Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 2

message: #Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: # ObsidianOrder 21:13, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: #Did the article get renamed already?  That's odd; the votes are even.  Or is it automatically updated in both places?
: Stevertigo renamed it, dunno why.  I moved it back.  It's much too early for that, the voting usually goes on for a week. ObsidianOrder 07:09, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Stevertigo took it upon himself to move it apparently. I pointed out on his talk page there was a requested moves vote in progress. I agreed with Stevertigo that his title is/was better because it is neutral, but it seems OO reverted the move so we're back to the non-neutral status quo now. Is there a policy against non-neutral titles? There should be.  zen master    T  07:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is more neutral: a title that prejudges the data to be unsubstantiated (er, "alleged") or one that leaves such a judgment to the reader?  Can you find any other article which has "alleged" in the title?   ObsidianOrder 11:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: alleged means that there are allegations to that extent.  it does not imply that these allegations are either substantiated or unsubstantiated.  it is true that there are allegations.  "links between iraq and al-qaeda" implies that there are links between iraq and al-qaeda, which is a pov that is not neccessarily true. That is, the lack of "alledged" prejudges the allegations to be substantiated, whereas the inclusion of "alledged" does not prejudice either way.  Kevin Baastalk 15:35, 2005 Apr 23 (UTC)
# I suggested below Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda as a more NPOV name for this article; the allegations thing is just not concise.  I guess we have to have this vote before having another one....--csloat 08:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: I added verbatim the relevant portions of the 9/11 report.  I would like some opinion on (a) how to format them (indent? use <pre> tags? highlight the interesting parts?) and (b) whether they should be included in their entirety.  they wouldn't be very long without the footnotes, but the footnotes contain a lot of useful info.  The few paragraphs on pg 60-61 and 66 are worded very carefully and are extremely relevant to the subject of this article, so I really want to include those in their entirety in any case.  Perhaps the Atta stuff can be summarized?  I dunno.  Also, I may have missed some relevant portions in other parts of the report - anyone?  ObsidianOrder 23:39, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sort of.  The impression you give is of an inconclusive investigation.  The Commission's conclusions on this topic were fairly categorical, and I think that should be emphasized.  There is no reason to mention the things they do not mention, as such a list would be theoretically infinite.  Aso, saying things "imply cooperation" is POV speculation.  The 911 Report is written in plain language, and I think there is some twisting going on in the above summary.  In general I do think the other poster (under oppose above) is right that all these quotes are not necessary; instead this should be a brief list with shorter quotations.  --csloat 23:46, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was inconclusive.  "We have no evidence that X happened" is quite different from "We know that X didn't happen".  They never say that Iraq did not cooperate with Al-Qaeda.  What do you think are the "categorical" conclusions?  The report is written in a very precise plain language, the moment you start paraphrasing it you're liable to end with something that completely twists the original meaning.  That's just as true of my summary as it is of your proposed "shorter quotations".  Nonetheless, the report confirms (although low on details) about 5 items from my original list (i.e. plainly states they did happen, with no conditionals).  Regarding "implies", I probably should have said "indicates ... may have", what it literally says is "There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy." which dovetails nicely with the story about "Abu Wael".  There is every reason to mention the things they do not mention since some of them (Salman Pak) are among the best leads.  Clearly a simple statement of "the Salman Pak story is bogus" would be extremely pertinent, if true?  The fact they do not say that is almost as significant as what they do say.  ObsidianOrder 04:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're being intentionally obtuse, I think.  "We have no evidence that X happened" may be different from "We know that X did not happen", but if you've been carefully examining every purported piece of evidence of X over a long period of time, then it means you may be as close to certain as possible that X did not occur. I don't care if you mention the things they do not mention but I don't think it's meaningful to state here is a list of things they did not mention -- the list of things they did not mention is infinite.  If Salman Pak is your best lead, then this whole story is nonsense.  If Salman Pak is what you say it is, where's the freakin' plane?  Why haven't US forces found anything?  The fact that the 911 Commission didn't think it important enough to bother with may be significant, but not for this article. --csloat 06:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the plane?  Why, right here .  You might note that there is no airfield in the vicinity, but there are barracks (the plane must have been towed in).  The site was captured apparently intact during the invasion .  "Haven't found anything" - or haven't decided to tell you and me what they've found, anyway.  I think I'm not the one being deliberately obtuse, you are: you wrote "A member of the Iraqi National Congress ..." "and other lies told by the defector ..." ?  First, this has been confirmed independently by a minumum of 2 defectors, "Zeinab" (alias) and Sabah Khodada, plus UN inspectors including ISG chief Duelfer who visited the site.  Have you any evidence that either of the two defectors who reported this are members of the INC?  Second, what "other lies" were told by either of these two defectors, specifically?  ObsidianOrder 07:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that's a plane alright.  But my question is, where is it?  That article is from before US troops got there; why haven't we found it?  You imply they wouldn't tell us, but come on; that would be the smoking gun they've wanted all along; it would definitely help the Admin save face for having gotten this so wrong.  The evidence that these defectors are from the INC is in the Knight-Rider article I linked to the Salman Pak claim, which also points out the incongruities in their stories.  I don't see the info about Duelfer but perhaps I missed it.  I'm open to persuasion on this issue -- there definitely seems to have been some kind of training going on there but the analysts closest to the situation seem to have all concluded there is no al Qaeda/Saddam collaboration (and perhaps Duelfer is an exception).  The article you linked even confirms it: "The administration has also talked about possible links between al-Qaida, the terrorism group headed by Osama bin Laden, and Iraq, but so far has not uncovered evidence."  It is possible there is more to this story but the al Qaeda link appears to be a fabrication of two INC defectors (or at least, that's what the people who were around them seem to think). --csloat 08:16, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  9/11 report 

message: Personally, I would absolutely love to see Cheney's quote that the Daily Show ripped him a new one on, where he first said that there was a meeting in France between al-qaeda leaders and iraq, then he later denied he ever said that.--kizzle 04:07, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
::Cheney (9 December 2001): "Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been pretty well confirmed, that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."
::Cheney on CNBC (not sure of the date):  CNBC: "You have said in the past that it was quote "pretty well confirmed."
::Cheney: "No, I never said that. Never said that. Absolutely not."
:It works better on video.  I'm not sure if this quotations section really is useful at all; we could find a million quotes on both sides of the fence.  I think we should junk it and that the 911 commission should be summarized with bullet points.  The long quotes aren't necessary -- or, perhaps, create yet another page for primary source material that includes all the long quotes.  I think for this page the timeline alone is good.  And perhaps the intro needs to frame it more strongly that all of these "links" turned out to be dubious at best. --csloat 08:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cheney quote; Page reorganization