View source for Talk:Al Qaeda

== 9-11 Report ==
With all due respect I think that some aspects of this discussion is the very epitome of hair splitting. Whilst I would agree that precision is important is these matters surely there is one key question that needs to asked - was there enough evidence of collusion between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003? The answer to that question has to be a resounding no. To include unreliable accounts of meeting that may have taken place between Iraqis and Bin Laden in what is intended to be an article about al Qaeda is disgracefully partisan. [[Wilberforce]] 5th Sept 2007

Rob - if the part of the report that says that "cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khartoum as early as 1995" is citable, why is the part on page 66 saying that " . . . to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States" something that has no place in this encyclopedia? It's from the exact same document, after all. [[User:Sevenstring|Sevenstring]] 12:21, 6 June 2007 (EDT)
:Read what your cite says; while the early cite reports on a known fact, the later does not deny facts, it only refers to an unknown--they have seen no evidence.  Hence, it is inconclusive.  Obviously al-Qaede operates under secrecy, and it is '''very well known''' of America's intelligence incompetence, and failures. To include that reference from the 9/11 Report, implying a conclusion of no relationship, is false and misleading.  In the immortal words on Don Rumsfeld, "There are things that we know, there are things that we don't know, and there are things that we don't know that we don't know".  [[User:RobS|RobS]] 13:22, 6 June 2007 (EDT)