Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
292,405
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 6:
Line 6: + Line 22:
Line 23: − + − + + Line 29:
Line 31: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→User:Conservative proven wrong, AGAIN
== 9-11 Report ==
== 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)
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)
:*The report did not make a determination. If you feel the report is being misread, please cite the page and passage where a "determination" was made. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:*The report did not make a determination. If you feel the report is being misread, please cite the page and passage where a "determination" was made. Thank you. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:51, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::* So the word "determination" appears to be the sticking point. Is it thus the case that the Report merely found no evidence of operational cooperation, a statement which does not preclude the existence of operational cooperation having taken place in secret? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:22, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::* So the word "determination" appears to be the sticking point. Is it thus the case that the Report merely found no evidence of operational cooperation, a statement which does not preclude the existence of operational cooperation having taken place in secret? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 18:22, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:::*I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information. Either way, the report ''does not'' give
:::*I think you have the idea; to simply say "the official report found no evidence..." is misleading for possibly two reasons, (a) incompetence of the report investigators; and (b) withheld information. Either way, the report ''does not'' preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted. So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas. While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can not give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report. The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
preclude complicity, as is often how its misquoted. So we need a simple, straight forward narration of facts, which the Report gives, yet is still not detminative in certain areas. While it is perhaps the best guide we can use, on the hand, we can give what still may be accomplices a clean bill of health, based upon the Report. The Report does not do so, it only says, 'we don't know'. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:14, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::::*Interesting. Are there other instances where the 9/11 commission is widely considered by experts to have been written by incompetents, or it is considered likely that information has been withheld, perhaps due to it being classified? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:24, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
::::::Read it yourself. They keep saying "we just don't know." [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:57, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
== Wait what ==
== Wait what ==
This article says at the top, "This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!" However, the page is currently locked! How are we supposed to expand the article if it's locked? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
This article says at the top, "This article needs to be expanded. Please write more!" However, the page is currently locked! How are we supposed to expand the article if it's locked? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 17:05, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
:It's unprotected now. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 17:11, 1 July 2007 (EDT)
::I still cannot edit it? --[[User:JonathanDrain|JonathanDrain]] 11:20, 2 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It's unprotected now. Sorry about that. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:58, 3 July 2007 (EDT)
Seems to be locked as of 5th September 2007
== Leftist terrorist organization? ==
Couldn't help to notice that Al Qaeda is referred to as a leftist terrorist organization on the [[Terrorism]] page. This is not mentioned in this article at all and frankly I have never heard of it before. --[[User:Sachaztan|Sachaztan]] 18:46, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
== Iraq relationship ==
The following section does not reflect the source:
''The 9/11 Commission Report has tied al-Qaeda to the government of Ba'athist government of Saddam Hussein,[2] specifically the alleged harboring of al-Qaeda second-in-command Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and cooperation in Saddam's war against the kurds. the 9/11 Commission Report cites Bin laden meeting with Iraqi intelligence officials in Khatroum as early as 1995. Bin Laden declined reported Iraqi offers of a safe haven, instead settling in Afghanistan. Friendly contacts between Iraqis and Bin Laden continued.''
Nowhere in that source is Zarqawi mentioned, who wasn't even a player until after the US invasion. I thought this might be a mistaken reference to Zawahiri, but there's nothing about him being harbored there. Also, the source mentions several times that while contacts occurred between AQ and Hussein's government, there was nothing approaching an operational relationship between the two. Since the article is locked, I can't make the change. [[User:Dchall1|Dchall1]] 15:32, 27 April 2008 (EDT)
== Spelling Error? ==
The word "mujaheddin" might be misspelled on the main page. There seem to be 2 accepted spellings of this word (neither of which is the one used) so maybe someone can fix this who knows which is right?
==[[Category:User:Conservative proven wrong]], [https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:WhatLinksHere/User:Conservative_proven_wrong AGAIN]==
[[User:Conservative]] has misrepresented the views of Rear Admiral [[James Stavridis]] is his more than 4 dozen [[warmongering]] [[troll]] screeds.
*On March 2, 2025 the ''[[London Telegraph]]'' reported former Supreme Allied Commander [[US Navy]] Four Star Admiral [[James Stavridis]] said that since the [[Trump administration]] made it clear that '''[[Ukraine aid|aid to Kyiv]] could become a "[[geopolitical]] miscalculation of colossal proportions....We may be witnessing the last days of [[NATO]]".'''<ref>[https://archive.is/QrPQA End of Nato alliance could be ‘days away’, warns former commander], Cameron Henderson, ''[[The Telegraph]]'', 01 March 2025. www.telegraph.co.uk</ref>
*Whenever a rising power (in this case [[China]]) confronts an established power (the [[U.S.]]) over the past two thousand years, the outcome very often leads to a global conflict. This occurs despite the fact that in most cases there is no advantage to either side in launching into a [[war]].<ref>[https://time.com/5945178/sleepwalk-war-with-china/ How the U.S. Could Sleepwalk into a War with China], [[James Stavridis]] and Elliot Ackerman, ''[[TIME magazine]]'', Mar 9, 2021. </ref>
{{reflist}}