First political party casualties from the war on terror?

[London Geezer]

I suppose then it's lucky that Iran has just reversed it's decision on barring Nuclear Arms Inspectors.

..........

I was suprised by the result of the GMTV (breakfast TV) where 68% said they'd vote against the Blair's Goverment if there was a similar bombing incident in UK.
Having lived in Chelsea, London for nearly 30 yrs the risk of being bombed by the IRA was something that was taken for granted and not thought about - if it happened, it happened.

Wow u live in Chelsea? U rich bitch j/k

However i must ask, why would people vote against Blair should a similar bombing happen here? What would the Tories do (or have done) to avoid such an incident? How would they cope with a similar situation to the one Blair got caught on with 911-war-on-terrorism-Iraq?

 

[John Reynolds]

That is a little better. However they don't provide conclusive evidence that there was no link, only the suggestion that it was "flimsy". Still no hard evidence that AQ did not receive support in some way from Saddam. I certainly would not go around stating that there was no connection as if it were a fact.

How do you prove a negative? Until hard evidence surfaces that proves there were financial links between the two, I tend to assume there weren't.

Not exactly the greatest of links but there's a # of links to reputable sources within the editorial: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html

 

[Sabastian]

That is a little better. However they don't provide conclusive evidence that there was no link, only the suggestion that it was "flimsy". Still no hard evidence that AQ did not receive support in some way from Saddam. I certainly would not go around stating that there was no connection as if it were a fact.

How do you prove a negative? Until hard evidence surfaces that proves there were financial links between the two, I tend to assume there weren't.

You know what they say about assumptions.. ass..u..me.. I think that any sort of connection between Saddam and AQ would be fairly loose and difficult to prove ether way. Again to say that it is a fact that AQ did not receive support would be to assume they did not have similar objectives in mind. It is not a known fact that there was no connection however it is logical to conclude that they were likely allies given their insatiable hatred of America.

Not exactly the greatest of links but there's a # of links to reputable sources within the editorial: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j021203.html

Hrm, well here is a small list of inflammatory links WRT the subject matter.

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1571/41_18/95358025/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36124

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...top.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=173762

http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_03/6515.html

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,103176,00.html

 

[THe_KELRaTH]

However i must ask, why would people vote against Blair should a similar bombing happen here? What would the Tories do (or have done) to avoid such an incident? How would they cope with a similar situation to the one Blair got caught on with 911-war-on-terrorism-Iraq?

I think our heads of state should go into the desert and offer themselves to the enemy .... "Take me but leave my ppl alone" hehehe

 

[John Reynolds]

It is not a known fact that there was no connection however it is logical to conclude that they were likely allies given their insatiable hatred of America.

Sabastian, we long thought the exact same thing when it came to Sino-Soviet relations, and it was far, far from the truth.

 

[Sabastian]

It is not a known fact that there was no connection however it is logical to conclude that they were likely allies given their insatiable hatred of America.

Sabastian, we long thought the exact same thing when it came to Sino-Soviet relations, and it was far, far from the truth.

Sorry that does not negate the high possibility of a connection between them. I am not saying you are wrong merely explaining that to suggest that it is a fact there was no connection is a major assumption. The flip side of it is too assume that there is one. There is no hard evidence ether way all we know is that they did share common objectives WRT America and state supported terrorism. Again, it is not a fact that there was no connection between AQ and Saddam.

 

[John Reynolds]

Sorry that does not negate the high possibility of a connection between them. I am not saying you are wrong merely explaining that to suggest that it is a fact there was no connection is a major assumption. The flip side of it is too assume that there is one. There is no hard evidence ether way all we know is that they did share common objectives WRT America and state supported terrorism. Again, it is not a fact that there was no connection between AQ and Saddam.

Fair enough. I just think it more prudent to not assume unless hard evidence is present. China and Soviet Russia were both communist states extremely wary of Western capitalism, and yet their relations were horrific for decades while our government was often quick to assume such common ground made them allies, even if reluctant ones. I just don't see bin Laden attempting to garner support from a secular leader such as Saddam, and and on the flipside I suspect Saddam's calls for a Jihad were more a calculated manipulation of indigenous fundamentalists than signs of ideological connectivity.

 

[Sabastian]

Fair enough. I just think it more prudent to not assume unless hard evidence is present. China and Soviet Russia were both communist states extremely wary of Western capitalism, and yet their relations were horrific for decades while our government was often quick to assume such common ground made them allies, even if reluctant ones. I just don't see bin Laden attempting to garner support from a secular leader such as Saddam, and and on the flipside I suspect Saddam's calls for a Jihad were more a calculated manipulation of indigenous fundamentalists than signs of ideological connectivity.

Surely there were differences between Saddams Iraq and AQ Taliban but they might have regarded the other as valuable assets/allies considering their fairly common held objectives. Not too mention their proximity to one another with similar demographics.

It is an assumption based on thin evidence that there was no connection between AQ and Saddam.

 

[John Reynolds]

It is an assumption based on thin evidence that there was no connection between AQ and Saddam.

I don't think Saddam would've appreciated bin Laden's urgings for Iraqis to overthrow their secular leader. Wouldn't exactly make me snuggle up in bed with someone.

 

[Sabastian]

It is an assumption based on thin evidence that there was no connection between AQ and Saddam.

I don't think Saddam would've appreciated bin Laden's urgings for Iraqis to overthrow their secular leader. Wouldn't exactly make me snuggle up in bed with someone.

They may have had "business like" sorts of connections a behind the scenes political connection if you like. I don't recall suicide bombings in Iraq before the removal of Saddam. I would suggest that their connections might only have been opportunist in their nature. Both the Taliban and Saddam had terrorist training camps, both countries share a similar demographic and more importantly both had a common enemy. It could very well have been that there were close ties between the groups despite their secular and fundamentalist philosophies. You cannot assume that there was no connection between the two parties based on the evidence available yet.

 

[Clashman]

Both the Taliban and Saddam had terrorist training camps

Correction for you: Ansar al Islam, (the terrorist camp you're probably referring to), was actually a militant Kurdish group inside the Kurdish autonomous region, which Saddam really didn't have control over. Unless you're referring to the Iranian exhile rebel group, which really shares next to nothing in common with Al Queda, and I HIGHLY doubt that they would have worked together.

 

[John Reynolds]

They may have had "business like" sorts of connections a behind the scenes political connection if you like. I don't recall suicide bombings in Iraq before the removal of Saddam. I would suggest that their connections might only have been opportunist in their nature. Both the Taliban and Saddam had terrorist training camps, both countries share a similar demographic and more importantly both had a common enemy. It could very well have been that there were close ties between the groups despite their secular and fundamentalist philosophies. You cannot assume that there was no connection between the two parties based on the evidence available yet.

Isn't the reverse exactly what the current administration has done?

Oh, and to be perfectly clear, I agree with you that no assumption should be made either way. Like I said, show me the evidence.

 

[Sabastian]

Isn't the reverse exactly what the current administration has done?

Oh, and to be perfectly clear, I agree with you that no assumption should be made either way. Like I said, show me the evidence.

Dam you caught on.

Yeah no question about that. Even so I still indorsed the removal of Saddam and the Taliban. In the long run it will be worth the effort. Time will tell though. Saddam was a menacing character wrt American security. Was it eminent danger ?.. I don't know. Was he a danger? Most definitely. But all of this is beside the point now.. he is gone and Iraq has an intern constitution well on its way to being an ally of the US rather then a hostile state this is a "good thing".