Talk:Timeline of Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 2

this page is not about the gulf war
Stuff establishing "possible motive" for Saddam to attack the US back in 1991 has absolutely nothing to do with this page. I will continue to remove it and I will ask that if you think it needs to stay please explain why. The evidence you are including here should directly mention a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda; if you have to add your own speculation to establish its relevance, it is original research and unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Thank you. csloat (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Threat
In 1990 Saddam made a direct threat against the US; this was referenced in the NY Times (see below). This note keeps on being deleted first as being SOAP and then and not being directly about Saddam and al-Qaeda working together.


 * July 20 Saddam Hussein threatens the US with attacks in a meeting he calls with United States Ambassader to Baghad, April Glaspie:

"''"The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This is understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of - flexing muscles and pressure.

If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you. "''"

I argue that this established Saddam's desire to directly attack the US either through Iraqi Intelligence Services or by working with non-state actors who want to attack the US. The "individual Arabs" Saddam speaks of latter did attack the US and US interests around the world. This quote simply established motivation to work with al-Qaeda.

ITBlair (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * your argument in this regard may be accurate but it is original research -- see WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your speculations -- that quote does not mention al Qaeda and indeed there is no evidence Saddam even knew al Qaeda existed in 1991.  There is of course a connection to the Gulf War and al Qaeda -- bin Laden tried to get the Saudis to approve a plan for him to attack the Iraqis.  The Saudis asked the Americans to do that for them instead, and bin Laden got very upset and that is a big part of his animosity towards the US.  But the stuff you are putting in here does not mention bin Laden or al Qaeda and it will continue to be removed.  Please review WP:NOR before adding more of this sort of thing to the article; thanks. csloat (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Saddam made a Threat and this threat should be noted. I am not publishing my speculatons, my inferences as to whether he actually tried to implement this threat would be original research. However, I made no attempt to publish them. The Threat Itself is not Original Research or SOAP. Even in a standard criminal investigation (which intelligence is not) a Threat against a Victum by a suspect would be a key bit of evidence.

I think we should publish the threat and let the Readers draw whatever conclusions they wish to. I hope other Editors will chime in on this issue.

ITBlair (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your speculation is the only thing connecting those "threats" to this article. That is original research and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  This is not a criminal investigation and the reader is not a juror.  This is an encyclopedia.  Please read this page and do not add further original research to this article as it will be removed. csloat (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not Original Research. The Threat was made and documented. It stands on firmer grounds then the recent summaries of the Senate Reports on Al-Qaeda, it is not an inference from murky data, it is a fact. The intentions, planning, and actual operations of Terrorist organizations are always very murky. There is not much documented evidence available. This is clearly documented. This is "information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda." It is not complete, conclusive or final. However, it is directly relevant to this issue, well-documented (unlike most information in this area) and should be published. To exclude this information is to "Not Let the Facts Speak for Themselves" (per NPOV), and continues (I think) this article's tendency to selectively cite references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The "threat" is not the original research; the original research is the analysis that connects the threat to this page. I don't care if you want to put the "threat" quotes on the gulf war page but they don't belong here.  Again, see WP:NOR, especially WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this article is focused on meetings "as well as other information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda." That Saddam made the threat to attack the US is clear (A is TRUE); that al-Qaeda attacked the US is also factual (B is TRUE). If I stated that because Saddam made the Threat and Attack occured then I would be guilty of WP: SYN. However, I am not making this connection. I am simply letting the facts speak for themselves. A reader may or may not make this connection. That is something for the Reader to decide, we only have to present the documented facts from a neutral point of view. I think many readers may make this connection, but it is not in the Wiki Article. By Not presenting the fact of a Threat we are limiting the information available to the Reader and moving away from NPOV. It is possible to add that no evidence has been found that Saddam carried out this threat via Al-Qadea has been found.

ITBlair (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that Saddam made a threat says absolutely nothing about any al Qaeda connection. Shall we start an article called Kim Jong-il and al-Qaeda based on a threat from the north korean leader?  Or Hugo Chavez and al-Qaeda?  Of course not.  If there was a connection to this article from this particular threat you should be able to find a reliable source making that connection explicit, rather than having to make it yourself as an editor.  This is the very definition of WP:SYN -- you are taking a quote that does not explicitly make this point and you are inserting it into an article to make the point that is not made in the quote.  By placing the quote in this article you are making the connection, and that is improper according to WP:SYN.  csloat (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether Saddam's Threat is Connected to Al-Qaeda or Not is NOT for us (the Editors) to say. I argue that you are commiting a SYN violation by your refusable to allow a well-documented fact to be included. The implication is that No such threats were made, which is untrue (i.e., Do not permit A; note that B (operational links) remains unproven, thus no C is reasonable.  I do not promise to make or unmake the link in this article.  I say leave it up to the reader to make (or not) any connections.  Again, we can explicitly note that no operational links have been demonstrated in the assessment of the current opinion of the Intelligence Agencies.  Similarly, if Hugo Chavez made a direct threat and an attack occured, but no operational links were found it would be entirely reasonable to list both the Threat and the lack of operational links.  We simply do not known what happened, but we can certainly present all the "other information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda."  I argue that a direct threat by Saddam is clearly relevant to this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Whether Saddam's Threat is Connected to Al-Qaeda or Not is NOT for us (the Editors) to say" -- I agree 100%. By putting it on this page, you are connecting Saddam's threat to al Qaeda.  Your implied connection between the two is a violation of WP:SYN.  It is pretty simple, actually, but if you think I am incorrect, start an RfC and we can get some other editors to weigh in.  But I do not believe it serves Wikipedia's purpose to include extraneous information in this article just because an editor can make an argument as to why it is connected.  If no published third party has suggested it is connected, it is not Wikipedia's place to suggest that it is. csloat (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I can only note that it is interesting that Quotes from Saddam (see 2006) where he states (mid-1990s) that Iraq would not use WMD against the US are included in the Time Line, but the quote I propose on his conventional threats are blocked. Again, this is cherry-picking the facts and not letting the Facts Speak for themselves. The Saddam quote allowed is shown below:

"Nightline airs translations of taped conversations of Saddam Hussein speaking candidly with advisers.[251] On the ABC transcript of one of the tapes, Saddam is heard speaking with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz discussing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.[252] Saddam specifically mentions that he had warned the United States in 1989 (when the two countries were allies) that terrorists would eventually gain access to weapons of mass destruction. "Terrorism is coming," the Iraqi leader is translated as saying. "I told the Americans a long time before August 2 [1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S./Iraqi relationship changed dramatically] and told the British as well, I think Hamed was there keeping the meeting minutes with one of them, that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What prevents this technology from developing and people from smuggling it? All of this, before the stories of smuggling, before that, in 1989. I told them, 'In the future, what would prevent that we see a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?'" Saddam later adds, "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."

In terms of Wiki Policy this Information suppression, mainly through the selective representation of sources See [Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial] "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.

Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:

Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. "

You wish to include Quotes from Saddam that imply No links, but block quotes from Saddam that imply a link. In any event I will go and research how to go the Rfc route...

ITBlair (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The quote that is in there is there because the tapes that quote was from were cited by authors such as Stephen Hayes and Tom Jocelyn as evidence that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda. Same with the "blessed july" thing or whatever it is.  If you can show that such authors have cited these earlier threats in the context of that same argument I would agree that it could be included, but you have not yet shown that.  I think WP:NOR is pretty clear on the matter.  This has nothing to do with biased selection of sources -- the only bias here is to eliminate sources that are not actually talking about the topic of the article. csloat (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Saddam Use of Terror?
It might be useful to note that Iraq was on the list of Nations that Directly support Terror and list the relevant background of the Terrorist Organizations and Conferences he supported as well as when. This broader article could point to this Timeline.

For example, Putin claimed he warned the US that Iraq was planning terror attacks on US Soil (See: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/ ).

ITBlair (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. We already have that information in the articles on Saddam Hussein and in numerous articles about the Iraq war.  If you want to start a Saddam Hussein and the PLO article go ahead, but please do not start putting irrelevant information on this article.  However, the Putin warning seems reasonable to include here. csloat (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I added the material to the timeline. I forgot to type an edit summary but here is what I added to the article under 2004:
 * 18 June: Russian President Vladimir Putin claims that Russian intelligence warned the U.S. "that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." CNN reported that Putin "did not elaborate on any details of the warnings of terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al Qaeda terror network," and that Putin "also said Russia had no information that Saddam's regime had actually committed any terrorist acts." [203] csloat (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please also see [] for more on Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The site is very narrow in it's focus on that topic but mainly targets anti American terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikez78 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

documents from the Telegraph
I'm going to be rewriting that section; the documents from the telegraph are not taken seriously by anyone in the Intel community. This article does a nice job of taking Gilmore's allegations apart step by step, but I don't think it's published anywhere reliable; when I track the necessary stuff down I will add it in. There are a couple paragraphs on these documents in the Senate Phase II report; it's pretty clear the Intel Community gave these documents zero credibility. csloat (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Title
Any objections to changing the name of this page to reflect the title of the other page, as per several comments in the most recent AfD? It might help save this from a fourth attempt at AfD. csloat (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Sinatra material
Are you kidding me with this? A Frank Sinatra reference in an opinion piece in a random Iraqi newspaper and you want Wikipedia to interpret this as foreknowledge by Saddam of 9/11? I would eliminate the whole paragraph if you asked me, but Senator Hollings did read it into the CR so I'm ok with leaving it there as is, but I don't see why adding the Sinatra reference adds to it in any conceivable way. I've copyedited it but left it in, but can you explain why it means so much to you? csloat (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh come on man, isn't it obvious? This is the smoking gun. Didn't Frank smoke? It all fits together. James Woolsey probably introduced this evidence, along with his Salman Pak "defector" friends. Impeachable. Dynablaster (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As the court record stated the newspaper chief-editor served to Uday syndicate of Journalists. I don’t know how you can claim it was just a random newspaper? The reporter Naeem Abd Muhalhal that wrote the opinion piece was given special citation by Saddam. Unless you have reason to believe the court record is wrong?

Dynablaster is saying this Article is unsubstantiated. Are you suggesting this opinion piece was never printed? If that is true then these statements shouldn't be on wiki at all. But if it was printed then the statement along with the court records should be presented as history of what took place because it did influence the court. Shouldn't we attempt to understand how the court was influenced to make the decision it did?

This is NO smoking gun as Judge Baer pointed out but it did influence the court and it should be pointed out. How can it NOT be pointed out if you want to get history correct?

I would rather have these statements from the paper put in the Judge Baer court record decision that way the opinions of the court can be added. I know you guys don't like to lead someones opinion of what the opinion piece meant by 'Frank Sinatra song' but it did influence the court and to be honest 'new your new york' makes perfect sense to me.

This 'the wings of a dove and the bullet...' statement why did that get knocked off completely?

It should be written with just the statements by themselves on July 21. With not even a politicians option given because no other opinion took place yet, if you want to get time lines correct. Then again with the court opinion of the statements under Judge Baer's decision.

the removed lines that should be put back: Some notable excerpts:

"Naeem Abd Muhalhal wrote in Al Nasiriyah newspaper on 21 July 2001 - just six weeks before the attacks - that Bin Laden would strike America on the arm that is already hurting, apparently referring to the 1993 bombing of the WTC.

"He also said that Bin Laden would curse Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs, apparently a reference to the song New York, New York.

"Mulhalhal further indicated, The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer. This appears to be a reference to the use of commercial aircraft as a weapon. The information was reported in an IRAQI newspaper who’s editor-in-chief serves as secretary to UDAY HUSSEIN’S Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists. The article expressed IRAQI admiration and support for BIN LADEN’s plans and its appearance in the newspaper would clearly have to be endorsed by SADDAM HUSSEIN himself."

Thank you --OxAO (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The written material is found under the date of its supposed publication. What is quoted below is more than enough. No need to reproduce the same information across different dates.




 * I say "supposed" date of publication because Judge Harold Baer was also persuaded by reports of terrorists planning to attack the United States at the Salman Pak facility south of Baghdad. But one of the Iraqis central to the allegation later turned out to be a total fraud. And perhaps most importantly, it appears that not a single serving U.S. Intelligence official appeared at trial, to support the information being presented. They stayed well clear.  Dynablaster (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

If there is a Wikipedia article about Judge Baer's decision this would fit in there. But here it doesn't fit in; Baer's decision deserves a brief mention as a historical note but there is no need to delve into the trivia of what pieces of "evidence" were mentioned in that opinion. csloat (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

in other words I have to prove Salman Pak was a training ground for terrorism for you guys to report that the leading editor for Al Nasiriyah newspaper was Uday’s syndicate of journalists and other information that is important to this article that was stated in court record? Is that what you are saying? --OxAO (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No; we're saying a random article in an Iraqi newspaper that mentions Frank Sinatra is not evidence that Saddam bombed the World Trade Center. csloat (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Random Article? Not according to Judge Baer it wasn’t a random article. So why not state that? Or are you saying that everything presented in that court case should be thrown out because one piece of evidence can not be proven (Salman pak) --OxAO (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * All of the evidence presented in court has been discredited -- every single piece -- including the individuals who vouched for it. Not that this matters because, as it was pointed out to you above, the Iraqi newspaper is mentioned on the main page. What more are you asking for? Dynablaster (talk) 22:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Where does Judge Baer say that it wasn't "random"? (I'm not sure what your dispute is with that word anyway; it's not used in the article).  Not every piece of evidence put before Baer is notable here.  It really should be enough to just say that Baer made the decision he made and that's it; there's no need for this much trivial detail on it.  It wasn't a fact-finding mission; it was a summary judgment.  And it's irrelevant now anyway; it's been more than superseded by the conclusions of numerous investigations. csloat (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If these two statements are true then we should at lest all agree it is important correct?

“Iraqi newspaper whose editor-in-chief served as secretary to the late Uday Hussein’s Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists.”

“The information contained in Mulhalhal’s published statements was known prior to the events of September 11th, as was the fact that Mulhalhal had ties to Iraqi intelligence.”

As far as I am aware neither of these two points have been discredited, trust me I looked very closely for something. You might be referring to the 9/11 commission which they didn’t even bring it up. --OxAO (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, neither of those points lead to anything important. Not in the least.  I'm not sure why you keep repeating the thing about the Iraqi Syndicate of Journalists like it's some kind of sinister organization.  It's a professional organization; of course any journalist who wanted to get ahead belonged to it.  And you repeat Uday as if he wrote the article.  The fact that the editor in chief belonged to the main national organization in his profession is hardly evidence that he is the sole mouthpiece of Uday Hussein.


 * The second point is equally meaningless. There is no "information" in Mulhalhal's published statements that indicates anything.  There is some praise of bin Laden for trying to hurt America, something that is entirely unremarkable in that time; you could find similar statements in Saudi, Iranian, Egyptian, Pakistani, Indonesian, papers; hell, even probably in papers in Bolivia for that matter.  Did Iraqi intelligence have foreknowledge of 9/11?  It's certainly possible, but a vague comment about Frank Sinatra hardly proves it.  And it wasn't a secret to anyone (except perhaps Condi Rice) that at this time bin Laden was determined to attack in the US.  And it also wasn't a secret to anyone that those buildings in new york were a target.  And frankly I doubt there was a Middle Eastern intelligence agency who didn't have some foreknowledge of 9/11, though probably not the details.  The point is, even if there was foreknowledge of some kind, there is no case to be made linking Saddam and al Qaeda based on such foreknowledge, and certainly not based on such specious "evidence" as this! csloat (talk) 04:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

When this was written Uday controlled the media with an iron fist. The International syndicate of Journalists had shown a record number of reporters being killed that year and most of those were from Iraq. Uday would have reporters killed for the smallest of reasons, in my mind it would be unthinkable that an opinion piece like this could pass by Uday without him noticing and have legs as it was played on TV and Radio.

I am assuming you already known this. So, I honestly do not see the logic in your thinking. I can also see this isn’t going anyplace. So can I ask if we could start a new page on just the court case and the information that was presented during that case?

I also do not understand why you guys always bring up other issues not concerning the topic at hand such as Rice and Salman Pak. --OxAO (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In your mind perhaps it is unthinkable but it's a bit silly to imagine that Uday took breaks from his usual routine of rape and torture to read every local paper in Iraq. I don't think the court case is notable enough for its own page, but if you want to start one go for it.  I still don't even think this piece of trivia is important enough to make such a page -- frankly, you can be more detailed on this page just because it is so exhaustive.  But I think there's more than enough in the article about the court case and even about this newspaper article so I'm not really clear on what you want added. csloat (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Who do you think Uday was torturing? as I pointed out Journalist was one of his targets. There is a lot of information you guys left out and I can tell you will not allow printed here. let me give you another example. --OxAO (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Look even if you had Uday saying this stuff himself it wouldn't amount to a pile of beans. As it is you don't even have that -- you're claiming that under the slight possibility that Uday bothered to read this article in some local Iraqi paper, the fact that he didn't torture the journalist who wrote it is some kind of ringing endorsement.  Of what exactly?  Well, of a vague Frank Sinatra reference!  How convincing!! You're right; this is proof positive; Saddam might as well have piloted flight UA 175 himself! csloat (talk) 10:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right it doesn’t amount to very much I full acknowledged that from the beginning. By itself it means next to nothing. And even with all the information that you guys have left out it isn’t enough prove Saddam was behind 9/11.

By the way you guys wrote this it would seem as though there was no evidence to build a case against Saddam at all. Which is simply not true, there wasn't enough evidence. --OxAO (talk) 10:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps but this opinion piece certainly doesn't count as evidence one way or another. You see, the problem seems to be that Saddam wasn't behind 9/11.  Even Dick Cheney admits that now; perhaps it's time for you to as well. csloat (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Dick Cheney NEVER stated that Saddam wasn’t behind 9/11 he has always stated that there wasn’t enough evidence. The news media’s has a number of times miss quoted him. also it is weak evidence that someone knew something in Iraq of the coming attack which was reported throughout Iraq not just one paper. --OxAO (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) You're wrong about Cheney but that's neither here nor there (2) this is just one paper; what other papers did you read with such information? Are you a native Arabic speaker?  (3) This is not evidence that anyone knew anything; it's only evidence that some guy admired bin Laden.  (4) Even if it were, so what?  The fact that bin Laden was going to attack the US was as I noted an open secret to everyone except Condi Rice.  There were Palestinian kids in New York telling their friends that those two buildings would be destroyed only a week or two before 9/11 -- is that evidence that Yassir Arafat was behind 9/11?  What about the kid in Dallas who predicted it on September 10th (google young nostradamus) - is that evidence that Texas Governor Rick Perry was behind the attacks?? csloat (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is Cheney statement. (“was never any evidence to prove that.” which is a LOT different then the media's miss quote) His statement is consistent with my argument. Which is, there isn't proof that Saddam was involved with 9/11 but there were important points that should be pointed out.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OxAO (talk • contribs) 23:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VM_PJJGKvDw

I don't know if it was in other papers I do know it was on the Radio and TV. What is this conspiracy about Rice you keep bringing up? It would not be evidence if kids stated that the building would fall but it is weak evidence if they get all the targets correct and the type of weapon used. The odds of getting all the targets correct with no extra targets and the type of weapon used would be very high odds against getting all this correct just a few months before the attack. It doesn't 'prove' anything by its self but it is highly coincidental. --OxAO (talk) 23:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a conspiracy about Rice; it's a joke poking fun at her; it's based on the fact that there was a memo from August 6 2001 entitled "Bin Laden Determined to attack in the US" and she was testifying about that memo and she said something to the effect of, "nobody could have foreseen that he was going to attack in the US" and then was asked to repeat the title of that memo. As far as getting the targets right and the type of weapon; the Palestinian kids did, the Texas kid didnt, but so what?  Even if the Palestinian kids knew every detail about the plot it doesn't mean Yassir Arafat was involved.  And it certainly wouldn't be enough for an article "Yassir Arafat and al-Qaeda." csloat (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of any kid that predicted 9/11, if you have something I would love to hear about it. That memo was about a typical type of hijacking to release some blind guy, nothing about a suicide mission. --OxAO (talk) 03:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The kid in Texas is easily findable via google "young nostradamus." The Palestinian kids in NY are also still easily findable on the web; it was originally incorrectly reported that they were Pakistani so try googling that first.  I don't know about the "typical type of hijacking to release some blind guy" memo that you're talking about but it's not the one I'm talking about. csloat (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"young Nostradamus" snopes says undetermined other sources state the teacher said it wasn’t correct.

Palestinian kids in NY I looked AGAIN I can not find anything.

I also looked to see if there was any other predictions ... other then someone saying a nuke was going to hit New York the next month. The only predictions that I can find was the nuclear weapon one and the 'news reporters opinion' that got all 4 of the buildings(two towers) correct and the type of weapon used.

President's Daily Brief titled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US clearly states it was a typical type of hijacking nothing about suicide. --OxAO (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You asked what I want added:

""Mulhalhal further indicated, The wings of a dove and the bullet are all but one and the same in the heart of a believer."

you can even leave off the court record of their opinion of what they believe it means. --OxAO (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No disrespect, but I don't think so -- that doesn't even make any sense to me. csloat (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a very important part of the opinion piece it establishes the BULLET used. Either put in the full prediction from the opinion piece or you don't put in the opinion piece. --OxAO (talk) 17:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not a "prediction"; it's more like a poem. And, no, it doesn't belong here. csloat (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

ok fine were does it belong? --OxAO (talk) 07:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Salman Pak
We have not been able to prove the Salman Pak facility was used as a training camp for terrorist in order to attack the US. This only leaves the questions were did Saddam train his terrorist to attack the US government?

Two examples of Saddams terrorist attacks against the US government are: The Failed hijacking of a plane 8 months before 9/11 between Djbouti and Yemen with the US ambassador to Yemen on board. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1132409.stm

The 17 man terrorist team to assassinate George H W Bush --OxAO (talk) 10:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The George H. W. Bush assassination attempt is unproven by any reasonable standard. Seymour Hersh wrote about a classified CIA study "that was highly skeptical of the Kuwaiti claims of an Iraqi assassination attempt". ("A Case Not Closed", 1993) And according to Michael Isikoff, officials now studying Iraqi intelligence documents have found zero evidence of a plot to assassinate the president. ("Saddam's Files", 2008)  The evidence was always suspect, including sworn confessions from the accused tortured in Kuwaiti custody. Dynablaster (talk) 11:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As Dynablaster pointed out in his edit summary, we are way off topic now. Saddam probably didn't try to assassinate the president, and the hijacker story you link to was a "supporter" of Saddam, not somebody directed by Saddam.  But even if Saddam did both of these things, even if he hijacked that plane himself, this says nothing about al Qaeda!  Nobody is denying that Saddam supported terrorism in the Middle East (although he also opposed it; the Salman Pak training, it turns out, was training to resist terrorism); what is clear, however, is that Saddam Hussein did not support al-Qaeda.  That is the question here, not Saddam's support for random terrorist acts by other countries.  The only possible attack on the US you can cite is the alleged assassination attempt in the early 1990s.  That's a far cry from a 9/11 connection. csloat (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You just hit on my main over all argument.

Here is an example: “the Salman Pak training, it turns out, was training to resist terrorism”

Your whole article is written in this definitive conclusive format. There are no absolutes here. The statement should be worded in a non-definitive format such as: “There wasn’t enough evidence to prove Salman Pak facility was used as a training site for terrorism.”

One statement is conclusive the other is inconclusive. The Salman Pak training grounds is inconclusive as the results of the OFFICAL records from the George H W Bush assassination attempt. The official record states Saddam trained his terrorist to assassinate Bush. Officially we don’t know were Saddam trained those terrorist.

I know after reading into events such as this it is very easy to get side tracked by non-official record. There is no getting around it court records are official records.

All these people are still in prison for their crimes and Judge Baer’s case still stands. None of these cases have been over turned. --OxAO (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Except that we can be conclusive; or, more accurately, we can report that investigative bodies who looked into this have reached conclusions. In this case of Salman Pak several investigations reached the conclusion that Salman Pak was not used to train terrorists and was in fact a counterterrorism training camp.  You are also making a fundamental burden of proof error here -- it is your burden to prove that the camp was used in the way you assert, not the other way around.  We could just as easily say, "there wasn't enough evidence to prove that Salman Pak was used for a giant KROQ weenie roast."
 * Anyway the Bush assassination "attempt" is completely irrelevant here -- nobody has ever suggested there was an al Qaeda link to anything there. csloat (talk) 21:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Burden of proof is on you to show were the terrorist trained because it is official record that Saddam trained these terrorist to attack the US. As I stated from the beginning lets say Salam Pak wasn’t the location of their training were did they train?

I am not saying there was a link at that location with Al Qaeda, some official records do state the location wasn’t used to train terrorist which is still to this day inconclusive. Due to the fact Saddam did train terrorist to attack the US. --OxAO (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You want me to prove that Saddam trained terrorists? I thought that was your claim.  I'm really sorry but I don't understand you. csloat (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we already have officially proven Saddam trained Terrorist to attack the US government. Your question is very strange and out of place. It is like you are not following this discussion. --OxAO (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No; nobody has proven that Saddam trained terrorists to attack the US. csloat (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Then why are 16 people in prison for the conspiracy to kill Bush? --OxAO (talk) 05:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing has nothing whatsoever to do with the other. Do you have something specific you think should be included in the article at this point? csloat (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the Kuwaiti justice system is abominable. President Clinton accepted the ruling, which also is a disgrace. Dynablaster (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

if one thing didn't have anything to do with the other then they wouldn't be in prison. They have evidence and they threw them into prison QED. You asked what i want added under Salam Pak:

"we do not know if Saddam used Salam Pak or another training facility to train the terrorists that received up to 12 year sentences for conspiring to assassinate George HW Bush"

You are basing your stance of not adding a statement like this on speculation. The official records are clear they worked for IIS. --OxAO (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WTF? There is no evidence of a Salman pak connection to the alleged assassins, nor is there a link to either of them from al Qaeda.  Nothing.  Not even a Feith memo or a Steven Hayes conspiracy theory. csloat (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK I will go with that: “There is no evidence of a Salman pak connection to the assassins attempt of GHWBush, Although we do not know were the IIS trained the Assassins ” --OxAO (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Umm, no. We are not going to list everything there is no evidence of.  There is also no evidence Saddam was ever the Commander of the Martian armed forces or that he he had a mobile torture chamber in the back of a '57 Chevy.  But we're not going to include that either.  If you have a reliable source that makes some kind of connection between Salman Pak, George H W Bush, and the IIS, (even to say "there is no connection"), I'd like to see it. csloat (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The evidence is there one of the terrorist admitted the crime and his association with IIS, THIS IS OFFICIAL record! The information you are stating is only allegations it has not seen a day in court or been confirmed. You are using the same argument why you will not allow IIS documents. They have not been discredited contrary to your belief, they have not been confirmed. There-by you are falsely stating Saddam did not train terrorist to attack the US. This makes it seem as though no terrorist could of been trained in Salam Pak. It is simply not true. --OxAO (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus. Deal with this on the Wikipedia page about the alleged attempted assassination but not here.  It has nothing to do with Salam Pak or with al Qaeda, why are you bothering with this here? csloat (talk) 01:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do I bring it up here? Because your statement suggests there were no terrorist trained at Salam Pak. Which that is inconclusive. --OxAO (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Lawrence Wright material
I'm sorry, but this is just utterly unethical. Those of you adding this material leave out the very next sentence: "But there is no evidence that Iraq ever supplied al-Qaeda with weapons or camps, and soon bin Laden resumed his support of Iraqi dissidents." Trying to claim Wright supports the Cheney fantasy is completely mendacious. If you want to quote Wright we are quoting that sentence, and making clear that the Turabi claim comes directly from the Feith memo. It may be accurate or it may not but we know that the memo has been discredited and to make the claim as if Wright discovered evidence of this meeting is completely disingenuous. If you want to add something under 1992 about this, I would suggest being clear that it's from the Feith memo and if you're going to cite Wright at all we should cite what he actually wrote. csloat (talk) 06:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

--OxAO (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wright has backed up his information with the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents. No, the IIS documents have NOT been discredited.
 * How can the IIS documents be ‘wrong’ anyway? They were the Iraqi internal messaging.
 * The only thing 'wrong' would be information to throw us off.
 * to make us believe Saddam was NOT working with groups and such.
 * Even know I believe the IIS documents are accrete there has been no official verification of those documents yet.
 * In this case I have to agree with you csloat.
 * It seems to come directly from the memo; it is cited in Hayes' notorious Weekly Standard article as well. Either way, I am glad you agree that this doesn't belong here. csloat (talk) 06:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * not yet it doesn't. I heard someone is reading them now though.
 * I cannot find anyplace were Hayes discredits the IIS docs. But it doesn't matter yet.
 * it is also illogical to have internal messages to be 'wrong' --OxAO (talk) 06:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * csloat is obviously correct here. And I agree with him that it is utterly unethical. Kevin Baastalk 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether Saddam did or did not assist in weapons supplies or training camps is a larger issue. This page seemed to deal solely with meetings and/or connections hence the: "The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline below list allegations of meetings" that starts out the page. If you feel it was misleading, then the unrelated information can be included. The only citation that Wright attaches to page 296 does not mention the Feith memo, but Iyad Allwai and Iraqi Secret Service archives. Article fixed and Feith reference dropped. user: erics1one —Preceding undated comment added 21:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC).


 * If I felt it was misleading? Unrelated information?  Don't be ridiculous.  The very next sentence that you leave out says quite clearly that both parties broke the deal that the first part of the quote says they agreed to.  You really don't have any credibility after this sort of blatantly unethical move.  And again, we're not going to attribute this to Wright as if Wright did some kind of investigation and learned of this meeting.  He learned of the meeting the same way everyone else did -- Hayes' article which quoted the discredited Feith memo.  The mention of Allawi is not connected to the al-Turabi allegation at all.  The Turabi claim comes from interrogation of a former Iraqi official, and is reported in the Feith memo.  It's quite likely from an interview with a member of the discredited Iraqi National Congress, which fed US intelligence many lies in order to help provoke the Iraq war.  But if we're going to cite it at all we need to do so honestly -- not pretending this claim is the result of some investigative journalism by a pulitzer prize winner, especially when that journalist concludes the exact opposite of what you try to pretend he concludes. csloat (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The very next sentence that you leave out says quite clearly that both parties broke the deal that the first part of the quote says they agreed to. (User talk:Commodore Sloat)

Not so...
 * in 1992 Hassan al-Turabi arranged a meeting between the Iraqi intelligence service and Al Qaeda, with the goal of creating a common strategy for deposing pro-Western Arab governments. The Iraqi delegation met with Bin Laden, even flattered him, claiming that he was the prophesied Mahdi the savior of Islam. They wanted him to stop backing anti-Saddam insurgents, Bin Laden agreed. But in return he asked for weapons and training camps inside Iraq. That same year, Ayman al-Zawahiri traveled to Bagdad where he met Saddam Hussein in person.

Is a claim that they met and made arrangements. How is that not relevant to the meaning of this page as stated at the top: "The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline below list allegations of meetings"
 * But there is no evidence that Iraq ever supplied al-Qaeda with weapons or camps, and soon bin Laden resumed his support of Iraqi dissidents.

No evidence of weapons or camps, but bin Laden stopped his support of Iraqi dissidents, and then continued. This does not say "and the meetings between al-Turabi, bin Laden, Zawahiri, and Saddam never occurred," which is what you're trying to implicate.
 * And again, we're not going to attribute this to Wright as if Wright did some kind of investigation and learned of this meeting. (User talk:Commodore Sloat)

Wright conducted many interviews and did his own investigations. You do not get a Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction by quoting debunked Weekly Standard articles.


 * He learned of the meeting the same way everyone else did -- Hayes' article which quoted the discredited Feith memo. The mention of Allawi is not connected to the al-Turabi allegation at all.  The Turabi claim comes from interrogation of a former Iraqi official, and is reported in the Feith memo.  It's quite likely from an interview with a member of the discredited Iraqi National Congress, which fed US intelligence many lies in order to help provoke the Iraq war.  But if we're going to cite it at all we need to do so honestly -- not pretending this claim is the result of some investigative journalism by a pulitzer prize winner(talk)

Do you have any proof of this? If you do, why not post the Wright reference to 1992, and add an addendum that he might have got the information from a specific source that some people find questionable?

It looks like your people have already slanted the intro in your favored direction:
 * all but one now discounted, denied or disproven... not all of the specific claims about meetings can be substantiated with evidence...'many' of the 'intelligence agencies' and 'experts' who have analyzed the evidence have concluded that no substantial links exist...

...why tried to suppress information from reputable sources?

This is exactly why quoting wikipedia is laughed at. Instead of providing additional information ("this reference might be based on the Feith memo" - "the source, behind the source, behind the source, has not yet been confirmed" - "no specific citation given in Wright's Looming Tower" - "etc") you want to suppress the information. People like you have edited a database into uselessness...lol...it's priceless.


 * especially when that journalist concludes the exact opposite of what you try to pretend he concludes. csloat 22:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

No he doesn't. He concludes that there is no evidence weapons or camps were supplied by Saddam and that bin Laden eventually continued to support anti-Saddam forces, but never that the meeting did not occur. If documenting a history of alleged links between Saddam and al Qaeda is not the purpose of this thread...then the title needs to be changed and first line of the page "The Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline below list allegations of meetings" should be modified.user:erics1one

More then that dude... Read the Salam Pak arguments these guys use allegations over official records when it fits there argument. --OxAO (talk) 07:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wright did not "conclude" anything about whether the meeting did or did not occur. He read about it in the Feith memo.  We can write that the Feith memo reports that without giving it the imprimatur of Lawrence Wright's Pulitzer prize, which is just as dishonest as the trick you first pulled (leaving out the contradictory conclusion entirely).  If you do that, then we can add what Wright actually did conclude.  So please rewrite that section accordingly if you try to add it again; thanks. csloat (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wright did not "conclude" anything about whether the meeting did or did not occur. csloat

How can this statement not be a definitive "this happened" if he never returned to refute that the meeting occured?
 * in 1992 Hassan al-Turabi arranged a meeting between the Iraqi intelligence service and Al Qaeda...The Iraqi delegation met with Bin Laden, even flattered him, claiming that he was the prophesied Mahdi the savior of Islam.

If there was any question that it might not have happened, he would have included it in the last sentence. A request for weapons and camps was made, but Wright then concludes that no evidence has been discovered to show that the requests were fulfilled. If he questioned whether the meeting took place at all, he would have also mentioned it in the last sentence. Not only does he not question whether the meeting took place, but he even described certain details about the meeting.
 * flattered him, claiming that he was the prophesied Mahdi the savior of Islam
 * He read about it in the Feith memo. csloat

Do you have any evidence of this?
 * leaving out the contradictory conclusion entirely csloat

Please explain how the last sentence refutes that the meeting took place. You keep repeating this line, but have yet to even attempt an argument to back it up.
 * So please rewrite that section accordingly if you try to add it again; thanks csloat

I will not pick and choose lines of Lawrence Wright's material that you are comfortable with. Again, if you feel that some of his implications are questionable, why not insert an addendum expressing your concerns and sources, and let the information be viewed. Why suppress the information? Are you that threatened by it even when the intro is slanted to forward your point of view? user:erics1one
 * For the last time, it is not Lawrence Wright's material. He did not claim to discover this meeting; he was reporting what was reported elsewhere.  By adding his name to it (and the "Pulitzer-Prize" adjective) you try to lend credibility to a claim, which is a disgustingly dishonest move.  You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.  And no, I am not "threatened" by it, nor do I wish to suppress it -- I just wish to remove the blatant dishonesty that you have exhibited in this discussion since the beginning.  I hope I have made myself clear. csloat (talk) 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To avoid an edit war I have done your work for you. I have corrected your egregious and mendacious summary of the material at hand; hopefully this will be the end of it.  Frankly, as far as I am concerned you have no credibility whatsoever.  Good day. csloat (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For the last time, it is not Lawrence Wright's material. He did not claim to discover this meeting; he was reporting what was reported elsewhere. csloat

For the last time, what proof do you have of that?! When discussing real issues it's best to use quality over quantity. Just because you claim the sky is red over and over does not make it red. You inserted a definitive statement:


 * According to the Feith memo, a meeting was arranged by Hassan al-Turabi...Lawrence Wright comments in his Pulitzer Prize winning book the "Looming Tower"

...and have zero evidence to back it up.

Furthermore, if you have no evidence that Wright used Feith's memo, there is some reason to believe that it was not. Wright describes the atmosphere of the meeting: "flattered him, claiming that he was the prophesied Mahdi the savior of Islam"...which does not appear in the Feith memo.

But again...I have no problem accepting the possibility that it might have come from the Feith memo, I find it questionable that you refuse to entertain the idea.


 * By adding his name to it (and the "Pulitzer-Prize" adjective) you try to lend credibility to a claim, which is a disgustingly dishonest move. You should be absolutely ashamed of yourself. csloat

I'm willing to accept the possibility that the claim might be based on the Feith memo, you have an assumption and want to claim it truth on no basis whatsoever. Who is the one being dishonest?

It would best be written:

Lawrence Wright reports in his Pulitzer Prize winning book the "Looming Tower" that in 1992 Hassan al-Turabi arranged a meeting between the Iraqi intelligence service and Al Qaeda (this claim might have been based on the Feith memo).

But no, you want to insert a definitive statement "According to the Feith memo", and call other people "dishonest". lol...it's actually quite amusing.


 * I just wish to remove the blatant dishonesty that you have exhibited in this discussion since the beginning. csloat

Are you referring to the last sentence? Again you keep questioning my credibility without attempting to provide an example. The sky is not red, no matter how many times you repeat that it is.

The initial entry had five claims:

Claim A) al-Turabi arranged a meeting (which took place) between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda. Claim B) Iraqis made the request that Bin Laden quit supporting anti-Saddam forces. Claim C) Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting anti-Saddam forces. Claim D) Bin Laden made a request for weapons and training camps. Claim E) Zawahiri travels to Iraq and meets Saddam in person.

The last sentence does not refute a single one of those claims, only that there is no evidence that the request of Claim D was fulfilled and that Claim C was fulfilled, but eventually was reversed. Never did I, nor Wright, claim that Iraqis gave weapons or camps to Bin Laden...only that the request was made.

You seem to think that a request for weapons or training camps is irrelevant if the request was never fulfilled, I do not. I think the request alone is a telling statement. If I, or Wright, was trying to prove that Saddam fulfilled the request of Claim D, then of course, the last sentence would be relevant. But you find it relevant regardless of the fact that Wright never claimed Saddam gave Bin Laden weapons or camps, I accept that, and have no problem including that in the entry. It is telling that you want to insert a definitive statement (that Wright got the information from the Feith memo) with zero evidence, I am willing to insert that it is a possibility, and then you call me dishonest.


 * Frankly, as far as I am concerned you have no credibility whatsoever. Good day. csloat

Coming from you...that is a badge of honor. user:erics1one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.206.243.225 (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly format your talk page comments properly. Whatever point you are trying to make is lost. Dynablaster (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I don't understand what he's trying to say either. But I have no patience left for him; after being caught trying to slip in the Wright quote as if it concluded the opposite of what it actually said I would have expected him to slink off in embarrassment.  As long as he doesn't try to change the article he can say whatever he wants on the talk page as far as I'm concerned, and we're free to ignore it. csloat (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Kindly format your talk page comments properly. Dynablaster

My additions are easy to read. Sorry you're having issues.
 * after being caught trying to slip in the Wright quote as if it concluded the opposite of what it actually said...csloat

Repeating the same thing over and over does not make it true. Address the points I raised above if you expect to be taken seriously.
 * As long as he doesn't try to change the article he can say whatever he wants...csloat

As I said, the article would best be written:
 * Lawrence Wright reports in his Pulitzer Prize winning book the "Looming Tower" that in 1992 Hassan al-Turabi arranged a meeting between the Iraqi intelligence service and Al Qaeda (this claim might have been based on the Feith memo).

If you cannot refute my points, and why that is not the correct way it should be edited, then I will be changing the entry to reflect the most accurate statement. Your modification is not accurate for the reasons listed above. user:erics1one —Preceding undated comment added 22:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Your change will be reverted. As I said, we should not attribute research to Wright that he never claims to have done.  The claims cited first appeared in public in the Feith report in 2003.  Citing Lawrence Wright's 2008 book as if he researched the claim originally is dishonest.  Just as dishonest as your first attempt to claim Wright concluded the opposite of what he did.  Hope this helps. csloat (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, why the hell are you making an issue out of this? Every relevant piece of information you claimed I was censoring is actually in the entry, which I even graciously rewrote for you when you refused to.  The alleged "meeting" is there, the reported results of the "meeting" and the commentary of Wright on all the above.  What piece of information do you think is missing? csloat (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User csloat is correct, this information first came to public attention through Douglas Feith. It's a pointless exercise to acknowledge every columnist and author who has since written about the alleged meeting, but I see no problem citing Lawrence Wright provided we make clear in the timeline where the information originally surfaced. Dynablaster (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, we should not attribute research to Wright that he never claims to have done. The claims cited first appeared in public in the Feith report in 2003.  Citing Lawrence Wright's 2008 book as if he researched the claim originally is dishonest. csloat

Okay...you're claiming that since Wright wrote the Looming Tower in 2006 (not 2008) that it had to be based off of the 2003 Feith memo. Finally you're at least trying to forward an argument instead of repeating a unfounded claim over and over again.

How do you explain the fact that Wright mentions specifics not found in the Feith memo?: "flattered him, claiming that he was the prophesied Mahdi the savior of Islam"

How do you explain the fact that Wright wrote the Looming Tower years after the [Slate] and [Media Matters] articles (the only refutations that are linked to the Feith memo section) that supposedly "debunked" the Feith memos? He obviously knew that the memos were seen as questionable, and yet, he still writes about the incident, receives a Nobel Prize for General Non-Fiction, and is not hailed as a charlatan?

And again if all you have is the assumption that Wright based his claim off the Feith memo, because he wrote the Looming Tower after the Feith memo was released, what's wrong with the statement: Lawrence Wright reports in his Pulitzer Prize winning book the "Looming Tower" that in 1992 Hassan al-Turabi arranged a meeting between the Iraqi intelligence service and Al Qaeda (this claim might have been based on the Feith memo). ...which would be most accurate.


 * Just as dishonest as your first attempt to claim Wright concluded the opposite of what he did. csloat (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Read slower...please provide specifics...I addressed all of your concerns above and you've yet to respond to any of them.


 * What piece of information do you think is missing? csloat (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

What is missing is the fact that this article states Wright definitively based his claim off of the Feith memo, and there is NO proof to back that up. And there are good reasons to believe the opposite. If you don't believe so, why don't you address each of my points instead of repeating the same thing over and over without addressing the issue.


 * User csloat is correct, this information first came to public attention through Douglas Feith.Dynablaster (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obvious Wright wrote the claim after the Feith memos were released (nobody is questioning that). It is not obvious, and so far I have seen zero proof, that he based his claim off the Feith memo. And as mentioned above, there are good reasons to believe he did not. user:erics1one


 * You're just wrong Eric, and it's time to drop it. The article does not ever state that Wright "definitively" based his claim on anything at all.  What Wright based his claim on is not important; it is simply not the topic of this article.  This article is about Saddam and al Qaeda link allegations.  The allegation that a meeting occurred in 1992 surfaced in the Feith memo.  What Wright based his claim on is really not important at all; it's certainly not a topic anyone outside of Wikipedia has spent even a fraction of a second thinking about (or, more to the point, a fraction of a sentence publishing about).  We've got the claim that a 1992 meeting was reported on in the Feith report.  As Dynablaster points out, there's no point in citing every author that cited that meeting here; why should we be so concerned with an exegesis of Wright's research process? csloat (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article does not ever state that Wright "definitively" based his claim on anything at all. csloat

If that was not your intention, good. However, mentioning the Feith memo before adding Wright's reference makes an implication. If you have no problem acknowledging (since there's no evidence to suggest) that Wright might not have made his claim based on the Feith memo, you'll have no issue with the way I re-edited it.user:erics1one
 * What Wright based his claim on is not important; it is simply not the topic of this article. This article is about Saddam and al Qaeda link allegations.    csloat

If Wright based his claim on the Feith memo, his claim would be equally questionable. If he did not, it would be a very informative piece of information, seeing as how some people believe that since the Feith memos were questionable, the 1992 meeting must be equally questionable. It is telling that you don't find that important.user:erics1one
 * The allegation that a meeting occurred in 1992 surfaced in the Feith memo. csloat

Just because it was first mentioned in the Feith memo, doesn't mean that everyone who writes about the meeting afterward is basing their claim off the Feith memo.user:erics1one
 * What Wright based his claim on is really not important at all; it's certainly not a topic anyone outside of Wikipedia has spent even a fraction of a second thinking about (or, more to the point, a fraction of a sentence publishing about). csloat

Which is why it would make sense to have the article state that Wright's claim "might be based on the Feith memo," not that "it was." If someone has evidence or reasons to believe he did or did not, then it would be helpful.user:erics1one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.206.243.237 (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Restore pervious stable version, supported by 2 editors on the talk page) Dynablaster

lol, that's hilarious, if x amount of people support proposition y, it does not mean that proposition y is true. You need to provide evidence and/or good reasons to believe proposition y is true. I provided a few reasons (above) to believe that Wright did not base his claim on the Feith memo. They've yet to be addressed by anybody...all you have to say is "but...but...the Feith memo came out FIRST..."
 * According to information that was first made public in the Feith memo...Dynablaster

The fact that the meeting was first made public in the Feith memo does not mean Wright based his claim off of it. It has no place in the entry except that Wright might have used the Feith memo (since we have no hard evidence to support either side). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erics1one (talk • contribs) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Erics1one, you are now being disruptive and I'd like to ask you to drop this. I am not making any claim about what Wright based his research on. Nor is the article. There is no reason to mention that it "might have been based on" anything because that is not the topic of this article at all. It first surfaced in the Feith memo, and that is all that is reported in the article. There is no need to detail every journalist who mentions it over the next several years and discuss in detail whether their research might or might not have been based on anything else. That's just not relevant to the topic of this article. Your campaign to make this article focus on that question is quite suspect, especially given what we've already seen of your understanding of the ethics of quotation. csloat (talk) 06:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Erics1one, you are now being disruptive and I'd like to ask you to drop this. csloat

I apologize, I knew you were a professional wikipedia troll, but I had no idea you were the Master of Edits, I humbly yield. Check the top of the page, this is the "discussion" section. Anyways...this would be a very simple discussion if you would just respond to my points, you seem to be a fan of skim reading, then you come on here and repeat the same generalities over and over again without addressing any of the points made above. user:erics1one
 * I am not making any claim about what Wright based his research on. Nor is the article.csloat

Surely you must understand something as simple as placing "According to the Feith memo" before any statement makes the assumption that they're using the Feith memo. user:erics1one
 * There is no reason to mention that it "might have been based on" anything because that is not the topic of this article at all. csloat

The Wright material is the topic of the article. The attempt to precede the Wright material with the questionable Feith memo makes the characterization that Wright material is equally questionable. Since we don't know if Wright based his material on Feith or not, the most accurate entry would say "might have been based on". user:erics1one
 * There is no need to detail every journalist who mentions it over the next several years and discuss in detail whether their research might or might not have been based on anything else. csloat

It matters when some people hear mention of the 1992 meeting and immediately think "that came from the Feith memo, so it did not happen" as you did! If a reputable journalist revisits the claim and finds that it has merit (not that the Feith memo is legit, but that the meeting took place) it is important. user:erics1one
 * Your campaign to make this article focus on that question is quite suspect, especially given what we've already seen of your understanding of the ethics of quotation. csloat

Another generality, without addressing my points above, and without providing specifics...I'm shocked, shocked to be reading this. Erics1one (talk) 14:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors are perfectly entitled to mention when the information first appeared (we are dealing with a timeline remember). Because the Intelligence was classified, and leaked to the press, probably makes it notable. Your concern is that readers might make a connection with the Feith memo and therefore assume the material is doubted in some way. But that is the reality of the situation we are dealing with -- the information did appear in the Feith memo, and that same memo has been described as collection of raw, unverified reporting, much of which originated from sources of questionable authority. What is most peculiar, as csloat pointed out, is at the present time, the section does not say a single word about the validity of the Intelligence, nor how Lawrence Wright came by the information, and by adding your own personal caveat ("Wright's source for the meeting might be the Feith memo") you are actually making the situation far worse. Seriously dude, step back, take a deep breath, and read the section again. The version that I have restored is perfectly neutral. Dynablaster (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This is ludicrous, I'm not going to keep debating this with you. I've explained pretty clearly why you are wrong and you are ignoring and obfuscating the actual points I made. This article is not about Wright and your claim that it is is just laughable. Wright has maybe two pages on this topic. His quick comments on the issue are no more notable than any other journalist who mentioned this in a book -- we certainly do not need to waste time on the question of what he based his rather tangential comments on, any more than we would waste time discussing what any other journalist who mentions a 1992 meeting based their comments on. Your attempt to hijack this article to focus on Wright is unacceptable. And you know exactly what the specifics are when I commented on your ethics but let's review them again -- when you first added this material you did it in a mendacious way to make it look like Wright had concluded the exact opposite of what he did. That is unethical. If you have nothing of substance to add to this discussion I think we are done; please do not edit disruptively. csloat (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Editors are perfectly entitled to mention when the information first appeared (we are dealing with a timeline remember). Dynablaster

Okay, I do not have an issue with the Feith memo simply being placed before the Wright material (in itself), I just think it's misleading when it's not mentioned that there's no evidence to suggest that Wright based his material off of it.
 * the section does not say a single word about the validity of the Intelligence, nor how Lawrence Wright came by the information, and by adding your own personal caveat ("Wright's source for the meeting might be the Feith memo") you are actually making the situation far worse. Dynablaster

Of course, the entry does not state "Wright based this information off of the Feith memo," but surely you understand that preceding the Wright material with the Feith memo...and not mentioning that there's no evidence to suggest he used the Feith memo...is misleading.

I do not see how adding "Wright's source for the meeting might be the Feith memo" makes the situation worse, when it's an accurate statement. There is no hard evidence either way, but as I stated above (and as you neglected to address yet again), there are reasons to believe he did not use the Feith memo.


 * I've explained pretty clearly why you are wrong and you are ignoring and obfuscating the actual points I made. csloat

No you haven't because you never address my responses and counter-points, you just come back here and repeat the same generalities over and over again.
 * This article is not about Wright and your claim that it is is just laughable. csloat

I never said that it was about "Wright" I said that it was about Wright's "material." You must have been doing your regular skim reading routine.
 * His quick comments on the issue are no more notable than any other journalist who mentioned this in a book -- we certainly do not need to waste time on the question of what he based his rather tangential comments on, any more than we would waste time discussing what any other journalist who mentions a 1992 meeting based their comments on. csloat

It is not notable for you because you have your mind set that the 1992 meeting did not occur. If five reputable journalists independently investigated the meeting (after 2003) and concluded that it did occur, you'd probably respond: "Nope...didn't happen...Feith reported it first and his memos are bunk." I think the recognition that "Wright's source for the meeting might be the Feith memo" is important for those who're objectively investigating the issue. It's obviously not for you, which is why you find it so objectionable.
 * And you know exactly what the specifics are when I commented on your ethics but let's review them again -- when you first added this material you did it in a mendacious way to make it look like Wright had concluded the exact opposite of what he did. That is unethical.  csloat

Ah okay...you're referring to the last sentence. Well, since you never responded to my clarification above (might have been skim reading again ;), I'll re-post it: The initial entry had five claims:

Claim A) al-Turabi arranged a meeting (which took place) between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda. Claim B) Iraqis made the request that Bin Laden quit supporting anti-Saddam forces. Claim C) Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting anti-Saddam forces. Claim D) Bin Laden made a request for weapons and training camps. Claim E) Zawahiri travels to Iraq and meets Saddam in person.

The last sentence does not refute a single one of those claims, only that there is no evidence that the request of Claim D was fulfilled and that Claim C was fulfilled, but eventually was reversed. Never did I, nor Wright, claim that Iraqis gave weapons or camps to Bin Laden...only that the request was made.

You seem to think that a request for weapons or training camps is irrelevant if the request was never fulfilled, I do not. I think the request alone is a telling statement. If I, or Wright, was trying to prove that Saddam fulfilled the request of Claim D, then of course, the last sentence would be relevant. But you find it relevant regardless of the fact that Wright never claimed Saddam gave Bin Laden weapons or camps, I accept that, and have no problem including that in the entry. It is telling that you want to insert a definitive statement (that Wright got the information from the Feith memo) with zero evidence, I am willing to insert that it is a possibility, and then you call me dishonest.

Your attempt to suppress the fact that there is zero evidence and no good reasons to believe that Wright based his claim off the Feith memo is disruptive. Please stop and allow a neutral clarifying statement to be included. Thanks in advance.Erics1one (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User Erics1one wrote: [S]urely you understand that preceding the Wright material with the Feith memo...and not mentioning that there's no evidence to suggest he used the Feith memo...is misleading.
 * No, I really don't see how it's misleading, not when the article has absolutely nothing to say about how Wright came by the information in the first place (and neither does Wright). If you are not satisfied with my explanation or csloat's, then you might want to request external comment (see WP:RFC). But I can't see somebody wanting to read this talk page while the formatting is skew-whiff. Dynablaster (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dynablaster. This page is not about Wright and you are trying to make it about him by asserting that we take any position whatsoever on what his 2 page discussion of this topic was based on.  And for the record I never said the meeting never occurred.  Wright is not the only journalist to mention it; but he never claims to have investigated it.  He simply mentions it.  His mentioning it is not even that notable; if he discovered something new why were there no news articles discussing what he had discovered?  The fact that it was in the Feith report does not mean it didn't happen; the report mentioned meetings that did occur but which did not lead to a relationship.  Wright commented on this too; that was the sentence that you concealed earlier.  The one you were pretending not to know what I was talking about above.  csloat (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This page is not about Wright and you are trying to make it about him by asserting that we take any position whatsoever on what his 2 page discussion of this topic was based on. csloat

Again I never said this page is about Wright, but that it's about his material.
 * Wright is not the only journalist to mention it; but he never claims to have investigated it. He simply mentions it.  His mentioning it is not even that notable; if he discovered something new why were there no news articles discussing what he had discovered?  csloat

He mentions dozens of things in the Looming Tower and sometimes he sources to external investigations. He does not do that with the 1992 meeting. Again, Wright wrote the Looming Tower years after the [Slate] and [Media Matters] articles (the only refutations that are linked to the Feith memo section) that supposedly "debunked" the Feith memos. He obviously knew that the memos were seen as questionable, and yet, he still writes about the incident.

There might be an article or piece of information that details where Wright got the information. Leaving "Wright might have based this meeting on the Feith memo," would encourage someone to post, reference, or research that confirmation.
 * The fact that it was in the Feith report does not mean it didn't happen; the report mentioned meetings that did occur but which did not lead to a relationship. Wright commented on this too; that was the sentence that you concealed earlier.  The one you were pretending not to know what I was talking about above.  csloat

The last sentence has nothing to do with the meeting or whether they had a relationship, I'll quote it again:
 * "But there is no evidence that Iraq ever supplied al-Qaeda with weapons or camps, and soon bin Laden resumed his support of Iraqi dissidents."

The definitive points (that Wright never refuted) that claim a relationship are: Claim A) al-Turabi arranged a meeting (which took place) between Iraqi intelligence and Al Qaeda. Claim B) Iraqis made the request that Bin Laden quit supporting anti-Saddam forces. Claim C) Bin Laden agrees to stop supporting anti-Saddam forces. Claim D) Bin Laden made a request for weapons and training camps. Claim E) Zawahiri travels to Iraq and meets Saddam in person.

The last sentence does not refute a single one of those claims, only that there is no evidence that the request of Claim D was fulfilled and that Claim C was fulfilled, but eventually was reversed.

I now understand why you continually refuse to quote and respond my points and counter-points, all of your arguments are fallacious and would look ridiculous next to specifics....so you fall back on generalities and repeat the same thing over and over again.
 * If you are not satisfied with my explanation or csloat's, then you might want to request external comment. Dynablaster

I can understand why you and cSloat want this discussion to end. It's a blatant example of a small group of people suppressing/slanting information to fit their preconceived notions. Beyond that, you're forwarding a view that has zero evidence, no good reasons to believe it to be true, some reasons for it not to be true (as explained above), but yet...you refuse the entry to be written in a neutral fashion. Plus the fact that...
 * [S]urely you understand that preceding the Wright material with the Feith memo...and not mentioning that there's no evidence to suggest he used the Feith memo...is misleading.Erics1one
 * No, I really don't see how it's misleading, not when the article has absolutely nothing to say about how Wright came by the information in the first place (and neither does Wright). Dynablaster

You don't think inserting "According to" or "According to information that was first made public" before a claim gives the impression that that claim is based on the first reference. It's actually an interesting experiment on how the human mind can rationalize the most illogical point of view.Erics1one (talk) 22:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User Erics1one wrote: "I can understand why you and cSloat want this discussion to end."
 * If you wish to put these arguments to the test, file a request for comment. How, may I ask, is that "want[ing] the discussion to end"? I'm tired of pointing out the obvious -- the text is neutral and expresses no view on how this one author came by his information. You are the only person making assumptions, nobody else. The Feith memo is perceived as being toxic, that is your obvious concern, and Intelligence agencies are unable to confirm this meeting ever took place, therefore you want to inject a personal qualifier to encourage original research and inoculate readers against making the same assumption as you! And with what purpose? To promote suspicion that Saddam and Osama bin Laden may have been secretly working together. I mean, why else would Wright put his reputation on the line and write about the meeting after all? Wink wink. Dynablaster (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm tired of pointing out the obvious -- the text is neutralDynablaster

It is not neutral, if it was, the only mention of Feith would be what is provable by fact and/or good reasons to believe. Therefore, the only mention should state: “Wright might have based this meeting on the Feith memo.”


 * and expresses no view on how this one author came by his information. Dynablaster

Placing, “According to information that was first made public in the Feith memo,” before any claim implies that the claim was based on that source.


 * You are the only person making assumptions, nobody else. Dynablaster

As the entry is currently written, it is an undeniable fact that Wright wrote about the Al Turabi meeting and used the Feith memo as his source. Why would anybody go to the discussion tab to debate that fact? Which is why you and those who have preconceived notions about the Al Turabi meeting refuse to correctly state the Feith memo relevance...which is, that Wright might have based his claim on the Feith memo. Nothing more and nothing less.


 * The Feith memo is perceived as being toxic, that is your obvious concernDynablaster

Linking a source that is perceived toxic to a claim that might not be based on that source is a concern for any objective thinker.


 * Intelligence agencies are unable to confirm this meeting ever took place, therefore you want to inject a personal qualifier to encourage original research and inoculate readers against making the same assumption as you!Dynablaster

The only personal qualifier I want to inject is the truth, we have no proof that Wright did or did not base his claim off the Feith memo. My assumption is that it is equally as possible for Wright to have used the Feith memo than to not have, but we don't know.


 * And with what purpose? To promote suspicion that Saddam and Osama bin Laden may have been secretly working together. Dynablaster

If this meeting occurred, it would not say anything about the extent of their working together, but simply that the meeting occurred. Again, I'm not sure why you or anyone else should feel threatened by that...you already have the intro to this article spun in your favor.Erics1one (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is not "spun" in anyone's "favor." The alleged meeting that you think was so important is now in the article, even including Lawrence Wright's own take on it.  I think we're good. csloat (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is not "spun" in anyone's "favor." csloat

I'll quote from the intro:
 * "[the] timeline below list allegations of meetings, all but one now discounted, denied or disproven by the United States Government, between al-Qaeda members and members of Saddam Hussein's government, as well as other information relevant to conspiracy theories involving Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda."

...considering what the trolls on this article consider to be evidence, and lack thereof, the first lines of the page are highly dubious. But you deserve applause, you want the casual observer to laugh at any mention of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and you've accomplished your goal.
 * The alleged meeting that you think was so important is now in the article, even including Lawrence Wright's own take on it. I think we're good. csloat (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The material that Wright provides is preceded by a source that is frowned upon...regardless of the fact that we have no evidence or reasons to believe Wright used the source. The only reason you're "good" is because the entry fits your point of view.Erics1one (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to start a page on this issue, be my guest, but I think it's well past time to drop the issue on this article, as it's just not relevant. As I said, the meeting is mentioned here as well as the fact that it first appeared in the Feith memo, and we even included Wright's opinion on it since you seem to think it's so relevant.  So, I think we're done here.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to start a page on this issue, be my guest, csloat

It does not necessitate its own page. It's an "either or" question: either he based his material on the Feith memo (and fabricated additional details that aren't included in the Feith memo...which I don't think is likely), or he conducted his own investigations and/or interviews.
 * As I said, the meeting is mentioned here as well as the fact that it first appeared in the Feith memo...csloat

If Wright did not base his material on the Feith memo, the fact that the meeting "was first made public by the Feith memo," would be irrelevant and unrelated to the Wright material.
 * and we even included Wright's opinion on it since you seem to think it's so relevant. csloat (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Wright does not provide an opinion on the meeting, but additional details that are not mentioned in the Feith memos.Erics1one (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Abu Ibrahim
placed on the FBI most wanted list a few days ago. At the very least he had ties with IIS and set up a terrorist base that Al Qaeda latter took over. I thought I would bring it in here first to see how you guys want to omit history.

http://www.sfexaminer.com/nation/ap/48688602.html

--OxAO (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Husayn al-Umari is a Palestinian terrorist who travelled the region extensively. He is suspected of aiding the insurgency in Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The same Associated Press article says it is "not clear if Ibrahim had any links with the Sunni-dominated Al-Qaida." But even if he became best fiends with Osama bin Laden in 2003, so what? You can't seriously draw a line backwards through time to connect him and his best new buddy Osama bin Laden with Saddam Hussein. That's absurd. Dynablaster (talk) 21:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah seriously quit reaching for stuff. Here's a good rule of thumb: Avoid original research synthesis.  This means if you find a reliable source that says "Husayn al-Umari helped Saddam Hussein fly AA Flight 11 into the North Tower of the World Trade Center," then it's probably ok to include that information here.  But if you have to engage in often tortured leaps of logic and chronology to connect what is said in a reliable source to the material on this page, it probably doesn't belong here.  Hope this helps! csloat (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A quick search I found that Muhammad Atif (al Qaeda trainer) wrote in code to Abu Ibrahim on Nov 19 1997.

http://ctc.usma.edu/aq/pdf/AFGP-2002-003677-Trans-Meta.pdf

that was a quick search... wonder what someone that actually looked would find?

--OxAO (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone who actually looked might find out that the Pentagon already did an exhaustive study of the Harmony documents (which this one is culled from) and found that in context these documents did not provide any substantive evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. They'd also find that this is already more than well covered both on this page and on the main page.  I've also reviewed the document you pulled myself and I fail to see what you think should be included about this document here.  It's best to find secondary sources actually commenting on this rather than to try to include original research in the form of your own analysis in the page itself.  Hope this helps; cheers! csloat (talk) 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

They looked and found nothing you say even know, I did find a communication between ISS and Al-Qaeda which was in code in the harmony papers. Maybe someone should look again? --OxAO (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could share that with us? And, if you want to include it on this page, please include a direct link to the reliable secondary sources establishing that this document constitutes an important link between Saddam and al Qaeda.  If you can't do this, you are simply synthesizing original research.  Here let me help you - I found this important document in the Harmony database that establishes a direct link between Saddam and 9/11! csloat (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I just found it with a quick search. Do you know anyone that can help verify this information? It seems to be a very good link we just need some one linked to these files to help verify the information. Would you like to help on that? --OxAO (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think your best bet is to send your resume to the West Point Counter Terrorism Center; you can offer to help them find the information in the Harmony documents that you feel their exhaustive study of them has missed. Best of luck. csloat (talk) 01:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"their exhaustive study" haha  funny.

I passed it to one that is writing a book on this issue who worked for the Iraqi government as a policy adviser. --OxAO (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Great; best of luck in your endeavors. I'm not sure what's funny about the Pentagon study but I'm pleased you are enjoying yourself.  Cheers, csloat (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

He looked into it and believes it was most likely an unknown using the name Abu Ibrahim. oh well I tried. But that doesn't negate the fact that Abu Ibrahim started the base Camps that Al Qaeda later used in Iraq. --OxAO (talk) 18:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Associated Press article says "bomb-making factory" (not base camps). Nowhere is it written Al-Qaeda later used the same building. Why do you keep making these things up? Dynablaster (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dynablaster: Bin Laden is only a 'suspect' for 9/11. What is your point? --OxAO (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Walter Russell Mead
An editor objected to this addition for reasons that are unclear to me:

Walter Russell Mead seems to make an interesting argument about a link. So why should it not be on this page? DougHill (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12 March, Walter Russell Mead in the Washington Post:"The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia. But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia. This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11."


 * It's simply not the kind of link allegation this page was created to describe (i.e. direct contact between the two, possibly leading to support). Dynablaster (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * He's doing the same thing on this page, and I commented on the talk page there. It's an interesting argument, yes, but this page is about actual contact between the two organizations, not causality.  Mead is clearly using the term "link" in that article to make reference to the link allegations described on this page as a kind of literary trope, but he's clearly not claiming that this is the same as Saddam and Osama planning terrorist attacks together. csloat (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)