Is there a deal between al-quaida and the us?

[Ex-RoNiN 0]

Bear with me. I have strung this opinion together from a variety of sources. Firstly, the explosive thought that brought everything together came from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2945750.stm

This passage I think is most important:

Quote[/b] ]The other factor he describes as "huge" was that an attack would allow the US to pull its troops from Saudi Arabia, thereby resolving a major grievance held by al-Qaeda.

Ok, we all know that one of the major reasons for al-quaida to wage war against the US are the US troups stationed in Saudi-Arabia, which have been pulled out after the war.

In Speakers Corner, we were discussing last week about how al-Quaida were not attacking the Saudi government for being a US puppet, but the US instead. This was on another forum. We were saying, how can al-quaida be freedom fighters if they attack the US, rather than their own puppet government.

Today we hear about the attacks on Riyadh, and BBC and other news agencies warning of al-Quaida threatening the Saudi government.

If we put this in a correct chronology, then we come up with this: al-Quaida hates US because of US troups in SA - AQ attacking US all over the place - Iraq war - Iraq war ends - US troups pull out of SA - AQ lose justification for continued attacks on US - US dont get attacked by AQ anymore (apart from Iraq) - AQ bomb Riyad and threaten Saudi government.

Now we have the quote on the top. Am I reading correctly between the lines here, do the pieces fit together simply by chance, or is there something happening in the background. Thoughts?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]All opinion polls show most Americans are unconcerned about the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Thatsfrom the same article ...

As far as AQ are concerned no i dont think theres any deal between the US (thats just another conspiracy theory probably ) , the thing is AQ is losing is support everywhere its losing its grip all over because its getting blamed for nearly every attack slightly related to terror and the possibility of a muslim attached to it. Now they are doing what they have always wanted to do , bring down the SA govt , it always had been the forefront motive since 80's whn these extremists were happily sent to run an errand back in Afghanistan by our govt and the US to keep them busy and get the dirty work done. Apparently Laden was never impressed by our corrupt govt ... (cant blam him hes partially right) but whats cooked their goose is now that muslims worldwide are starting to see him as the 'bad' terrorist , even though his probable cause was too eliminate the corruption in our govt and bring about a 'radical Over islamized' govt here , one which doesnt lick up anyones bottom and functions at its own will (Like NK is atm).So now i feel this is thre last ditch attempt at trying to get the govt here to accede some sort of a treaty with them or they start blowing themselves here. In which they will fail miserably considering blowing onesselve up in Makkah in Ramadan isnt gonna win them appreciation around the muslim world.

But atleast out of all this the ONE good thing that i feel is gonna come out is that the hardliners will be sidelined and liberals for once (like me ) will get a hear and say in the govt and internal policy's. It might just trigger a modernization of islamic laws and interpreting them in the light of the modern world might just become a reality. Since most top scholars and religious heads are still carrying on with their ancient policy's which isnt doing anyone any good. The way i see it its nice to have some sort a revolution kickup bcoz of this ruckus.

Thats how i see the situation.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

There was something dodgy going on when the US Govt chartered private planes for the Bin Laden family members to leave the US on the 12th september, without questioning them first...

[Jinef 2]

Just looking at that article, i found it very sad that most Americans seem 'unconcerned' with the current lack of WMD in Iraq. Do people agree with this statement? Do the Americans on this forum find it to be unjust?

Is America is getting into a state of mind where it can do whatever it wants and the population is rather pathetically apathetic?

This is not a good sign.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]Is America is getting into a state of mind where it can do whatever it wants and the population is rather pathetically apathetic?

Dude recent happenings around us answer the question very well i doubt if anyone need to answer that ......

[Postduifje 0]

I smell conspiracy!

It's not likely there's been a formal pact, but part of the story might have some true elements. By giving AQ more perspective on there real goal (SA), it might just leave them out of the target. It smells a bit fishy, but not entirely true.

-Post

[Jinef 2]

Well, that's what it certainly looks like, but the last time i was on the Offtopic forum discussing the US (March i think) most Americans were very much with the American dream.

[theavonlady 2]

Just looking at that article, i found it very sad that most Americans seem 'unconcerned' with the current lack of WMD in Iraq. Do people agree with this statement?

Here's a recent poll of US citizens and current events.

Even where it says "Fifty-one percent disapproved of Bush's overall handling of Iraq", that doesn't mean the other 49% are unconcerned about the lack of WMDs found in Iraq.

[EiZei 0]

Something tells me that the 2004 election will be about if GWB gets to continue, not who gets to be the president.

[Schoeler 0]

The 2004 election is where you will see the results of American's opinions about the war. A republican dominated Congress is not going to impeach their wonderful little golden boy, the republican "President" George W. Bush. Neither will there be calls from big business or big politics, both factions which are currently recieiving blowjobs from the Bush Admininstration in the form of huge payoffs through tax breaks, special incentives and campaign contributions. The media too has sold its soul to the highest bidder. Most Americans aren't really apathetic, they are just under and misinformed by this huge corporate/political/media propaganda machine. America runs on money and the government now belongs to the highest bidder. Start fucking with our civil rights, or passing "secret legislation" like TBA has just admitted to and your going to have problems from 280 million armed citizens.

[havocsquad 0]

Amen bro, the U.S. EPA administration was literally declawed by the Bush Administration, the tax cuts really don't help much since at most that will buy maybe 2 months of groceries at most or a few clothing or luxury items.  In addition, every year that tax cut isn't paid off by the govt, you can add about 3 to 5 percent interest every year to it and it will be 5 to 8 years before any reform will sightnificantly reduce or eliminate that debt incurred by the tax cuts.

Tax cuts don't work in the long term because it ignores the penalty of borrowing it, which the interest of borrowing it costs some joe earning minimum wage a significant cut of his pocket.

Progress and growth is gained through people and their skills and talents used to the best, not money alone and defeinately not primarily by wealthy individuals playing craps with their money on captial ventures.

There's my two cents...

[Acecombat 0]

So its just about having 'our' own civil liberty/rights intact and the rest 'we' dont care attitude ...

[Milkman 1]

Just looking at that article, i found it very sad that most Americans seem 'unconcerned' with the current lack of WMD in Iraq. Do people agree with this statement? Do the Americans on this forum find it to be unjust?

Is America is getting into a state of mind where it can do whatever it wants and the population is rather pathetically apathetic?

This is not a good sign.

WMD was the WRONG reason to go to war with Iraq. I usually am a supporter of Bush, but he was a goddamn idiot to use WMD to justify war. He should have gone in there as humanitarian aid. If he had done that instead, the UN might have actually have backed the war. There are WMDs, bu I doubt they will ever be found.

[EiZei 0]

Just looking at that article, i found it very sad that most Americans seem 'unconcerned' with the current lack of WMD in Iraq. Do people agree with this statement? Do the Americans on this forum find it to be unjust?

Is America is getting into a state of mind where it can do whatever it wants and the population is rather pathetically apathetic?

This is not a good sign.

WMD was the WRONG reason to go to war with Iraq. I usually am a supporter of Bush, but he was a goddamn idiot to use WMD to justify war. He should have gone in there as humanitarian aid. If he had done that instead, the UN might have actually have backed the war. There are WMDs, bu I doubt they will ever be found.

Something tells me that justifying a rather costy war with humanitarian reasons rather than [security|paranoia] ones would not have appealed to average USian.

[Major Gripe 0]

Just looking at that article, i found it very sad that most Americans seem 'unconcerned' with the current lack of WMD in Iraq. Do people agree with this statement? Do the Americans on this forum find it to be unjust?

Is America is getting into a state of mind where it can do whatever it wants and the population is rather pathetically apathetic?

This is not a good sign.

WMD was the WRONG reason to go to war with Iraq. I usually am a supporter of Bush, but he was a goddamn idiot to use WMD to justify war. He should have gone in there as humanitarian aid. If he had done that instead, the UN might have actually have backed the war. There are WMDs, bu I doubt they will ever be found.

You cannot possibly still believe there are WMD in Iraq after all the evidence to the contrary, from people who would know and have no political agenda or reason to lie. As for invading under a humanitarian pretext, that is frankly laughable! If the US was concerned about humanitarian injustices roughly two thirds of Africa and a half of Asia would be under US control by now! And the UN still wouldn't have approved the war as either France or Russia would have vetoed it as industrial contracts with the Ba'athist part were too valuable to lose without a fight.

[Baron Hurlothrumbo IIX 0]

There should still be some WMDs in Iraq because not all the WMDs that were sold to Saddam by the US years ago have been found

[Crazysheep 1]

There should still be some WMDs in Iraq because not all the WMDs that were sold to Saddam by the US years ago have been found

The stuff Saddam had (VX and Sarin) goes out of date after 5 years; he can't have them now, all his facilities were destroyed 5+ years ago so he couldn't have constructed new ones either.

[Acecombat 0]

I think he destroyed some by himself too as said by some scientists interrogated by the US ...

The poor pig got roasted for something he didnt have

[EiZei 0]

As far as I know chemical weapons have a relatively short shelf-life.

[Jinef 2]

He roasted?

Nah, he's living the high life now with a nice suit in a fine hotel and a Swiss Bank Account.

[Major Gripe 0]

He roasted?

Nah, he's living the high life now with a nice suit in a fine hotel and a Swiss Bank Account.

....sunning himself on Palm Beach while he adjusts to life without a moustache!!

[toadlife 3]

I think Saddam thought he had WMD, but he really didn't. It has come out that some of his scientists were milking him for millions, telling him that they were building 'weapon x' and 'weapon y', when they were really building nothing.

Why would they do this? Because in the past, scientists that brought bad news to Saddam would get a bullet in their head, courtesy of the big man himself. That is documented. Why actually try and build the weapons he wants and risk being murdered if you fail, when you could just tell him everything is great and move his money into your own swiss account?

I think the CIA were listening to all of these phony conversations regarding these phantom weapons and got caught up in the big lie themselves.

If IRAQ did have any WMD left, I'm sure they were very few and far between. Hiding a few barrells in a coutry the size of Iraq would make them virtually impossible to find, especcially if the dudes who hid them were executed by the Iraqi gov. or were vaprorized by a JDAM courtesty of the U.S.. WMS could have also easily been moved over to friendly coumntries like Syria.

[EiZei 0]

oops

[denoir 0]

I think Saddam thought he had WMD, but he really didn't. It has come out that some of his scientists were milking him for millions, telling him that they were building 'weapon x' and 'weapon y', when they were really building nothing.

Why would they do this? Because in the past, scientists that brought bad news to Saddam would get a bullet in their head, courtesy of the big man himself. That is documented. Why actually try and build the weapons he wants and risk being murdered if you fail, when you could just tell him everything is great and move his money into your own swiss account?

I think the CIA were listening to all of these phony conversations regarding these phantom weapons and got caught up in the big lie themselves.

If IRAQ did have any WMD left, I'm sure they were very few and far between. Hiding a few barrells in a coutry the size of Iraq would make them virtually impossible to find, especcially if the dudes who hid them were executed by the Iraqi gov. or were vaprorized by a JDAM courtesty of the U.S.. WMS could have also easily been moved over to friendly coumntries like Syria.

Nice fantasy, but it's not quite compatible with the reality. I'm afraid that the CIA et al are not off the hook that easily.

Everybody they have interviewed and interrogated about the weapons are telling the same thing: In the early 90's, Saddam ordered all the remaining WMD programs to be shut down. This was because he considered the political cost of having them being too high.

Now to claim that it was a cover up story might have worked while Saddam was in power. Now however the hundreds of scientists that they have interviewed have no reason to lie. Everybody is saying the same thing and there's no Saddam now to put pressure on them.

Although Bush & Co don't like to talk about it, we know now more or less what happened to the WMD and WMD programs. Perhaps you should read and watch a bit more international media. I'm starting to believe that your domestic ones aren't telling you the complete story. Otherwise you wouldn't come up with such an explanation that is so off the mark.

[theavonlady 2]

Everybody they have interviewed and interrogated about the weapons are telling the same thing: In the early 90's, Saddam ordered all the remaining WMD programs to be shut down. This was because he considered the political cost of having them being too high.

Then why wasn't the UN itself satisfied over all those years?

Why didn't Saddam hand over the reports of their destruction?

Why did he put Iraq through a decade-plus embargo when he could have invited UN and world representatives to eye witness his compliance with the world's demand?