, since it is the most complete synopsis of this type you will find. I hereby donate it to Wikipedia ;) By all means, if you can refute them, do so. I am genuinely interested in this, and I don't think it's a waste of time. I have also researched it in depth and have found substantial refutations for only a couple of claims (which are not in this list, although perhaps they should be together with the refutation). There is no innuendo, only the (alleged) facts stated in the most concise, factual way I could, with a source for each. "right wing publications"? You mean The Guardian, PBS and Ney Yorker? Damn, I didn't know those were right wing. (btw the freerepublic link simply cites a Evening Standard article). As for the title, well, people keep moving it around :-/ What title do you propose? ObsidianOrder 09:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Weekly Standard and the other pubs I named are right wing. You're right the ones you name here are not, but they are not where most of these claims come from. I'm not going to mess with the title -- I think "alleged" should stay, but I'm not going to fight the issue, because I think the substantive issues are more important. It will take me a while but as I've been researching this I have seen answers to most of this, so I will find them and link them and so forth, and then this will be, as you say, the most complete synopsis on this issue. --csloat 10:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article disgusts on a few levels:

First of all, the title, without a hint of the ambiguous or unsubstantiated nature of the alleged links.

Then, there's the single line "It is important to note that not all of these claims are credible or can be substantiated with other evidence." Excuse me, but if that is the case, what the heck are those claims doing in the article?

Last, there's the luscious overarc of the article... justification for the 'war on terror' being one that requires no distinction between Iraq and Afghanistan, Syria or Saudi. It might well be titled 'The artificially constructed justification for a neverending war on terror' and include a section on how 75% of FOX viewers honestly believe in this connection (and WMD's having been found in Iraq) despite the absolute absence of credible evidence.

This article is an embarrassment to the Wikipedia that dwarfs most POV disputes or content edit wars I've seen. It's an assemblage of broken baubles. I recommend it be merged/purged with the content at Misinformation_and_rumors_about_the_September_11,_2001_attacks and September_11,_2001_attacks-- RyanFreisling @ 01:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps just "Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda" would be a better title. I think the text of the article points out that there have been no real links established and that the meetings that may or may not have taken place do not constitute meaningful cooperation with al Qaeda in any sense.--csloat 02:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, it reads like a river of untruth punctuated by disclaimers. That is far from acceptable writing. The narrative should be based on a river of truth, with tangents of ambiguity. -- RyanFreisling @ 02:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

uncited 9/11 "link" is POV

ObsidianOrder, you claim the 9/11 link is for visual timeline, that is ridiculous, the SUPER POV implication is that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, you can't include that without a citation. Separately, I am still surprised a DS9 fan such as yourself had the full details on all the anti anti-war arguments including the pentagon's usage of banned weapons (such as phosphorus projectile weapons) but I will save that for another article and another time. Why do you seemingly defend the U.S. military POV so ardently and have all the counter arguments ready at your immediate disposal? zen master T 06:02, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

zen - it would appear that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 given all the meetings between the hijackers and Iraqi intelligence agents, but whether it was significant or not is quite another matter. a "9/11 comission report" section (which I haven't written yet) really should be added to this article and repeat exactly what the report said about that. we have no proof (at least not declassified), however we do have some highly suggestive circumstantial evidence. during the cold war people acted on far slimmer evidence.

"anti-anti-war" - heh. why do I have the views that I do? probably because I get a lot of my information from reliable sources who're close to/in the action. you may not believe it, but I am not a blind supporter of US policy no matter what it may be (see e.g. [1]). ObsidianOrder 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

question: aside from listing the 9/11 date in the timeline, what is the POV you see here? also, what are the factual inacuracies? ObsidianOrder 06:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The whitehouse has annoucned that Iraq was not involved with 9/11. zen master T 06:42, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

source? how exactly was that worded? ObsidianOrder 06:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is bi-partisan commission concluding no operational links between Iraq and Al Qaeda [2] I think the title of this article is inaccurate/POV, should be "Non-operational links between Al-Qaeda and pre-invasion Iraq". Oh and here is link by Iraq health minister concluding the U.S. used banned weapons in Falluja. [3] Have you seen the movie Control Room? It's good. zen master T 07:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"napalm gas, a poisonous cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that makes the human body melt ... the world’s deadliest weapon" - you expect me to take this crap seriously? napalm is not a gas and it is not poisonous. as for deadliest, well, come on. the restrictions on the use of incendiaries are detailed here [4] and the US has apparently complied with them, even though it is not a signatory to that treaty. ObsidianOrder 07:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is they are illegal to used, banned weapons. You failed to mention phosphorus projectile weapons? zen master T 07:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"illegal" and "banned" by what law and by whom, exactly? If you are thinking of Geneva Protocol III, that is not an outright ban on incendiaries, merely restrictions on their use, and incidentally the US is not a signatory to it, although it does comply with it in practice. WP is just another incendiary, what is your point? ObsidianOrder 11:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

please discuss before moving

Tony, I'd appreciate it if you at least talked the move over before doing it. I disagree, I'd say the "alleged" part is pretty well covered in the text (although of course you can help improve that). Some links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda almost certainly exist, whether or not they are significant and whether or not there are links with 9/11 is a different question. Even if you really don't believe any such thing exists - have a look at Loch Ness Monster (hint: it's not the Alleged creature living in Loch Ness). I will undo the move, if you really insist on such a move, let's talk it over and then to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves. ObsidianOrder 07:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Update: I was not aware that it is possible to revert a move as long as it was back to an existing redirect without an edit history, so I messed that up by editing the "Links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq" page. Sorry. I moved back to the closest thing possible. Let's avoid any further move craziness, shall we? If you really want to do a move, please (a) propose your favorites here (b) talk it over until we have a small set of possibilities (c) post those on Wikipedia:Requested moves and wait for the vote. Okay? ObsidianOrder 11:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about "Alleged Links between Iraq and al Qaeda"? Also, since the title is Iraq, not Saddam, this should include information about al Qaeda's new freedom of operation in post-Saddam Iraq.--csloat 17:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well chaps, don't forget to vote on the move. Results of WP:RM discussions are normally regarded as conclusive--until someone WP:RM's the article somewhere else.

By the way I'll assume that someone else is going to take care of actually sourcing each claim and noting what evaluations have been put on them by various agencies and independent intelligence analysts. This wouldn't be much of an encyclopedia article if those claims were represented as unequivocally factual. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are not presented as unequivocally factual. There are already sources for each claim (although I'd like to see something more detailed in the article itself, like "claimed by X, as reported by Y on Z date"). Evaluations, absolutely, that would be good. ObsidianOrder 21:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened to Alleged links between Al-Qaeda and pre-invasion Iraq?

That title is/was better. zen master T 07:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What happened is that Tony jumped in and moved the page without talking it over. You want to move it, go through the regular procedure. I am strongly opposed, since the weight of evidence suggests some links exist (even if only in the form of diplomatic feelers). ObsidianOrder 07:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I liked Tony's version but I went one better with Alleged non-operational links between Al-Qaeda and pre-invasion Iraq, the citation for that is above, the congressional bipartisan commission concluded unanimously that there were "no operational links". Which actually means this article should be deleted, not renamed, but I digress. zen master T 07:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Training, diplomatic connections, funding, sanctuary, etc are "links" which are "non-operational". There is no alleged operational (i.e. joint op) link in the whole list. ObsidianOrder 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both you and Tony have done controversial moves which would obviously be opposed without either talking about them or going through the procedure for doing a move, in effect relying on the fact that such a move is not immediately undoable because of the created redirect page. This is very much in bad faith. I will get an admin to restore the status quo ante and then you can go to Wikipedia:Requested moves where you can propose alternatives for the title so that everyone has a chance to discuss them and vote. ObsidianOrder 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just read this section after making my comment above (in things to do). I think "Alleged links between al Qaeda and Iraq" is fine. The "non-operational" thing is mumbo jumbo; that should be added to the intro - the fact that the 911 Commission established (conclusively I might add) that there were no operational links. What's interesting is OO talking about bad faith here yet in the above comment indicates that the sum of the Iraq-alQ connection is probably "only in the form of diplomatic feelers." If that is the case, why is that not stated plainly at the beginning of the article? I suspect that OO is well aware that most of these claims are BS but is putting them out there anyway because they support his political position -- they are throwaway arguments. But perhaps he really believes all this stuff. Anyway I suggest that this page can be made much better not only with point by point refutation but also with key statements of the conclusions of major organizations and committees that have actually studied this. I also think there should be a section specifically discussing this as part of the discredited "state sponsorship" theory of terrorism that was nonsense back in the mid-90s when Laurie Mylroie (perhaps following in the footsteps of Claire Sterling) put it forth with regard to the WTC bombing and is still nonsense now. In my very-POV and not-so-humble opinion, this thoroughly refuted theory is the biggest obstacle we have to real counterterrorism in the 21st century. --csloat 09:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

csloat - I don't think it was just diplomatic feelers, I said that there is overwhelming evidence that (at a minimum) such existed, therefore there is a link, although the extent of it is debatable. Put forth all the evidence and let everyone decide for themselves. The 911 Commission report is interesting, but it is not the last word on the subject, and it does not say what most people who use it to support their points claim it says. And yes, a summary of its findings is probably the top thing that should be added to this article. As for state sponsorship, I think it was actually van Creveld that first stated the notion of "sanctuary" as a prerequisite for an insurgency, it applies just as well to terrorism, and I don't think you can refute it because it is obviously correct (also see [5]). ObsidianOrder 10:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The state sponsorship thesis does not apply to al Qaeda and similar groups. "Sanctuary" comes from failed states, not from states with strong central authorities (since such groups are a big threat to such states). Failed states - or areas of near-anarchy - are where such groups thrive, hence their extensive bases in Afghanistan, and their pervasiveness in places like parts of pakistan, yemen, and even northern Iraq when it was under US/UK control with the no-fly zones. And the theory that al Qaeda specifically was sponsored by a state has been refuted over and over in counterterrorism literature, despite the crap that is published in trade paperbacks like Mylroie's book. So van Creveld's theory is not "obviously correct" here; it doesn't apply at all; al Qaeda is not an "insurgency" unless you consider it a global insurgency -- one that specifically pits itself against such states as Hussein's, which it was considered a threat to (legitimately so since it wanted to overthrow them).--csloat 10:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"global insurgency" - now that you mention it, yes, that is exactly right. Al-Qaeda operates from sanctuaries just like any insurgency, and all of the states which have served as sanctuaries are part of "The Gap" (as per Thomas Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" [6]). Yes, some are "failed states", but other are rigidly authoritarian, the two are not as different as you might think. ObsidianOrder 10:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes and according to your logic, the US, UK, and Germany, are among the states who have given terrorists "sanctuary" and "sponsored" al Qaeda. That's the problem here. There is no state-sponsored organization. There is an organization who manages to get a variety of sponsorship from a variety of states, without being controlled by any one state. It makes it very difficult to destroy them; attacking one of the states often plays right into their hands.--csloat 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Sanctuary" is where you're safe from the locals (for example from the police and military) and also protected by them to some extent from external threats. Presumably while in Afghanistan bin Laden was not particularly worried about being arrested by the Taliban, or about them allowing a US snatch team to get to him. That is hardly true in the US/UK/Germany, obviously. ObsidianOrder 11:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Uh-huh. That's one guy. We're talking about a large international organization. But you presumably know that. Again, my point is that the theory of state sponsorship, where a single state - or a small group of states working together - sponsors the group in order to influence what the group does; in order to use the group as an instrument of policy. That isn't happening with al Qaeda. And, to return to your definition of sanctuary, that is most certainly not something al Qaeda as an organization ever had in Iraq prior to 2003. Now, of course, it is a different matter. --csloat 16:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alleged in title?

So shouldn't the title have Alleged in it? zen master T 18:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this is something that only Wikipedia:Requested moves can sort out.

My case for "alleged" is that all the information seems to come from undisclosed intelligence sources, and as such is unverifiable. The most we can do under NPOV (ie without taking a stance on the reliability of US intelligence--which would be *extremely* problematic) is say who disclosed it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:44, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's worse than that - a lot of it comes from intelligence sources where the agency who reported the info also announced their conclusions which were that the "links" were not substantial. The intel agencies in question have all concluded that most of these claims are bunk. --csloat 20:40, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)