Possible Saddam-Al Qaeda Link Seen In U.N.

[Babs]

Possible link here with Saddam and Al Qaeda....Oil-For-Food program. Documents found revealing ties.

"Now, buried in some of the United Nation's own confidential documents, clues can be seen thaat underscore the possibility of just such a Saddam-Al Qaeda link..."

"Unraveling the mystery requires much greater access to Oil-For-Food records than the United Nations currently allows."

Fox News

here

(...a great link to other links of fine information )

Edited September 17, 2004 by Babs

[wunarmdscissor]

erm ok everyone knows that saddam was at it with the oil for food programme.

But this article only implicates saddam with al queada through distant association.

there are millions of people around the world who deal with people who deal with people who deal with people taht may have a distant link with terrorism.

It doesnt mean they are activbley supporting let alone helping the terrorists, in fact saddam might not have even known that the shady deals he was involved in were with a businessmen who may or may not have links with al queada.

its all very tenuous babs.

[wcturnersr]

I guess we will see what happens. But I would not put it past Saddam. One more thing. Wasn't France part of the oil for food deal?

[Babs]

wun...it is very enlightening material.

Edited September 17, 2004 by Babs

[wunarmdscissor]

at least elaborate on why exactly its enlightening???

I mean in the middle east every major businessman has probably had dealings wsith the business side of some terrorist organisation.

Its the politics of that region, it doesnt howvere mean that they are all giulty of aiding them.

[Babs]

Good logic....I guess you can talk yourself out of anything, wun.

More information on: 'Lid Off Oil-For-Food Scam'

here

[Celumnaz]

The US needs to get out of the UN.

[fmorrow6]

elaborate please.

[Babs]

I guess we will see what happens.  But I would not put it past Saddam.  One more thing.  Wasn't France part of the oil for food deal?

270298[/snapback]

Yes. You can look at other articles on the link I gave you and do a search on France and the Food-For-Oil program.

...here's another article about France. Go into the link and do a search for France and the Food-For-Oil program, you will find tons of articles that deal with France. I found "The Truth about the UN Oil-for-Food program" _Oil for Palace_Oil for France...for an example. Tells a lot.

here

here

Edited September 17, 2004 by Babs

[Fluffybunny]

The Patriotic Union Of Kurdistan?

[Celumnaz]

Well, I'd have to do alot of fact finding and research and make a paper so I don't get ripped to shreads for being all 'baseless', but I'll try to semi-summarize... and I should also say that it's my opinion. heh. Should have said my comment as an opinion too...

It's part of what I observe in people. How they attack and accuse what they themselves are actually guilty of. I can't think of any 'nice' examples. A black woman accusing a white man of being racist, while the truth is many times the opposite, the white guy could care less and the black woman goes home still ranting about that 'cracker'. Will probably get me chewed out, but I see that same kind of thing from many Democrats. It's the pimp that accuses the preacher of infidelity. The mole who points the finger at everyone else and screams "he's the mole!". And I listen to the French, German, and most of the others in the UN and I hear the same stuff.

The UN doesn't care about the world. Each country in the UN is working for their country.

I don't remember what countries, told you I was gonna get eaten alive for my fact checking, but that last round of countries in the ethics commitee made me sick.

Every case I've seen it's making a dumb, unarmed world population, and they're set up as the smarter than us eliteists that tell us what we need.

I have no clue how much money the US puts into the UN and it's operations, but my guess is more than the rest combined? Maybe more than the rest combined for a couple years in a year? That's taxpayer money, the US govt. does not generate money it can only steal it, that is going to support people that absolutely hate us.

We have the right to overthrow our governtment. We need to be armed to do it. If the UN were to gain control of the US military in total like it wants, and then decides to send them here to protect the UN friendly govt (say, Kerry's govt.) from the US citizens, my son and I could well be shooting at each other, or my neighbor, or my cousin, that is sooo wrong.

They're full of double talk, they have the backroom deals, where is the checks and balances? Promises are made and broken constantly. They don't care about the world, only about their individual countries, and under the table deals against sanctions are peachy. They don't listen to reason. They go back on their word. They have no backbone to follow through on ethical decisions.

So much more. Really should get all the facts together before spouting off my accusations like that, but I don't have all that together, just a quick summary that got cut short cause it's lunch time and I'm hungry!

[Permakid]

While surfing the net last night I came across this article. I was going to post it somewhere else, but it seems to fit this discussion.

LINK

In case you don't bother to read it, here is a quick summary:

A 2003 study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes or PIPA (updated with similar results in April of this year) guaged how informed people were about the Iraq war based on what news sources they used. The study focused on three misconceptions: (1) Iraq was deeply tied to al Qaeda and involved with 911, (2) the U.S. found evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and (3) the world public opinion of the Iraq war was favorable.

The study asked respondents what network they got most of their news from. They found that Fox News viewers were most likely to hold one or more misconceptions about the war, while viewers of PBS and listeners of NPR were the least likely to hold misconceptions. It broke down in terms of viewership/listenership like this:

Respondents who held one or more misconceptions:

Fox News - 80%

CBS - 71%

ABC - 61%

NBC - 55%

CNN - 55%

Print Media - 47%

PBS/NPR - 23%

The study also found that the vast majority of the uninformed were Bush supporters (including Democrats who support Bush).

Here's a disturbing conclusion from the article:

But a larger issue exist here. The report shows a clear link between misinformation and support for Bush's war. Here's where the Orwellian factor comes in. Not only did Bush & co. mislead the public into war, but they had ready accomplices in the network news organizations.

This forces serious questions about the motives of those who hold the sacred trust of the public airwaves. It also demonstrates how powerful TV news is at affecting public perceptions and consequently, public policy.

Babs, it seems you've been had.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Permakid

[Fluffybunny]

Permakid, I love the article. Thanks for posting it.

Unfortunately it won't make much difference as all the evidence in the world isn't going to change certain peoples minds here. There are some levelheaded folks on both sides of the equation that will pay attention to different factors that come up and be open to learning from new information, I know I have, the same goes for several others here. The most vehemently vocal here will not change though, regardeless of what information has been put in front of them.

As I have said in the past; I could post a picture of Bush blowing up a busload of handicapped children and the responses I would get would be along the lines of: 1. The busdriver was a Dem anyway, and 2. The childrens chairs where reported to be WMD, so they were all terrorists anyway.

Oh and there would be "go bush 2004" at the end...

[Celumnaz]

Vote Bush 2004!

Just kidding, I didn't vote for him and won't again. But I don't really fully trust that study either. Are we sure they don't have an agenda too? Who are they funded by? Numbers don't lie, but liars use numbers.

[Permakid]

Fluffy,

I also have been swayed by opposing arguments on this forum and elsewhere. But I also realize the truth in what you say about some people refusing to accept new ideas. I just wish that more people would be open-minded in their search for the truth.

Sometimes I just give up arguing when faced with very stubborn people. But other times, I believe that the stakes are just too high to stop the discussion. This is one of those cases.

Celumnaz,

But I don't really fully trust that study either. Are we sure they don't have an agenda too? Who are they funded by?

Did you research them? If not, this may help:

Here is a LINK to PIPA's website. And this LINK tells about their origins, sponsorship, and funding.

So far, I don't see an agenda.

[Guest Lottie]

This is nothing new about money going through Switzerland...ever heard of Swiss banks accounts and why so many filthy rich and powerful people use them?

n 1934 the Swiss passed a law which made it illegal for any bank to disclose any information about an account, including the fact of whether an account actually exists or not. 

This act, passed in response to the growing strength of the Nazi revolution, and underpinned by a long-standing commitment of the Swiss to the notion of privacy, was the embryo of the now infamous  Swiss Bank Account.

As for links with terrorists I think every goverment in every country has had dealings with them.

[Permakid]

I did some independent research on PIPA, and I can find nothing that discredits them as an organization with an agenda, hidden or otherwise. In fact, the strongest evidence of bias is the fact that they're partially funded by Ben & Jerry's, and we all know what a bunch of treehugging liberal wackos they are.

[Permakid]

I just found the latest PIPA poll (Aug. 5-11) on American views about the Iraq war - including the aforementioned misconceptions. Bad news for Bush indeed. Here's the press release:

LINK

[Babs]

Celumnaz....I agree with your speech on the UN....it was great! ...hope you had a good lunch.

[wunarmdscissor]

celumnaz your speech about the UN was right nbut dont try to kid yourselve on there the USA is probably the worst for that kinda behaviour out of the lot of them.

The American Government hasnt been this shining bastion of glowing morals.

LOL.

Come on stop portaying the world as if it were immoral Europeans that are slimy two faced double dealing backstabbibng morons and americans as pillars of moral guidance , trying to spread the sweet smell of freedom and goodwill.

America is just as bad.

Kyoto agreement for one. The only country in the WORLD that didnt sign up for it because the USA was looking after its OWN interests.

I have no real problem with it, i obviously dont like it but what can i do about it, the problem ive got is when people make speeches like that , thinkly veiled attacks on euopeans as if americans arent identical.

Great article Permakid, nice to see it being ignored by the usual suspects.

Back on topic.

If we're gonna link saddam to al queada through such tenuous links the lets just go further.

Pity we cant put ronald reagon on trial for 9/11, after all he was in charge of the american government that funded and trained Bin ladens Mujihadeen in afghanistan was it not??

Theres still good old maggie.

[Permakid]

Tenuous links indeed! Good description, Wun.

Bab's article reminded me of "Michael Moore Logic" the only difference being that it is coming from the opposite end of the spectrum.

[+joc]

Quote from Permakid's Link

Washington DC: In 30 out of 35 countries polled, from all regions of the world, a majority or plurality would prefer to see John Kerry win the US presidential election—especially traditional US allies. The only countries where President Bush was preferred were the Philippines, Nigeria, and Poland. India and Thailand were divided. On average, Kerry was favored by more than a two-to-one margin—46% to 20% (weighted for variations in population, the ratio was not significantly different). Overall, one-third did not give an answer.

I personally don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about us. The reason the rest of the world wants Kerry is because they hate Bush...not because they love Kerry, and the reason they hate Bush is because he screwed up their sacred cow Oil for Food program. France and Germany weren't the only ones sucking the teet. We are at war with the terrorists and if the rest of the world doesn't want to make the sacrifice to defeat them then screw 'em. We will defeat them without France, Germany, and the rest of the pacifist woosee countries.

BUSH 2004!!! LANDSLIDE!!!

BUSH 2004!!! LANDSLIDE!!!

BUSH 2004!!! LANDSLIDE!!!

now put THAT in your collective bongs and draw deeply

[Guest Lottie]

We are at war with the terrorists and if the rest of the world doesn't want to make the sacrifice to defeat them then screw 'em.  We will defeat them without France, Germany, and the rest of the pacifist woosee countries.

Aren't you forgetting that the War is already happening? There has already been a huge sacrafice by countries to help the US....the UK for one being your biggest allies....Its so easy to forget this isn't it.

This thread it seems to me is a lame attempt at bashing European countries not the UN. Nice try.

[wunarmdscissor]

erm ive got news for you joc.

People have held this opinion of george bush pre-911 and pre the Iraq war.

World opinion has always held bush in this regard.

I mean your obssessed with this oil for food issue that is just a side issue.

World opinion of bush was just as bad when he refused to sign the Kypto agreement, because of fat cats in america that were bankrolling his republican party.

Such an idealistic leader eh?

Edited September 19, 2004 by wunarmdscissor

[wunarmdscissor]

Oh and lottie ytour right , the racism against europeans shones through in this thread.

Illinformed commments about countrys that they dont understand or even bother to learn about.