Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 4

message: #--kizzle 05:30, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
#--csloat 05:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: # -- We can come up with a better, more neutral title than the above two options. zen master T 14:29, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other, titles should not use "and" 

message: This proposed use would not be  accurate or consistent with other uses.  The current name is the result of extensive discussion and several votes, the last one of which was overwhelmingly in favor of the current title. ObsidianOrder 06:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This should probably be moved to the Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda page, not here; the name is accurate and consistent with Wikipedia policy established at the above link (from my post).  The current name change proposal is different from the one voted on at the link above (in ObsidianOrder's post). --csloat 06:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion moved from [[WP:RM]]

message: Please see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_majoritarian_democracy for the relevance of voting to consensus in Wikipedia policy. -- RyanFreisling @ 05:29, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need more input -- 7 votes is not enough to settle anything I don't think.  It would be nice to have input from others in the wiki community who aren't as obsessed with this topic as the 7 of us.  I also would like to see input from Kevin Bass who did the renaming originally as well as from the otehrs on the discussion about "conspiracy theory" pages in general.  It appears Kevin was renaming the page in response to another vote on such names as a general category.  Anyway I don't want to say this is settled after such a small sample voting; I'm not going to muck with the title again but I don;t think we can call the voting over.  Isn't there a way to officially request that others take a look at the arguments here?--csloat 21:11, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, post it on Wikipedia:Requested moves.  I agree that this is an insufficient number of votes. Thank you, it's very reasonable of you to say that.  ObsidianOrder 05:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I am in the process of posting it now. I just added the move tag at the top of this page.--csloat 05:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What counts as consensus on a new name

message: Thanks for archiving and putting the contents links up - obviously this discussion is ongoing and it's useful to have links to the topics rather than having to rehash them over and over.... --csloat 22:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks Jnc 

message: for people who keep moving this page against the consensus, see Wikipedia_talk:Conspiracy_theory/archive2. User:Kevin baas 11:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
:Kevin, to simply assume that the vote you mention applies in this case is ridiculous, especially after a brief read of the comments there.  It's you who are moving this page against the consensus - the earlier vote here was 6:2 in favor of the current title.  But hey, let's have another vote, why not - I think this would be the third or fourth title vote - precipitated by you moving the page multiple times without any prior discussion.  That's very disruptive behaviour.  ObsidianOrder 15:35, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I think about it, there's actually a very interesting paradox inherent in the use of the term "conspiracy theory" to refer to any claims that people in the Bush administration might have made or implied about connections between SH and AQ. One of the hallmarks of the classic conspiracy theory is that the proponents of it deeply believe in it. So, in calling any such claims by members of the BA a "conspiracy theory", those so naming it are inherently stating that those BA members really believed their claims. Which would seem to me to be directly in contradiction with another classic claim of those who oppose Bush, to wit, that BA people knew the whole thing was bogus, and deliberately lied/misled people about it, in order to drum up support for the invasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways: either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic "conspiracy theory". Noel (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To "conspire" is to work together (literally, to breathe together).  A conspiracy occurs when different people or forces join together to do something.  This page is about a theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda.  I don't know whether or not the Bushevics belived this junk but my sense is that some of them - the neocons - actually did.  Whether or not they did though they certainly manipulated the public to the point where many believe it.  Either way though to me it is a classic conspiracy theory (confirmed by the fact that such believers are impervious to logic or facts that dispute their claims - witness much of the discussion on the other page that someone made (I forget the title right now but it is discussed above) or even some of the comments on this page.--csloat 18:27, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

text: "either they did believe there was an SH-AQ link, in which case they weren't lying, or they didn't believe it, in which case it's not at all a classic "conspiracy theory". (User:Jnc|Noel) -- wah?  tom delay loves calling democrats "conspiracy theorists" whenever they state verifiable facts that are not conveninent for republicans.  Now certainly these so-called "conspiracy theorists" believed what they're saying.  cerainly radicals who think "the democrats are conspiring against bush" and the like believe what they're saying, and that is exactly why their theories are "conspiracy theories".  if they didn't believe what they were saying, it wouldn't be a conspiracy theory, it would simply be agitprop.  (agitation and propaganda) Now if you think it should rather be called agitprop, well that's much stronger and than "conspiracy theory" - it's a very serious allegation, and I don't think anyone in this discussion is prepared to take the position that that would comply with the NPOV policy. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:53, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
If there is such an article, I think it should be combined with this one. gidonb 12:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  conspiracy theory 

message: Re: the claim about Abu Wael, supposedly a Mukhabarat agent who met with Al Qaeda in 2001 -- this claim comes from Jack Kelly, who claims to have read it in the LATimes, 12/9 (either 2001 or 2002, it's not clear).  A lexis/nexis search reveals no references to "Abu Wael" in the LA Times at all, and nothing really anywhere else relevant.  Specifically looking at 12/8-10 for both years, I found nothing in the LATimes mentioning Iraq and al Qaeda at all.  Can someone else find the source?  If not I think we should delete this item.csloat 02:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abu Wael Claims? 

message: It seems like the dispute about the title of this article has died down at present, so I've removed the Wikipedia:Requests for comment on this issue.  If someone still wants it, feel free to re-add it. Just doing janitor duty. JesseW 09:46, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed the RFC 

message: This is why I wish the page title had something with Pre-War in it...does it say at all that this mural was built before 9/11?  Because that would be a helluva thing to find.  However, more likely it was built afterwards, because if Bin Laden's own people didn't know the specific details of his plot, I doubt the Iraqi military knew.  This is yet another example of doing the equivalent of doing a lexis-nexis or google search on "iraq + al-qaeda" and using any returned results to justify intentional links between the two.  On a different note, later today I am planning to build the same mural myself, so get ready to write a Kizzle and Al-Qaeda article. (note to NSA/CIA, just kidding) --kizzle 18:19, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
:It was obviously painted afterwards; did you see it?  If the Iraqis were involved in 9-11 we sure would find more concrete evidence than a freaking mural.  I'm deleting the reference entirely; it's just not relevant to the discussion.  We might as well include the Dutch Islamic calendar that appeared with a plane crash off the coast of NY for September (remember that?) in a Netherlands and Al Qaeda article.  This is a piece of art, not an intelligence meeting. csloat 18:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iraqi Mural 

message: I made three major changes to the anonymous edits that have been added today:
* Deleted nonsense about the mural in Nasiriya (see above; it has no bearing on this discussion)
* Atta in Prague:  the NYT article is a couple months after the report from Prague Post, which is just evidence of the period of "confused" statements coming from Czech officials that is discussed - and cleared up - in the NYT article. 
* Justice Dept indictment:  This item is inserted in bad faith, I believe, or at least it is stretching the boundaries.  The indictment is not evidence of anything; it simply is a recounting of items discussed elsewhere on this page.  The stuff added about the pharmaceutical factory in Sudan has nothing to do with Iraq.  The Abdulla al-Iraqi claim is BS; it comes from al-Libi, who recanted; intel agents who have interviewed Libi agree that the claim was BS (and that has been confirmed by interrogations of other al Qaeda members).  I don't know who the hell Feif is but if you meant Feith, that memo is dealt with elsewhere on this page also, as is Salman Pak.  In any case, none of that belongs in a throwaway item like this DOJ suit, which does not in itself constitute "evidence" of anything.
--csloat 03:23, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Anonymous Edits 

message: Please justify your changes here.  Otherwise what you are doing is vandalism, pure and simple.csloat 03:39, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention Anonymous Editor 

message: :Some sources assert that several meetings between top Iraqi operatives and bin Laden took place, but these claims have been disputed by many other sources, including most of the original intelligence agencies that investigated these sources.  Many in the intelligence community are skeptical about whether such meetings, if they took place, ever resulted in any meaningful relationship.  Many of the claims of actual collaboration seem to have originated with people associated with the Iraqi National Congress whose credibility has been questioned. In addition, many of the raw intelligence reports came to the awareness of the public through the leaking of a memo sent from Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ("the Feith memo", dated October 27, 2003), the conclusions of which have been disputed by intelligence agencies including the CIA.
* Some ... assert ... but
* Many ... are skeptical
* if they took place
* claims ... associated with [INC] ... credibility questioned
* In additon
* leaked by US official (insinuating that all US officials lie when defending Bush)
* conclusions ... disputed (even by CIA itself)
So it's 7 to 1 against, hardly a balanced approach. And not a single reason to believe the report.
This is the usual political propganda style -- used by both parties, I've noticed, and no I'm not a Republican. 
#Restate your opponent's assertion
#Omit his evidence and reasoning
#Give copious reasons why he's wrong
That's fine for a Times editorial (NY Times, Washington Times) - but it really sucks for an encyclopedia. We can do better than that. 
Anyone care to take crack at it? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 12:00, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
The problem with your argument, Ed, is that there <B>is not a single reason to believe the report.</B>  We have been through this over and over on this page; please review the discussion pages.  If you have reasons to doubt these conclusions, present them with evidence here, but please do not start the nitpicking about "balance" that you did on the Quran abuse at Guantanamo page.  It wastes everyone's time.  Wikipedia's goal is not just "balance" but also accuracy.  In this case, the conclusions of nearly all experts and of every intelligence agency on earth that has investigated this is that the Feith report is wrong and that there was no Saddam-Al Qaeda connection. --csloat 20:43, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Repair shop

message: I reverted Ed's changes, which were designed to bring the illusion of "balance" to an issue that has been settled by every reasonable analyst to look at the issue.  If Ed would like to present additional information that bolsters the credibility of the Feith report, we can deal with that, but his edits deleted a paragraph of information and replaced it with a vague statement that the issue of Saddam and OBL links is "hotly debated."  The only people who believe in such links anymore are ideologues who seem to get all their information from the Weekly Standard.  These reports have been soundly refuted and rather than presenting evidence in response, the neocon Weekly Standard crowd simply repeats their claims over and over.  If we want to include information that there is a vocal cadre of such ideologues still insisting on such a connection, that is fine, but it is the duty of Wikipedia to represent the case correctly and to point out that these voices, though ubiquitous, represent a tiny part of the political spectrum, that they have been refuted over and over by far more legitimate sources (from various parts of the political spectrum), and that many of them have been caught repeating claims they know to be out and out lies.
Again, Ed, I implore you, please do not start the kind of nonsense you did over at Qur'an desecration controversy of 2005.  I understand you have a certain point of view that you want to see represented, and that is fine, but please do not make "balance" a priority over accuracy.  As I said over on that page, we would not want to "balance" the Wikipedia article on the shape of the earth with the voices of a cadre of fanatics (or jokers) who believe it to be flat.  We also don't want to "balance" the Holocaust article with the views of Holocaust deniers.  In the case of the neocons, we can represent their views here, but we have to make clear that those views have been soundly refuted by a consensus of experts and that, once again, there is not a single intelligence agency on earth that believes those views. --csloat 21:01, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed's Destructive Editing

message: It's clear there are many instances of cooperation between al Qaeda and Saddam Hueesin.  Many are referenced in the 9/11 Commission report, some are mentioned in declassified CIA letters and reports, and many others are still classified.
The use of the term "conspiracy," however, is perjorative and clearly violates the professed neutrality of Wikipedia.  I have modified as many uses of this term as possible within textural flow.
Mr.  Googolplex
:Read the damn timeline please.  There are no instances of "cooperation" between the two; there are a few attempts by one or the other to extend feelers out there but as all investigators concluded, these attempts did not lead to any cooperation.  If you know of classified information that disputes this, you should let us know, or let the CIA know, because they have not been informed about it yet.  As for "conspiracy", it is not used here pejoratively.  It is the most accurate term for this theory,  the theory being that Saddam and al Qaeda conspired to use terrorism against the United States.  I'm not sure what is wrong with the term; even if the theory were true, it would still be a "conspiracy" (for example, the 19 hijackers were part of a "conspiracy" that included KSM and OBL -- that is certainly a "conspiracy" that exists; the term does not mean it didn't happen.)--csloat 2 July 2005 18:49 (UTC)
Let me correct that statement - "conspiracy" is not necessarily pejorative, but "conspiracy theory" definitely is. How can you claim neutrality when you are cant even make unbiased arguments on the discussion page? - jcp
:hrm; not sure what you mean about my claims to neutrality.  Let's go through this again.  The theory discussed on this page is the theory that al Qaeda conspired with Saddam.  It is the definition of a conspiracy theory.  Even if it were true (it is not, according to all the evidence that we have seen), it would still be a conspiracy theory (the same as the theory that 19 hijackers conspired to demolish the WTC and hit the pentagon, for example).  Again, I don't object to removing it from the title - I'm not the one who renamed it, and I am the one who proposed the previous title (Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda) which I have said here seems the most neutral to me.  I'm just pointing out that "conspiracy theory" is perfectly accurate to describe the theory here.  It has all the hallmarks of conspiracy theory in the pejorative sense as well -- the true believers who refuse to acknowledge evidence that contradicts their position, the shifting burden of proof, and the self-serving arguments (e.g. "of course that's what so-and-so would say; it's because he's part of the conspiracy").  So it is an accurate term whether you feel it is pejorative or not.  But I am still waiting to hear from the person who actually changed the title; if you feel it is time to change it back please be my guest.--csloat 07:37, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrase "conspiracy theory" has more than one definition, see Conspiracy theory, it can mean simply a theory of people literally conspiring but its secondary definition also connotes that the theory is "unworthy of being taken seriously" which is obviously pejorative. zen master T 13:51, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy/Cooperation? 

message: I've deleted large chunks of text from the "Statements" section because it was improperly formatted and totally unorganized -- some of it may be salvageable; if someone wants to pull out a gem or two for the page please go for it.  
Also, when can we delete the NPOV/factual accuracy tag from the heading of the article?  Does anyone have concerns about this that have not yet been answered?--csloat 9 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)
:I'm OK with removing the NPOV/factual/etc tag. ObsidianOrder 08:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted text; NPOV tag 

message: In addition to the many particulars surrounding specific allegations (e.g. Atta/Prague, Salman Pak, etc.), the title itself, recently changed by the original poster, is heavily under dispute. In addition, various issues remain unaddressed regarding the structure and premise of the article, and the inclusion of 'factoids' now proven to be spurious. For these and other reasons, the TotallyDisputed tag is completely appropriate, up-to-date, and should not be removed without a large group giving consensus.  -- RyanFreisling @ 14:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV/TotallyDisputed

message: How about including this link in the intro?  It's not precisely what was there before but I think it helps establish how far in left field this conspiracy theory is.  This was how some of Bush's own Admin reacted after he started making these wild claims.  At the very least I will put this in the timeline; I will think about how to incorporate it in the intro (and see if I can dig up some choice quotes on the issue summarizing the consensus of experts). --csloat 20:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  how about this? 

message: Does anyone know where I can find the full text of the comments this BBC article is talking about? Bush Rejects Saddam 9/11 Link --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 20:44, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Funny, a quick search of whitehouse.gov reveals word for word the same comment in two speeches from Condee.  I guess it makes sense though they do circulate the "talking points" for the admin and often lazily quote them word for word.--csloat 18:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full text of comments 

message: I notice the title changed over and back again.  Has Kevin defended this move at all on this page before?  The actions are mysterious although I have said above I would support such a move if it makes this issue more clear (and the above exchange with Lord Voldemort indicates that it may).  But I don't think at this point the title should be changed without a vote. --csloat 02:25, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also support a title change like the one Kevin has attempted (each time reverted by the original poster). I am concerned that the article is being unfairly 'controlled' by ObsidianOrder (the original poster) in an unacceptable way. I also don't view Kevin's behavior  as mysterious, but the absence of 'talk' should be remedied. Kevin - your thoughts, so we can make this title change stick? -- RyanFreisling @ 02:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a discussion may be in order.  There may be other suggestions for names as well.  I also notice that OO has a note on Kevin's user page asking him to say what is going on here.  If there is support for this besides us we could go to WP:requested page moves or whatever and request the move.--csloat 05:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title, again 

message: There is another page on this topic that repeats a lot of the conspiracy theory as truth.  It also falsely claims that an Iraq-Al-Qaeda connection was commonly accepted in the Clinton Administration (certainly the Clinton Admin had access to a lot less info than the current one but they were not at all blindly accepting of the conspiracy theory or the theory of state sponsorship of al Qaeda.  The Laurie Mylroie theory of the 93 WTC attack had been roundly discredited before Bush).  The article comes to the opposite conclusion of this one (and, I might add, of every terrorism expert and intelligence agency on earth).  It should probably be deleted and replaced with a redirect.--csloat 23:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other page on this topic 

message: Kevin Baastalk: new 00:03, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Levin's conclusion goes way beyond this evidence: "The documents provide new, previously classified details demonstrating that Administration statements about the Iraq-al Qaeda relationship were not supported by the underlying intelligence. ".  'not supported", I'm glad this guy is not in the CIA.  Even these documents which he selectively had declassified show that there was evidence of cooperation, just that it was considered of questionable reliability and not conclusive.  If included in the article at all, it should be noted that it is based on the biased selective declassification requested by Levin.--Silverback 00:14, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Well then it's not evidence, is it? Kevin Baastalk: new 14:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
::No, it is still evidence, it merely goes to the weight of the evidence.  It is rather like a witness at a trial, who has some seemy character flaws.  His testimony is still on the record, and may be true, but the weight to give it is a bit subjective, especially if the evidence is not explicitly contradicted by more objective evidence.  Even if one thinks it is weak, the plausibility that someone who has used chemical weapons in the past, isn't open about what he is currently doing, has sent thugs to assassanate a president and others he opposes in the past, means that even if the witness is lying, his statements may still be true.  Keep in mind that the threshold for removing someone of Saddam's character, who has no more right to oppress Iraqi's than we do, is low.--Silverback 19:29, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:It doesn't matter if it was a biased selection because the existence of these documents at all, even if all the other documents that could be declassified speak contrary to them, are significant for the reasons elaborated by Levin. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:53, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
:And if republicans choose not to declassify documents, for whatever reason, well that's no fault of levin's or anyone else - that's their choice, and we certainly should not keep sound information out of this article simply because those who don't like what the information said are either unable or unwilling to counter it. Kevin Baastalk: new 14:57, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
Very interesting document that I had never seen before. I would very much like to see a short summary of this and the articles it links to added to the article. I think this might even warrant a new section. Perhaps: "Declassified Documents" or something like that. Silverback would be more than welcome to add "unbiased" declassified documents to that section if he so wishes. 68.199.46.6 06:39, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New info to put in article? 

message: 1. The mural of Saddam smoking a cigar - where is this from?  Is there evidence this was commissioned in Iraq by Saddam?  It is referred to as a "now-famous" mural.  It is not famous - this is the first I've heard of it.  Also I am not sure I am comfortable with the claim that Saddam "celebrated" the 9/11 attacks.  He made a speech blaming them on US actions in the world - that is not a celebration; Noam Chomsky and other American leftists made similar speeches.  At least quote him directly rather than this.  Finally I will be erasing the bogus claim about the 1993 WTC attack.  No sources are cited or evidence presented that the FBI thought this was Saddam's work, and no evidence has come out that it is.  The claim that it is retaliation for something that happened a few weeks earlier - when it likely took months of planning - is bogus on its face.  RonCram what is your problem?  Can we please just stick to known facts here? --csloat 19:21, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: csloat, I did not write that the 1993 bombing was a response for something weeks earlier.  In fact, I noted the comment mentally and planned to change it when I had the proper support.  You know me well enough now to know I stick to the facts.  There is support for the FBI thinking it was Saddam and there is support for the FBI thinking it was Osama's group before it was named al Qaeda.  I have not yet found support that the same person thought it was both, but I would not be surprised if I do.  The dual use chemical and pharmaceutical plant at al Shifa was tied in closely to both Osama and Saddam.  I will find more on al Shifa but it takes time and I am leaving for vacation soon. No one thinks al Qaeda is working for Saddam, least of all Osama.  Both groups were trying to exploit each other.  The Cohen stuff has to stay in precisely because Clarke changed his view without explaining why. RonCram 14:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It still makes no sense why you would put the Cohen quote in that part of the timeline (Justice Dept investigation).  Why does it have anything to do about Clarke changing his view?  Also as pointed out over and over again, Clarke's change in view is not unexplained.  He had a theory.  He investigated the theory and found it wanting for evidence.  It's pretty simple actually.  Cohen, on the other hand, never investigated the theory in any formal way.  As for al Shifa we've already established (1) that al Shifa was a pharmaceutical plant.  There might have been chemical weapon precursors stored there or moved through there, but even that seems unlikely given the evidence.  But there is no evidence that I have seen -- even after TDC schooled me on this issue (see above) -- that suggests that it was a "dual use" plant that actually manufactured chemical weapons.  Nothing was found in the rubble to support that theory.  (2) we have seen no evidence that Saddam's agents met and cooperated with OBL's at the pharmaceutical plant.  There may be some -- you certainly seem to think so -- but I can't even get a name or a date out of you on this matter.  Come back when you've done the research.  Finally, as for the FBI's position, they made it clear, at least officially, that they found no evidence of Saddam's involvement.  Neil Herman, who headed the FBI task force investigating the 93 attack, concluded "We looked at that rather extensively. There were no ties to the Iraqi government."  CIA and NSA looked into this too and found no such evidence.  If you have evidence suggesting otherwise it would be interesting to see it.  The entire theory is based on Laurie Mylroie's speculation, which have been roundly discredited.  Peter Bergen calls her a crackpot.  Her entire theory is based on the assumption that Ramzi Yousef, the Pakistani al Qaeda operative behind WTC I, was an Iraqi agent.  The Iraqi Mukhabarat is generally not in the business of hiring Pakistanis.  She gets to this bizarre conclusion based on her own confusion about one of Yousef's fake passports.  The whole theory is nuts, and the entire intelligence community knows it, and every serious journalist who investigated this topic (no, I don't include Stephen Hayes or Richard Minirit) has come to the same conclusion -- Laurie Mylroie is wrong.  Here's what Vince Cannistraro had to say: "My view is that Laurie has an obsession with Iraq and trying to link Saddam to global terrorism. Years of strenuous effort to prove the case have been unavailing." --csloat 19:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Cohen quote is important because Clarke changed his view without ever explaining why.  The reasons Clarke believed Osama and Baghdad were linked are clear.  What are his reasons for turning away from that viewpoint?  I don't know because Clarke is still pretending he never saw a link.  Don't you see the problem Clarke has?  If Clarke admits he once saw a link... and the fact is well established... then he has to explain what part of the evidence that convinced him before is no longer convincing.  And why is he no longer convinced when other people like Cohen are still convinced? Also, the "entire theory," as you call it, is not dependent on Laurie Mylroie. Even though I think Dr. Mylroie is a brilliant person, that statement is just not true. Don't worry, I am putting more information together.  The article still only has about 50% of the available information I have read so far.   RonCram 01:09, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you keep repeating this BS?  It is clear why Clarke changed his mind; this has been explained over and over here and on the Clarke page.  He had a theory once that turned out to be wrong when he actually investigated it.  He doesn't have to explain anything more to you; why do you keep insisting on this?  As for Cohen, he left the Administration and did not participate in the investigations Clarke did after 911.  And he is a different person than Clarke; therefore it is entirely possible for him to have different opinions.  As should be obvious.  Also, if you think Mylroie is "brilliant," you are delusional.  Perhaps brilliant at manipulating a number of people who should know better into believing her crackpot conspiracy theory about the 93 WTC.  --csloat 01:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erasing bogus claims 

message: I have found more misstatements regarding the Feith memo.  The article currently accuses Feith of leaking classified information in his memo.  According to the DOD, Feith was granted the right to send the classified annex to Congress.  Evidently some Congressman or staffer leaked it to Stephen Hayes.  The documents referred to in the memo were not even selected by Feith but by the intelligence community.  "The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community.  The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question."   The comment at the end appears to be address to congressmen and their staffers.  If there is something I am missing here, let me know.  In the meantime, I am rewording the article to remove the accusations against Feith.  Let's stick to the facts, okay? RonCram 02:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The press release is already cited in the article and it clearly states that the document was not meant to draw conclusions and that statements that it confirmed any relationship to Saddam were inaccurate.  It also states that the leaking of the memo may be illegal.  Richard Clarke calls the memo illegally leaked. Feith has been implicated in the leak and this does not seem to clear him, unless I am misreading it.  It just says that it was ok for the documents to be provided to the intelligence committee.  It also says that the selection of documents was made by DoD -- not the "intelligence community."  Feith's office was in DoD.  I do not think this substantiates your claim, but if it does, all it shows is that the illegal leak was by a member of congress rather than Feith.... In any case, until I get more information on this I will not object to changing it so it says the pentagon criticized "the person who leaked the memo" rather than Feith.  But even though no charges were filed against Feith, many claim his actions were illegal - see  for example.  But I think you're right that the charge is not that Feith illegally leaked the documents to congress along with his memo but rather that someone -- I think most people assume or imply that it was Feith -- illegally leaked them to the Weekly Standard. In either case do not just delete the information; instead clarify that Feith may not have been the source of the illegal leak.--csloat 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feith memo 

message: Immediately after the report Atta met with an Iraqi spymaster in Prague, the New York Times printed an article by James Risen saying that Czech President Vaclav Havel and phoned Bush to say the report was false.  Actually, the story of Havel phoning Washington was a fabrication.  Havel denied making the phone call and the Czechs actually confirmed the story and the Iraqi official was kicked out of the country.  The interesting thing is that stories have continued to come out saying the Czechs have backed away from the story, but according to Edward Jay Epstein the Czechs were still standing behind the story in 2003.  That is more than two years after the fabrication by the New York Times, the Czechs still stand by it.  Now I understand that travel records do not show Atta in Prague at the time, but that is not to say he could not have travelled under an alias.  The fact the Czechs still stand by the story shows the level of certainty they have.  I will add the info and the source.
(above unsigned note by RonCram)
:Actually there is no evidence the Czechs still stand by the story.  Call them yourself if you disagree.  The Czechs were a little embarrassed by it all but Havel's office has confirmed that he has backed away from the claim.  According to later articles -- 2003 and 2004 -- the Czechs did months of investigation and did not find evidence to support the link.  Neither Atta nor al-Ani was anywhere near Prague at the time (al Ani was 70 miles away; Atta was in Florida).  The original Czech report was based on one unreliable informant in Prague's Arab community.  This is all covered in the timeline; you are just repeating info that has been disputed long ago.  I've also hashed it out here with another user so please read all the info both in the timeline and in the discussion page before you go editing the article to include your misinformation.  --csloat 04:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you choose to simply make edits without reading the rest of the article or responding to comments here.  Please participate in the discussion if you are going to add things, Ron.  And please read the rest of the article before making additions that have already been refuted.  Havel's office, after the NYT report was dismissed as a "fabrication," nevertheless "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat."  And the WaPo in 2003 wrote "After months of further investigation, Czech officials determined last year that they could no longer confirm that a meeting took place, telling the Bush administration that al-Ani might have met with someone other than Atta."  You messed up this quote by quoting out of context a different WaPo article in the middle of it.  I will now have to fix your careless editing, in addition to dealing with your misinformation.  By 2004 in Czechoslovakia this was being called a public failure of Czech intelligence.  There may still be a Czech official who believes it but that alone does not suddenly provide evidence that a meeting actually occurred.  Again, as you ignored my point, neither Atta nor Al-Ani were anywhere near the coffeeshop they supposedly met in.  Do you really believe Atta travelled thousands of miles just a few months before 9-11 just to have coffee with an Iraqi agent?  --csloat 05:19, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if you could find a source that said the Czechs had backed away from the story after 2003, I would be interested to read it but doubt if I would believe it.  The New York Times started this whole fiasco with their first fabrication.  Then Havel tried to quash the fabrication and a new one popped up immediately.  Your comment that Mr. Havel's office "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat" was also a fabrication. If I did any original research, as you invite me to do, I cannot post it here anyway.  I read about Atta traveling to Prague just for a few minutes inside the airport.  Did you read the story?  RonCram 06:09, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you high?  The guy who called it a "fabrication" in the first place is the same guy who "said Mr. Havel was still certain there was no factual basis behind the report that Mr. Atta met an Iraqi diplomat."  The NYT did not start any "fiasco" and there has never been any suggestion that they got it wrong by anyone other than the guy from Havel's office who admitted that there was "no factual basis" for the report.  The Czech chief of police says there is no evidence for a meeting.  There are reports from 2003 and 2004 giving additional reasons this could not have happened.  Also in Dec 2003 Al-Ani, in custody, admitted he never met Atta.  There is a mountain of evidence against this possibility and you rest all your faith in the report of a single informant his own handlers called "unreliable".  It just shows the kind of mental gymnastics required to believe such a theory.  In any case there is still no evidence the Czech officials believe the meeting occurred after 2003 -- by 2004 CTK is reporting that the story was false and was manipulated by Ahmed Chalabi.  Czech opposition leaders are calling it a horrific failure of Czech intelligence.  I did not ask you to post original research; I asked you to do it because you insist on ignoring the other evidence that is public record.  Even the 2003 story you post never explicitly says the Czech official still believes the story, and it is clear that Epstein (the reporter) is promoting his agenda.  He never asks him point blank about it, which he could have easily done, and printed a straight answer.  My own suspicion is that's because Epstien thought he might not like the answer.  Again, the mental gymnastics of the conspiracy theorist.... --csloat 06:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Prague Connection" is highly disputed 

message: The list of newspapers is important because it shows that reporters with different political, cultural and religious points of view (with much better understanding of the Middle East than the average US reporter) had knowledge of the alliance between Saddam and al Qaeda.  These reports do not give evidence of "contacts" but of an "alliance" or a "pact."  In some cases, the report details the alliance and what it means. If people read the timeline, they will read all these names in due course.  However, listing the names here is necessary as an introduction to the remainder of the article.  It is clear that the alliance between the Saddam and al Qaeda was never politically controversial prior to 9/11 and the War on Terror.RonCram 13:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: These are mostly newspapers - and some of them (e.g. Newsweek) also published evidence that there was no connection.  These reports sometimes imply an "alliance" but present no evidence for it other than evidence of contacts.  Again you are trying to distort the evidence with absurdities.  Nobody (except your favorite Weekly Standard) reports that there is a "pact" between al Q and Saddam anymore and if you want to include this in the intro then we need to include the fact that no evidence for such a pact ever emerged and that the pre-911 assumptions about Saddam and AQ working together are now thought by all experts to be wrong.  Should I list all the papers and magazines and experts who now believe there is no "alliance" or "pact" between the entities as well?  This is absurd. --csloat 16:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have seen no evidence any publication has disproven a link.  Newsweek has published stories that are skeptical of a link, but it is difficult to prove a negative.  Certain people like KSM might not know about an alliance but that does not mean one does not exist.  On the other hand, when stories are published that are confident of a link and quote Iraqi officials... that is hard evidence to ignore.  At least it is hard for any objective observer.  When these stories are supported by evidence of a joint effort at CW development in Sudan and backed up by documents found in Baghdad, the story begins to look pretty strong. Your comments about there being no evidence to back up the testimony of these people just will not hold water any more.  The list of papers publishing stories on the pact or alliance needs to remain. RonCram 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you're right it's difficult to disprove a negative, which is part of the problem with your conspiracy theory in the first place.  Newsweek has been very clear recently with every article I've read there in the past few years that the reporters there have seen no evidence of any such link.  Whatever might have been published in the 1990s is not that relevant, except to historians interested in how disinformation was spread by Iraqi exiles (some of whom worked for Iran).  I'm not sure what quote from Iraqi officials you find "hard to ignore."  The thing about Sudan has been refuted extensively, and the documents in Baghdad supposedly leaked by a government official who didn't bother telling his own government about them are not really proof of anything until we learn more about them.  The list of papers was rightfully removed.  If you want to put it in we also need to publish the much longer list of papers that now believe there was no Saddam/AQ link, and we need to make clear which papers on your list no longer believe in the conspiracy.  The article is going to look a little silly if it begins with a scorecard of papers like that.  You seem to be totally ignoring throughout this discussion the fact that the consensus among experts, intel analysts, and journalists, based on better intelligence and more information since 9/11, is that there was no such conspiracy.  Your edits to the intro are trying to obscure that fact by burying it under a list of newspaper articles published before reporters really knew much about this at all.--csloat 08:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Newspapers in the Intro 

message: Upcoming Congressional hearings into Able Danger will shed new light on the travels of Mohammed Atta.  The Able Danger timeline for Atta's travels is in conflict with the timeline presented by the 9/11 Commission.  The information about Able Danger belongs in the timeline.  Any attempt to remove it is pure vandalism. RonCram 14:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Able Danger tells us nothing about Atta having anything to do with Saddam.  You are just trying to make a phony argument here -- casting doubt on the 911 commission and implying that therefore they must be wrong about another issue.  Nothing in the Able Danger information suggests that Atta worked for Saddam.  If you want to cast doubt on the 9/11 commission take it to that page; otherwise put informaiton on the Able Danger page. But why is it relevant here?  It is not. And cut the bullshit Ron, it is not vandalism; my changes were all clearly explained. --csloat 16:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Able Danger clearly relates to the link between Saddam and al Qaeda in two ways. #1. If Atta was in the US in early 2000 as Able Danger said, then he traveled here under an alias - something his terrorist friends said he never did.  The 9/11 Commission Report claimed it was possible for Atta to have made the trip to Prague but he would have had to travel under an alias and that was not his practice.  If correct, Able Danger indicates Atta did use an alias when traveling and the biggest logical hurdle for the trip is removed. There is now no reason not to believe Atta was in Prague. This clearly relates to the link. #2. The doubt being raised about the work of the 9/11 Commission is not a "phony argument." csloat, you are not so slow minded as to not understand the issues here.  In this particular case, the Commission has admitted receiving information on Able Danger and choosing not pursue it.  That clearly relates to the link.  The fact a Congressional hearing is coming up to look into Able Danger and the 9/11 Commission is not a fact this article can ignore.  Excluding vital information is not the way to inspire confidence in wikipedia.  Removing the entry on Able Danger is completely indefensible. RonCram 21:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron please read the other responses to your Able Danger entry below.  Both me and Mr. Billion responded to this and you have not responded to those arguments; you are just repeating yourself here.  It's bullshit.  Nobody credible even speculates that Able Danger has anything to do with Prague; all you have is the Weakly Standard and it is pure speculation.  The alias is not even one of the issues discussed on the prague entry on the timeline.  There are numerous reasons Atta could not have been in Prague in April and the only one you go to is this red herring about an alias.  Your speculation about the committee covering up Able Danger should be brought up on the proper page, not here.  The only thing connecting this to Prague is the unwarranted speculation by the Weekly Standard, which we have responded to clearly below.  Please answer those arguments before you post this kind of junk.--csloat 22:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Able Danger 

message: This paragraph needs to be reworded or deleted:
:Some argue that the above argument constitutes an ultra-realist point-of-view which ignores human nature, including the alliance of Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Joseph Stalin (who were of three vastly different ideological backgrounds and positions) during World War II. Journalist Richard Miniter, in his book Losing Bin Laden, points out that Iraqi army troops were ordered to move away from military positions during the aftermath of the attacks (p. 239). American troops found a mural of the World Trade Center attacks, featuring Saddam smoking a cigar and an Iraqi Air logo in the background [4].
I think it's reasonable to indicate here that some people (truthfully, a small right-wing clique) have a different opinion of this issue, but I am not sure how the movement of army troops or the mural have anything to do with this.  I think the mural finding could go on the timeline, but what does army troop movements after 9/11 have to do with this?  thanks for any explanation.--csloat 06:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard Miniter? 

message: This is getting ludicrous.  An op-ed piece makes vague reference to the Pentagon and you interpret it as evidence that Saddam directed, funded, or trained al Qaeda?  This is the epitome of one-dimensional thought.  I corrected the language on the entry you made so it isn't so overtly manipulative, and used an actual quote from the paper.  But this nonsense really doesn't belong here at all - it's like the mural; but even worse because you're mind-reading what someone wrote pre-911.  Guess what Ron?  You should start reading Arab apocalyptic fiction from the late 90s-2001.  Such books (studied by David Cook if you want to look for references) are filled with tales of armageddon that involves the destruction of America's cities, esp. New York and Washington.  I'm sure if you search you can find one written by an Iraqi author.  Then you can come back to this page and add it, claiming that it proves Saddam knew about and therefore funded al Qaeda!  Does anyone else agree that such things don't belong here?
On another note, I invited RonCram to demonstrate with his edits that he is interested in improving the page, not just in pushing his conspiracy theory, and I specifically pointed to an edit that would show such good faith, holding off on editing it myself.  Instead, he adds an edit about a story by someone with a crystal ball and blows it out of proportion so it sounds like it supports this conspiracy theory.  Well, it shows clearly what he's interested in, which is POV-pushing, pure and simple.--csloat 02:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shown that the op-ed piece belongs in the timeline below under "Evidence of Foreknowledge."  Regarding your challenge in your second paragraph, you have failed to persuade me that any of my edits were in error or needed revising.  The note regarding the Duelfer Report and the CNS documents belong together because the Duelfer Report adds credibility to the CNS documents.  It seems rather straightforward when you consider the fact the credibility of the documents were in question.  I have noted you sometimes make changes to my "grammar" when my grammar was fine.  Your change actually changes the meaning and not the grammar.  For example, the NRO writer who questioned the timing and manner of release of the documents to CNS News did so in a way to create "some" doubt in the veracity of the documents.  The writer did not issue any particular challenge to the content or the form of the documents.  If the writer had pointed to particular problems in the form or content of the documents, that would be a "serious" question of validity.   If it could be shown the typewriter used was not from the period claimed, like the Dan Rather docs, that would be disprove them... it would be serious.  The fact the docs came out in Oct 2004 does not disprove them.  The fact they were given to a small media outlet instead of a large one does not disprove them. csloat, you are overstating your case.  Far better for you to find defensible ground and stick to that.RonCram 11:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the grammatical change I made; the sentence you had did not make sense.  Sorry.  The NRO writer's questioning is another issue; I was more accurately representing what the article said.  The issues raised by the NRO are more serious than the ones you claim -- the question of why the govt official who thought these were important enough to give to an unknown news outlet didn't think to give them to the CIA, for example, is a much bigger question.  Also the question of where did they come from.  I think the docs are real, but I think they are part of an INC disinfo campaign.  But the bottom line is that nobody credible has been taking these documents seriously and that is what the article should represent.--csloat 19:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More manipulative edits from RonCram 

message: Evidence of Saddam's financial support can be seen in the decision to grant Oil for Food contracts to companies with ties to financing al Qaeda.  Please read the November 21, 2001 entry in the timeline for more information and the source.RonCram 13:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh yeah.  There's no evidence whatsoever Saddam even knew where that money was going.  Once again you're manipulating facts to push a POV, no regard for the truth.--csloat 19:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is that Iraqi oil revenue went to al Qaeda.  I admit this entry alone does not prove Saddam's intent to fund al Qaeda, but when coupled with published reports of their "alliance" or "pact" and evidence of training al Qaeda at Salmon Pak and in Afghanistan, it becomes strong circumstantial evidence of Iraqi financial support.RonCram 14:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oil revenue went to a lot of places.  There was no evidence of training by Iraqis in Afghanistan and the evidence surrounding Salman Pak is sheer speculation from sources known to be totally unreliable; and even if the latter is true there is not a shred of evidence connecting it to oil for food money.--csloat 08:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of Iraqi Financial Support 

message: csloat, you simply cannot state there is no evidence for a statement in the entry that provides the evidence. Perhaps you might try to say there is no corroborating evidence that Saddam intended Iraqi oil revenue to go to al Qaeda.  But that would not work either.  The published statements of Iraq's alliance or pact with al Qaeda is enough corroboration.  The mere fact al Qaeda got the money "raises the possibility" Saddam intended it.  There is nothing "silly" about what Perelman said.  Your statement will taken out.  Besides, how would you like it if people took out all the quotes you included like the one from the Toronto Sun saying it was not likely the document found in Baghdad were the "smoking gun" the Bush Administration wanted? That statement was never fully explained and becomes much less important with the documents published by CNS News.  Let's try to make the article readable and not sound so schizophrenic.  Can we make a deal on that?
:A quote is just an opinion, not evidence of anything.  The quote is sheer speculation and doesn't belong there at all.  If we are going to put it there it needs the disclaimer.  So let's either take it out or let's not pretend it's "evidence."--csloat 19:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perelman Quote 

message: This user has been blocked for an hour  due to a violation of the 3RR. -- RyanFreisling @ 15:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is true.  I considered your deletions simple vandalism and not subject to 3RR.  An administrator disagreed.  I am certain you are proud of yourself.  But you still have not given a reason for your deletions. RonCram 14:09, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes she did, as did I, Ron.  And you know this. --csloat 18:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: She claimed my answers on the Talk page were evasive but would never say how my answers were evasive or which answers were evasive.  She never pointed to any factual error in my entry.  When I asked her to she wrote this: "As Burgess Meredith once said, "'You can expect in one hand and crap in the other and see which gets filled first.'"  Not exactly the words you would expect would build any understanding or consensus. 69.230.203.93 21:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you take responsibility for your own actions, you will begin to build consensus. Currently, there is ZERO accountability coming from you for your actions. Like that quote? Glad it sunk in. -- RyanFreisling @ 23:15, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RonCram 3RR vio

message: csloat has put forward the nationality excuse, to argue that the harboring of an al Qaeda member was not the giving of sanctuary.  What if bin Laden had been Iraqi and had gone home to Iraq?  Would that fail to meet your standard for contact with and assistance to al Qaeda.  Your reasoning doesn't hold water.--Silverback 09:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See above.  I live in California; am I being "harbored" by the governator?  I even draw a salary from the state!  Checks signed by the state treasurer!  Horrors!  Seriously, if you could produce any information that Saddam even knew this guy was in Iraq and supported his terrorist activities in some way, then you could call it "harboring" him but as it is, you have nothing.  If you do put it back in you cannot make it plural as there is only one - Zarqawi was never "harbored" by Saddam even under your loose definition of it. As for OBL -- he's in Afghanistan or Pakistan right now -- would you say that Karzai or Musharraff is "harboring" him?--csloat 09:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the governor is aware that you are a suspect in serious criminal acts, I think you once again have proposed an analogy that isn't analogous.  Both Karzai and Musharraff are hunting bin Laden, and there is no reason to believe they know his location.  Zarqawi was given medical treatment at a hospital that served the Iraqi elite, before he went off to be a thorn in the Kurdish and Iranian sides.--Silverback 09:58, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I didn't put the Saddam's physicians stuff in the article, and the Bush administration still believes he received medical care there, although they no longer believe it extended to leg amputation, per the cite I gave.  Anyone can write a terrorism book, that doesn't mean they have access to all the intelligence that the administration has access to.--Silverback 12:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We have not made a decision.  You were complaining that the AD stuff did not fit where I originally had it.  Putting it in the Timeline intro where general credibility issues are discussed is an attempt to address that.  I'd have to check, but I thought I put an appropriate edit summary there.  There were a couple of edits that didn't take however.--Silverback 12:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hah! I did put in a descriptive edit summary.  "This fits more logically here, where claims and credibility are discussed"--Silverback 12:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop distorting things.  I was not complaining about where the AD stuff fits; I was saying it did not belong on this page AT ALL.  And you did not respond to the arguments presented.  Including it is original research.  You already know this as we have been through it over and over.  Putting it in also is a non sequitor the way you worded it.  And the rest of your edits - you even reverted your spelling error that I corrected!  Your edits seem more and more to be in bad faith, SB.--csloat 12:53, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I quote you "it looks like a total non sequitor if you're reading it in the timeline".  Case closed.  I have given too much ground without anything in return.  You are a moving target.  This credibility and relevance issue is a matter of degree, but you refuse to exercise any judgement.--Silverback 13:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're just not making sense at all.  My point stands - the AD stuff does not belong here as it is not relevant.  Any attempt to make it relevant is original research and does not belong in wikipedia.csloat 17:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If your point stands, it stands on mere assertion.  Your analogies were not analogous enough, what else did you have?--Silverback 19:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're the one making mere assertions.  I have made several arguments about this, the big one being the no original research claim, which you keep ignoring.  The analogies that you did not like were made with regard to another argument, as you are well aware.--csloat 20:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the analogies were with regard to the commission credibility issue.  What is original research about including evidence that the repeatedly cited commission rejected information that didn't fit their view of the timeline.  What is your NOR argument for that?--Silverback 16:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the analogy was about Arnold giving me "sanctuary."  I am again removing the AD claim because it again has nothing to do with the Saddam connection which is what this page is about.  It is a non sequitor as written; the assumption that it has something to do with saddam is the original research issue.  I'm really getting sick of this SB - please just stop.--csloat 21:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While the main reason for the entry is the commision credibility issue, it also has relevance to Saddam, to the extent that the Atta timeline is relevant.  One of your weak analogies was on the credibility issue, do you have anything better?--Silverback 22:37, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If it has relevance to Saddam, someone in the real world would have noticed it besides you.  Sorry this doesn't go here, and I've been through the arguments over and over and over again about this.  Any connection to Saddam is original research.--csloat 23:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if Atta were not mentioned in this article (what's his link with Saddam anyway?), the Able Danger text still goes to the 9/11 commission credibility issue, which you haven't addressed beyond a mere assertion and the "Bush lies" analogy.--Silverback 01:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the nationality excuse for harboring members of al Qaeda 

message: As I had mentioned in early discussions, the link between Saddam and zarqawi and yasin is sufficient to make the point in this article that the US was justified in fearing possible cooperation with al-Qaeda on future terrorist attacks.  So I've started trimming with that in mind.  There certainly is no need for the fruitless 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff, that is a distraction.  However, I now have gotten down to the CIA summary, and I see that they concluded that the relationship was even more substantial than just Yasin and Zarqawi.   Was any of the timeline, I deleted, supporting details for these CIA conconclusions?  Please feel free to restore those portions that were, hopefully, we all can avoid the obsfuscation of getting into the 9/11 conspiracy theory stuff, which isn't needed to support jusfication of the war on the basis of Saddam and al-Qaeda.  -- thanx, --Silverback 13:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As usual I will be correcting your bogus edits.  This page is not about whether the US was "justified in fearing possible cooperation" but rather whether such cooperation existed.  The CIA conclusions have been clear throughout; you are distorting them.  The "9/11 conspiracy stuff" is a major part of this article.  You are dead wrong about justifications for the war, but it doesn't matter, as that is not what this article is about.--csloat 19:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite wrong, this article is about "might conspire to launch terrorist attacks ", not about "whether such cooperation existed", although such cooperation would be good evidence for the "might conspire".  Perhaps your misperception has been the source of the misunderstanding and why you have been focused on conspiracy theories?  All the past contacts do is get rid of the "implausibility" strawman.  If Saddam was willing to give sanctuary, medical treatment, etc. to al Qaeda, he obviously wouldn't let bin Laden's past criticisms get in the way of striking a blow at the U.S.  Evidently the CIA agrees, see conclusion 97.--Silverback 19:52, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are basically vandalism and do not conform to your point at all. This page is about whether Saddam and AQ cooperated. I am not focused on conspiracy theories, except to dispute phony evidence for this particular one. Also your claims have been proven false; Saddam did give medical treatment to Zarqawi (Saddam is not even a doctor!) nor did he even know Zarqawi was treated in Iraq. He did not give "sanctuary" to anyone. And whatever you feel is "obvious" is not relevant here; the only thing relevant is actual evidence.--csloat 19:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you read the introduction if you want to know what the page is about?--Silverback 20:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If you want this article to be about "might conspire", how about changing its name to Speculations that Saddam might have conspired with al-Qaeda even though the evidence shows he did not?--csloat 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  maybe trimming to zarqawi and yasin goes too far? 

message: I implore others interested in this page to please join this discussion.  I will be asking for outside help with this too if it does not stop.  We have gone from a dispute about including original research and nonsequitors here (the "Able Danger" stuff) to MASSIVE unexplained deletions by Silverback trying to turn this page into ... I don't know what, exactly.  He appears to be making a WP:POINT but it isn't a point that makes any sense at all.  I think this kind of behavior is vandalism and I will report it if it does not stop.  Silverback there is a reasonable way to have a reasonable discussion about making changes here, but you are not doing that.  You are making massive sweeping changes without discussion at all.  When you do discuss your changes you simply ignore arguments that are inconvenient for you and then you stomp your foot like a baby and demand that your changes are right.  This is a severe conduct problem that is independent of the content of your edits.--csloat 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "ignore arguments"?  Evidently you feel comfortable saying "unexplained deletions" while ignoring the not only the explicit explanations, but the thread of nearly all my postings here.  The way to have a "reasonable discussion" is to "reason", and not to mischaracterize the positions of others.  --Silverback 20:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no reasonable explanation given for any of those deletions.  Why trim to Yasin and Zarqawi?  No reason.  Just because you think those are the strongest links?  Get real.  Why delete evidence of hostility between Saddam and al Qaeda?  Why delete everything for entire years?  Your "explanations" in the edit summaries were cryptic, claiming reference to "911 Conspiracy theories" without any information about what that had to do with anything.  I did not ignore those edit summaries; I responded in my own edit summaries.  You are not explaining these deletions nor are you even defending them; you are trying to use them to make some kind of point that doesn't follow anyway.--csloat 20:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeatedly questioned the emphasis on 9/11, and mentioned that your focus was not on the subject of the article.  My edits were totally consistent with that, except that there probably was some more good evidence of Saddam's support that I deleted.  I mistakenly though that Yasin and Zarqawi was all that there was good evidence for.  Yes it was all that was needed for the purpose of the article, however, there is no point in throwing away what the CIA also considered supporting evidence.  When I got to the CIA section, I realized that they made an even stronger case than I thought there was, so I stopped fearing I may have deleted some good evidence.--Silverback 20:30, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You certainly repeatedly made irrelevant points about 9/11, and repeated them over and over, but they were wrong, and you ignored counter arguments.  This article is not focused on 911 it is focused on Saddam's (non)relationship with al Qaeda.  I'm not sure what your comment about the CIA means; if you think the speculation that Saddam "might" commit terrorist attacks with AQ, when we know for a fact he did not, is hardly a "strong case" for anything, but whatever.  In either case there is no excuse for your massive deletions especially when you admit here you didn't even read the stuff you deleted.  Please please please stop the nonsense silverback this is ridiculous.--csloat 20:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes anon one, those are similar incidents in some ways.  It would be an error to take the analogy too far however.  I hope you are not suggesting that others should revert without familiarizing themselves with the material?--Silverback 06:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree... some of them were bizarre but I took time to rouse... -- RyanFreisling @ 01:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and you're right anon user, I should take a wikibreak more often :) --csloat 20:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback's vandalism and csloats mischaracterizations 

message: I was reading the history of this page today, and noticed use of the word "vandalism" in many of the edit summaries.  This piqued my curiosity, so I looked at the edits the past couple of days.
The term "vandalism" is often thrown around.  It is an inflammatory word, and is often misused.
===What it is not===
Vandalism is not removing disputed chunks of text from an article.  Editors can make bold edits, and they can remove text.  They should be allowed to do so without being accused of vandalism.  Removing text in an article, to clear it of disputed content while the dispute is being settled, is not vandalism.
Often the word "vandalism" is used as a tactical move, to put the "offender" on the defensive, and justify reverts of the text removed, so they do not count against one's 3RR limit.  This is wrong.
===Text you cannot blank or edit===
There is some text you must always keep your hands off.  Removing another editor's text from talk pages, or editing another person's words on a talk page to change their meaning, is not allowed.  The rules prohibiting such edits happen to be included among the rules regarding vandalism.  Such edits may not always have "vandalistic" intent, but they do break the rules addressing vandalism.
===Not defending anyone's edits===
I am not defending the edits of whoever it is getting accused of vandalsim.  The edits may be good or bad, bold or brash, well justified to some but not to others.  They may even be foolish, I don't know.  What you are talking about, however, is disputed content.  I am also not defending the editor for other alleged misbehavior or inability to collaborate.  I am merely targeting the use of a word.
Obviously, the larger the amount of text removed, the brasher the action of removing it.  Blanking an entire article is, of course, vandalism.
If you are unclear about whether something is vandalism, ask yourself, "If I reported this to an admin, and asked to have the person blocked for it, would the admin look at the changes and tell me to work out a content dispute instead?"  If yes, it is clearly not vandalism, even if repeated and repeated.
Be very careful about throwing this term around.  Doing it in an edit war to justify reverts   is unwise; it is better to engage the editor to discuss the text and work together to make it better.  You may have to compromise.  paul klenk talk 08:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to say I did not mean to use the term in this way to describe Silverback's destructive edits.  I generally said what he was doing was "borderline" vandalism or "basically" vandalism.  But I did use it in the heading above, and should not have; thank you for the correction.  My point was that this sort of aggressive editing and obnoxious refusal to engage with the discussion page is nearly indistinguishable from vandalism because it wastes everyone's time with edits that are wrong on their face.  But it's not true - it actually wastes more time than regular vandalism because regular vandalism can be reverted without excessive commentary, whereas what Silverback is doing requires extensive commentary (which he ignores, repeating himself in talk: until his interlocuters get tired).  Anyway I apologize for calling it vandalism but it is destructive to the purpose of wikipedia and I will continue to challenge his destructive editing.--csloat 20:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry.  You do make a lot of good points; there may be enough wrong with the edits to go after them on a variety of reasons.  The use of the word "attack" is also thrown around the same way, to mischaracterize many statements, devaluing the word over time.  Right now I'm trying to find a code among political editors that will help us with many of these problems.  It will help keep these talk pages clear of certain debates, and keep them a bit more calm.  Thanks so much for checking in.  paul klenk talk 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Throwing around the word "vandalism" 

message: I am not defending the edits of whoever it is getting accused of vandalsim.  The edits may be good or bad, bold or brash, well justified to some but not to others.  They may even be foolish, I don't know.  What you are talking about, however, is disputed content.  I am also not defending the editor for other alleged misbehavior or inability to collaborate.  I am merely targeting the use of a word.
Obviously, the larger the amount of text removed, the brasher the action of removing it.  Blanking an entire article is, of course, vandalism.
If you are unclear about whether something is vandalism, ask yourself, "If I reported this to an admin, and asked to have the person blocked for it, would the admin look at the changes and tell me to work out a content dispute instead?"  If yes, it is clearly not vandalism, even if repeated and repeated.
Be very careful about throwing this term around.  Doing it in an edit war to justify reverts   is unwise; it is better to engage the editor to discuss the text and work together to make it better.  You may have to compromise.  paul klenk talk 08:26, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to say I did not mean to use the term in this way to describe Silverback's destructive edits.  I generally said what he was doing was "borderline" vandalism or "basically" vandalism.  But I did use it in the heading above, and should not have; thank you for the correction.  My point was that this sort of aggressive editing and obnoxious refusal to engage with the discussion page is nearly indistinguishable from vandalism because it wastes everyone's time with edits that are wrong on their face.  But it's not true - it actually wastes more time than regular vandalism because regular vandalism can be reverted without excessive commentary, whereas what Silverback is doing requires extensive commentary (which he ignores, repeating himself in talk: until his interlocuters get tired).  Anyway I apologize for calling it vandalism but it is destructive to the purpose of wikipedia and I will continue to challenge his destructive editing.--csloat 20:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry.  You do make a lot of good points; there may be enough wrong with the edits to go after them on a variety of reasons.  The use of the word "attack" is also thrown around the same way, to mischaracterize many statements, devaluing the word over time.  Right now I'm trying to find a code among political editors that will help us with many of these problems.  It will help keep these talk pages clear of certain debates, and keep them a bit more calm.  Thanks so much for checking in.  paul klenk talk 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not defending anyone's edits

message: Too much emphasis is given to bin Laden statements that never amounted to any action against Saddam.  This section should be removed, and those statements and all evidence of any overtly hostile acts toward Saddam should just be put into the timeline like other evidence.  The 9/11 conpiracy theory stuff should be demphasized, since it adds little to the key question of the article, which is whether Saddam should have been trusted not to collaborate with al Qaeda in the future in an attack on the US or UK.  Of course, Saddams character and history would lead one to conclude he shouldn't be trusted at all, too bad for Saddam, that character actually matters.  If bin Laden's statements did not result in acts, then a whole section on them definitely overemphasizes them.--Silverback 06:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The statements by OBL and other AQ members are quite relevant since they speak to the plausibility of conspiring.  You keep saying nonsense like "the 9/11 conspiracy should be deemphasized" but you never spell out what you mean specifically.  Obviously the possibility of a connection between Saddam and 911 was a big issue in the debate about this "connection", and it was cited by many in the leadup to war.  One of the biggest claims made by the conspiracy theorists is that Atta met al-Ani in Prague in April 2001.  The "key question" of the article is not "whether Saddam should have been trusted not to collaborate with AQ" which is a silly question anyway.  The key question is whether Saddam did collaborate with AQ, and that question is addressed adequately by this article.  Whether Saddam can be trusted is a different question entirely, and I don't think anyone involved in editing this page believes that he could be.  Finally, Silverback, please stop tinkering with this page - you are constantly trying to restate the case in ways that fabricate the appearance of cooperation.  If you have legitimate claims to add, great, but stop fine-tuning the language to favor your POV.  For example, when the CIA says Saddam "might" work with terrorists in the future, they are speculating, not "concluding."  I am trying to assume good faith here but it is very difficult when every change you make is driven by this agenda, and truth seems to be a secondary concern for you at best.--csloat 20:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ''"Questions about the plausibility of the link"'' section should be redistributed 

message: could someone familiar with the discussions archive this thing with a move & copy whatever parts are still live back to talk?  this thing is 'long. Derex 16:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks to me like everything before ""Prague Connection" is highly disputed" could be safely archived.  The later stuff is still current.--Silverback 17:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, well that's a lot of 'live' stuff to copy.  on the other hand, this is by far the longest talk page i've ever seen.  it's just unwieldy & intimidating.  does anyone mind if i 'archive' this with the understanding that current discussions should continue there; the archive page would still be 'live' until those discussions wind down.  that way, we can have a fresh page for new topics?  this seems to be a common talk-page problem for highly active articles. Derex 18:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive away!  I would say only keep the most recent 4 or 5 sections.  We have links to the archive to refer to other sections when we need to; the only reason I can see for keeping this stuff is so it can be referred to in future discussions when certain editors start repeating themselves and their arguments have already been answered.  Certainly you could at least archive everything more than a couple weeks old.--csloat 20:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Again, SB, I implore you to knock it off.  I have asked on your user page as well, and encourage others who see Silverback's conduct as destructive to do so as well; if talking to him does not work perhaps there are grounds here for an RfC to get outside voices to at least look at what is going on here.  Just to be clear on the issues I am laying them out below (though they have been discussed ad nauseum in the archived page):
# Able Danger.  this is not relevant to this page.  There are no newspaper articles or other available sources of information that tie Able Danger together with the purported Saddam/AQ connection.  SB says that the Able Danger stuff impacts the credibility of the 911 Commission, but (1) that commission is only one of many sources on this page; (2) nobody has tied these things together in the mainstream media, and for SB to tie them together constitutes original research.  The sentence SB writes - "Any 9/11 Commission conclusions may not be reliable because it rejected information that did not agree with its preconceived conclusions." - is sheer speculation and there is no evidence to support it that specifically relates to this issue.
# CIA conclusions:  SB cites a line from the Senate report on the CIA's investigation as if it were the "conclusion" of the CIA.  The CIA conclusion is clear that there was no Saddam/AQ cooperation.  The passage cited speculates that Saddam "might" employ terrorists like AQ "if sufficiently desperate".  This is hardly a "conclusion."  The conclusion was that they did not do so, and the Senate concluded that the CIA's conclusions were justified.
# Minor wording changes to the following paragraph: 
::"Much of the evidence of alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda is based on speculation about meetings that may have taken place between Iraqi officials and al-Qaeda members. What took place at those meetings is unclear, but often the mere act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration. As terrorism analyst Evan Kohlman points out," 
::SB wants to change the above to: "Some of the evidence of alleged links between Iraq and al-Qaeda is based on inferences about meetings that may have taken place between Iraqi officials and al-Qaeda members. What took place at those meetings is unclear, but the act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration. Terrorism analyst Evan Kohlman states that"
::But it is clear that "Much" is more accurate; "Most" would be even more accurate; that "speculation" is far more accurate than "inferences" (hell, many of the supposed meetings most likely did not occur at all!).  Most problematically, SB changes "often the mere act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration" to "the act of meeting has been taken as evidence of substantial collaboration", completely reversing the meaning of the sentence.  The point that is backed up by the Kohlman quote that follows is that having meetings alone does not mean cooperation.  SB is trying to distort things here.
Again, all these issues have been clearly indicated in the discussion (check the archive) and SB has refused to engage the arguments yet insists on repeating his position over and over and reverting the page without ever actually responding to the arguments.--csloat 09:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silverback's destructive editing