Poll Says Most Believe Saddam-9/11 Link [Archive]

zimv20

Jul 1, 2003, 06:14 PM

link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=536&ncid=536&e=4&u=/ap/20030701/ap_on_re_us/iraq_poll)

Seven in 10 people in a poll say the Bush administration implied that Iraq (news - web sites) and its leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) were involved in the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States.

And a majority, 52 percent, say they believe the United States has found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization.

the mis/disinformation continues. i think it's disingenuous for anyone to take stock in a statement like "americans support bush and the iraq war" when americans are so badly informed.

Ugg

Jul 1, 2003, 08:48 PM

I really think it is all about Arabs and Islam. Americans have lumped them all together and see only the dark skin and flowing robes , the beheadings in Riyadh, the burka and the segregated mosques. It's racism of the worst kind.

SPG

Jul 1, 2003, 10:46 PM

I thought the polls saying how mis informed people are were just as misinformed until I started asking people the same questions. Most of my friends are well informed, yet many of my acquaintances who aren't as informed lined right up with the poll numbers.

SPG

Jul 1, 2003, 10:50 PM

I think it's up to us to inform the misinformed. Not political spin, just the truth of what's going on.

IJ Reilly

Jul 1, 2003, 11:06 PM

Just today, addressing the difficulties the US troops are having pacifying Iraq, President Bush said that we will continue to fight the war on terrorism.

The man is utterly shameless.

Ugg

Jul 2, 2003, 12:26 PM

Link (http://alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=16287)

An interesting piece from Alternet on Islam and terrorism.

Desertrat

Jul 5, 2003, 04:27 PM

Seems to me it's reasonable to assume that Saddam Hussein came to really, really dislike us after Gulf War I. Okay?

It is my understanding that "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." originated in the Arab world. It was used by us in Afghanistan during the USSR's invasion there. (Our common mistake is in the assumption that such short-term alliances are long-term. Dumb.)

It was reported that our Special Forces found and destroyed an Al Qaida training camp over in eastern Iraq, early on in GW II.

The connection, then, is not an irrational assumption.

'Rat

Ugg

Jul 5, 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
It was reported that our Special Forces found and destroyed an Al Qaida training camp over in eastern Iraq, early on in GW II.

The connection, then, is not an irrational assumption.

'Rat

Reported but never independently confirmed. There was ample evidence to believe that it was a terrorist training camp but the links to al Qaeda were never established.

Once again, Saddam's regime was secular in nature and Osama's was based on Muslim fundamentalism. The chances of them ever seeing eye to eye are mighty slim. That's like Ralph Nader supporting Rush Limbaugh.

As the link in my previous post indicates, most Americans lump all Arabs and Muslims together without ever bothering to think that just like the neverending variety of Christians, Muslims do not see eye to eye in all matters. The Iran/Iraq war comes to mind. The fact that the majority of al Qaeda recruits came from Saudi Arabia and none have been proven to be Iraqis sort of lends credence to the idea that Americans are deluding themselves by thinking there was a connection.

It remains an assumption and is less and less rational as time goes on.

Desertrat

Jul 5, 2003, 05:48 PM

Maybeso, maybeno, Ugg. I have no way of knowing, and neither do you...

Rather than saying I supported the war, I prefer to say that I have a lack of antipathy against having done it. Hussein was the kinda guy for whom I grew up believing, "That fella just needs killin'." The death rate among Iraqis, particularly such as the Kurds, will be a lot less in the future than in the past--and I reckon that's about as good as it will ever get.

'Rat

Ugg

Jul 5, 2003, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Desertrat
The death rate among Iraqis, particularly such as the Kurds, will be a lot less in the future than in the past--and I reckon that's about as good as it will ever get.

'Rat

Well, the death rate the last couple months sure doesn't indicate that.

The Kurds are the clear winners of the war. They have benefitted more than everyone else, and since so little infrastructure was destroyed in the north they are having the fewest post-war problems. I am glad that the Kurds are no longer under Saddam's thumb. The question remains though as to whether this will spur Kurdish separatists to take action and further inflame tensions in the Iraq, Turkey, US triangle.

Desertrat

Jul 5, 2003, 06:15 PM

Every now and then I sorta wonder at the strong notions of existing governments against granting autonomy or freedom to such as the Kurds. How are their ideas of freedom ignored, while the ideas of freedom on the part of Bosnians somehow are seen as justifiable? For sure, the Kurds have been crapped on by almost everybody for what seems like forever...

That part of the world has been a mess since we, the Brits/French/Germans jumped in there in the early part of the 20th century. Not that the Ottoman Empire was all that wonderful, by modern view.

Not that I'm an expert on that part of the world, but whether the western influence/policies/actions derive from leftist or rightist views, whatever will be done will most likely be wrong.

'Rat

mattd

Jul 5, 2003, 06:40 PM

The guy who planned 9/11 went to Baghdad a few times.

IJ Reilly

Jul 5, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Ugg
Reported but never independently confirmed. There was ample evidence to believe that it was a terrorist training camp but the links to al Qaeda were never established.

This "terrorist training camp" was located within the northern no-fly zone in Kurdish Iraq. You'll notice that after it was "discovered," we promptly heard nothing more about it. Two possible explanations: (1) it wasn't the "smoking gun" the administration hoped it would be, or (2) we were only expected to retain a vague fragment of information about the existence of "terrorist training camps" in Iraq.

mattd

Jul 5, 2003, 07:44 PM

The only camps I've hear about is a plo camp and other palestinian training camps.

pseudobrit

Jul 5, 2003, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by mattd
The guy who planned 9/11 went to Baghdad a few times.

And Boston, too. Massachusetts must be behind 9/11.

pseudobrit

Jul 5, 2003, 07:55 PM

Originally posted by mattd
The only camps I've hear about is a plo camp and other palestinian training camps.

Which has do with camps in Iraq how?

Maclarny

Jul 6, 2003, 12:08 AM

Stand back everyone! I think I've found some WMDs! Yes, these weapons of mass deception are no more than the same evidence used to "justify" the need for war. Let's face it people, we've all been lied to. The links have not been shown and the real Weapons of mass destruction have not been found. The Bush administration seems to want to achieve it's goals by any means necessary, even if that means lying to same people that they are saying they are trying to protect and quite frankly I'm sick of it.

mattd

Jul 6, 2003, 10:08 AM

It has to do with Iraq because they was in Iraq. Give the wmd **** time, we knew he had them the 6 years when the UN was inside Iraq looking for them.

And Boston, too. Massachusetts must be behind 9/11 Maybe someone in Boston, just like maybe in Iraq(he had meetings with top Iraqi officials).

Maclarny

Jul 6, 2003, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by mattd
It has to do with Iraq because they was in Iraq. Give the wmd **** time, we knew he had them the 6 years when the UN was inside Iraq looking for them.

Bush obviously didn't want to give the United Nations time to find them and if they had found them there would have been much greater support for the war.

IJ Reilly

Jul 6, 2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by Maclarny
Bush obviously didn't want to give the United Nations time to find them and if they had found them there would have been much greater support for the war.

Yes, and we need to understand the neocon foreign policy philosophy currently in ascendancy in the White House: that the United States can and should use its military power to pursue its interests abroad, whatever they may be. In keeping with this theory, "going it alone" is not a bad thing; in fact it may be preferable to compromising on U.S. interests in the name of international consent and cooperation. If these policies seem to be no more than a baby step away from outright and unrepentant imperialism, well, that's because it's true.

zimv20

Jul 6, 2003, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by mattd
It has to do with Iraq because they was in Iraq.

there is no conclusive evidence to support that. does your willingness to believe it mean you have access to hard information that the public doesn't, or is it simply a reflection of what the WH and the media told you in the run up to the war?

if the latter, you're part of the mistaken 52%.

mattd

Jul 6, 2003, 04:27 PM

Just like there is no mass graves. If you people had your way, the Iraqi people would still be getting tortured, raped, killed and getting their ears cut off.

Ugg

Jul 6, 2003, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by mattd
Just like there is no mass graves. If you people had your way, the Iraqi people would still be getting tortured, raped, killed and getting their ears cut off.

They still are.... Oh, you mean that Saddam himself is no longer responsible for it. That is true.

The failure of the US to provide for a secure post-war state has resulted in violence that in some aspects far exceeds anything that Saddam did. There are roving gangs, unexploded cluster bombs, religious groups that are enforcing a new reign of terror, polluted water, depleted uranium contamination, lack of medical care, etc etc. YOU people (sic) did get your way and have made a bad situation worse. Who is to blame now?

zimv20

Jul 6, 2003, 05:25 PM

mattd

Jul 6, 2003, 08:38 PM

Roving gangs, but thats what the ak-47 is for. "religious groups that are enforcing a new reign of terror" please cite. "polluted water, depleted uranium contamination, lack of medical care" Polluted water can be fixed, as for the depleted uranium, They should stop using it because its toxic and the medical care was always bad.

No I know alot about Saddam, If that was your question.

"the ends do not justify the means" In some cases, but in the Iraqi case, they are better off now.

Blame? YOU people(liberals) like to do that alot, blaming other people that is.

zimv20

Jul 6, 2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by mattd
Roving gangs, but thats what the ak-47 is for. "religious groups that are enforcing a new reign of terror" please cite. "polluted water, depleted uranium contamination, lack of medical care" Polluted water can be fixed, as for the depleted uranium, They should stop using it because its toxic and the medical care was always bad.

No I know alot about Saddam, If that was your question.

"the ends do not justify the means" In some cases, but in the Iraqi case, they are better off now.

Blame? YOU people(liberals) like to do that alot, blaming other people that is.

oh my god, you are hysterical. "mattd" -- is that some sort of bush apologist daemon that's running?

or are we witnessing the return of sanfelipe?