BF2S Forums No Iraq-al Qaeda links found

there is evidence that showed zarqawi was in iraq, in baghdad, before march 03 as a guest of saddam's.

Its also doubted Zarqawi was formally part of AQ at that time - I think that was in the Pentagon report.

Bush, who has said himself that there is no evidence Iraq was involved in 9/11, sought to explain the distinction Thursday, saying that while the administration never "said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated" with Iraqi help, "we did say there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda."

Thats what Bush is saying now. Bush is backpedalling.

ORLY? How does one source firsthand experience?

By supplying some kind of evidence to back it up. 'Source or STFU' remember?
I don't believe your 'firsthand experience' when your memory is so selective and has such huge blanks.
In any case the only information you have in front of you is that sourced from other areas in the admin and the military so is less than impartial or reliable.

I DID read the thread. If my comment was ignorant, it's because you didn't provide the information to inform it. You didn't source your claim.

I think you'll find I did, the comments on the US missiles in Iraqi embassies were in the Pentagon report - which was sourced twice in the thread, and which the OP is about.
I have no plans to provide a weblink with every single sentence.
If you need it pointed out to you a comment in a thread is related to the OP thats too bad.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-05 19:57:30)

Gunslinger OIF II wrote:

Ill give you that.

Wow

FEOS wrote:

Or you could have just said "This was in the report in the OP".

Why would I need to do that? Its a thread, the discussion evolves, do I have to link back to the thread every time I write something.
^ This is related to your point, thats why I quoted you in line one of this post.

FEOS wrote:

If so, please provide the source. If not, STFU.

It seems you're the tool, read the OP and try to follow the thread in future. Maybe follow some of the links before you tell people to STFU
^ This bit is in relation to my comment 'Interestingly the Iraqis claimed to have US missiles in their various embassies - US supports Iraqi terrorists? Even I wouldn't claim that one.' Which is in the thread http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=97074&p=1
If you've got a point to make please start by reading the OP which again is here http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=97074&p=1 , or you'll just look a dick.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2008-04-06 06:13:56)

You make a wild-assed claim (or so it seems)

No, you had a preconceived notion in your head and wildly misinterpreted the information in front of you so badly your conclusion was the complete reverse of the real situation.
Ring any bells?

implying that the US supplied Iraq with missile launchers

This has come out of nowhere, I didn't imply any kind of direct link between the US and Iraq, I just noted there was information Iraq claimed to have US missiles and stated it was not my belief the US was supplying terrorists. The idea I suggested a direct link between the US and Iraq has come from you.
Spooky isn't it?

The fact that the claim is in line with your normally unsourced claims that are based solely on your own conjecture, led me down that path.

I would say you led yourself down a path, no-one else did anything.
Deja vu anyone?
BTW I would stick my neck out and say I reckon I supply more links, sources, backup info than almost anyone else on this forum. You choose to ignore it which is why you never remember.

Past performance is normally an indicator of present/future performance.

And often it isn't, ask a stockbroker, and as you've demonstrated 'experience' of past performance often blinkers people so badly they can't see in front of their nose.
Is this sounding eerily familiar?

you later clarified

Not really, just pointed out you were wrong.
Come on, we've been here before haven't we?

Forgive me for thinking you were being your normal self.

Even when you screw up so badly your first instinct is to insult and ridicule the other side.

So in summary.
You're so busy looking for a fight, and blinkered by your prejudices about the sorts of things I say and mean, you misinterpret information right in front of you and create linkages and implications out of thin air.
Even when your shown to have goofed your first instinct is to start up with the insults.

Funny that you're an employee of the Pentagon and your micro-behaviour mirrors their macro-behaviour so neatly.

Or you could have just said "This was in the report in the OP".

Could have, but then there was that whole 'source or STFU' thing

I'm not worried about looking like a dick...but you should be.

I'm not worried, I'm well aware that ship has sailed.

Really this is intended (at least partially) in a constructive sense.
Maybe learning a little humility would be helpful.