Originally Posted by AlexKall

"They hated each other, so that is proof there is no connection."

That is defenetly not my logic
I said that they could not supply any evidance to support the thought of a cooperation between SH and Al Queda

That was your logic.

Originally Posted by AlexKall

I dont doubt that SH had connection with terrorist, but the question and one of the reasons to war was, did SH have connections to Al Queada which was diaproved, they (Bin and SH) pretty much haded/hates each other. That was the initail reasons for war.

When was it disproved? How? Where is your proof? You supply proof in this statement on the assumption that they "hated" each other.

We've not even scratched the surface on what exactly was going on over there, at this point, I would have to say there is no proof supporting either contention.

It has been proven, however, that the Ba'athists had ties to terrorisim and various terrorist groups.

You obviously havent read all my posts.

"We've not even scratched the surface on what exactly was going on over there, at this point, I would have to say there is no proof supporting either contention."

I agree, hance i said there is no evidence that supports the connections between SH and Bin laden.

"When was it disproved? How? Where is your proof? You supply proof in this statement on the assumption that they "hated" each other"

Firstly, once again read ALL my posts.

What would be considered proof on the issue of them hating each other? An interview? Sorry i have no such interviews with them during a tea party.

One of the above articles mention the hate Bin laden has towards SH's Islamic beleefs, if i may have misstaken and it was another article please let me know and ill try to find it.

"an apostate, an infidel and a traitor to Islam" that is what Bin Laden referes SH as.

And once again please dont only read those posts that intrests you, read all, even those that corrects staements i have done before, its curtesy.
Although you do seem to have read it, but just ingnored it. You did after all quote my correction, but you still wanted an answer on my old incorrect statement? Is that curtesy?

"It has been proven, however, that the Ba'athists had ties to terrorisim and various terrorist groups."

May be so, not that i dont belive you. I do, but you do talk about proof so why not supplie yours aswell.

I read all of your posts, as well as quoted a few times the paragraph that set this particular discussion off.

I should also have said that they could not connect, give proof, that there ware any connections between SH and Al Queda. I'm sorry about that error.

I read this. This comment changes nothing for me concerning your original statement, all you did here was add that they could not connect and then you instructed ME to give you proof of something I had not endorsed. Then you sent articles that mentioned differences between Hussein and Bin Laden .. not once did I mention any disagreement with the statement that they disliked each other.

Claiming to know what I do and do not do because I question a statement you made - tell me, is that curtesy? The tone taken within your last post, is that curtesy?

May be so, not that i dont belive you. I do, but you do talk about proof so why not supplie yours aswell.

Sure, what would you like? A photo of me smiling in front of a PLF training camp in Iraq with various Ba'athists endorsements, or something else? Or shall we simply go through the various "news" reports - I suppose I can find the time to send you hundreds of links that have been open source for awhile now. Let me know which source of "proof" you want concerning something you seem (as you claim) to already agree with (odd, but nonetheless).

"I read this. This comment changes nothing for me concerning your original statement, all you did here was add that they could not connect"

First statement i said that they proved that there ware no connections between SH and Bin laden, in the correction i state that they could not prove this, the fact is that they cant prove it true either. Basicly they cant prove either case. I never said in that statement that they could prove it.

"then you instructed ME to give you proof of something I had not endorsed"

When did i instruct you to give proof other then when i said:

"May be so, not that i dont belive you. I do, but you do talk about proof so why not supplie yours aswell."

That was "endorsed" by you.

"The tone taken within your last post, is that curtesy?"

Yes it was/is curtious, in my opinion.

"Sure, what would you like? A photo of me smiling in front of a PLF training camp in Iraq with various Ba'athists endorsements, or something else? Or shall we simply go through the various "news" reports - I suppose I can find the time to send you hundreds of links that have been open source for awhile now. Let me know which source of "proof" you want concerning something you seem (as you claim) to already agree with (odd, but nonetheless)."

Which can be done with both sides of this, both that they did cooperated and that they did not. We're back at, cant prove either case.

I agreed on the case that neither of the sides can be proved. My correction states that they're cooperation can not be disaproved with evidence(proof). But you still want me to supply proof, that i have allready declared none existing. The problem is there are many articles for both sides of this matter. None prove the other wong.

When did i instruct you to give proof other then when i said:

I should also have said that they could not connect, give proof, that there ware any connections between SH and Al Queda. I'm sorry about that error.

Your original statement was that since they hated one another, that was proof there was no connection. This statement says to give proof there were any connections.

Yes it was/is curtious, in my opinion.

As have mine been to you, it was a silly route for you to take attempting insults when they have no place in this discussion.

Which can be done with both sides of this, both that they did cooperated and that they did not. We're back at, cant prove either case.

I offered you proof that the Ba'athists supported terrorism and certain terrorist groups, one most specifically - the PLF. The media even offered you proof of that long ago. This is not something questioned by anyone that has paid attention to Iraq over the past several years. The question as hand was did Hussein dabble in business with Al'Q specifically.

I agreed on the case that neither of the sides can be proved. My correction states that they're cooperation can not be disaproved with evidence(proof). But you still want me to supply proof, that i have allready declared none existing. The problem is there are many articles for both sides of this matter. None prove the other wong.

You have only recently, within the past couple of posts stated this. A complete turn around from your original two posts on this issue. Perhaps you are attempting to nit-pick, I have no clue.

"Your original statement was that since they hated one another, that was proof there was no connection. This statement says to give proof there were any connections."

That they haded each other was in no way there for proof, theres been leeders that has before hated each other but still cooperated, it was just an addment to it, not proof.

And no that didnt mean that you had to provide any proof that there ware connections, it was simply a correction of what i priviously said/wrote.

"As have mine been to you, it was a silly route for you to take attempting insults when they have no place in this discussion."

I agree that was silly of me.

"I offered you proof that the Ba'athists supported terrorism and certain terrorist groups, one most specifically - the PLF. The media even offered you proof of that long ago. This is not something questioned by anyone that has paid attention to Iraq over the past several years. The question as hand was did Hussein dabble in business with Al'Q specifically. "

I should have included a decleration of who "they" ware, they are SH and Bin Laden, i agree that it could easelly be inturpretated as the PLF as that was what you mentioned, i should have been more clear on my statement.

"You have only recently, within the past couple of posts stated this. A complete turn around from your original two posts on this issue. Perhaps you are attempting to nit-pick, I have no clue."

I agree that I within a very few amount of posts changed it around, that was because i remembered it wrong, in other words, what i wrote was wrong and decided to correct this.

Can you please explain what nit-pick involves. I have heared it several times but i have never understood what it means. Can you please explain?

why is that backwards?

Originally Posted by AlexKall

Can you please explain what nit-pick involves. I have heared it several times but i have never understood what it means. Can you please explain?

It is a word I first picked up in the southern US, specifically Georgia. It means to harp on smallish details of no consequence.

The official definition:

Main Entry: nit·pick
Pronunciation: 'nit-"pik
Function: verb
Etymology: back-formation from nit-picking
Date: 1966
intransitive senses
: to engage in nit-picking
transitive senses
: to criticize by nit-picking
- nitpick noun
- nit·pick·er noun
- nit·picky /-"pi-kE/ adjective

Not much help there, though.

Ansar Al-Islam: Iraq's Al-Qaeda Connection
By Jonathan Schanzer
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy | January 17, 2003


Ansar al-Islam, an al-Qaeda affiliate active in Iraqi Kurdistan since September 2001, is a prototype of America's enemies in the "war on terror." The group serves as a testament to the global spread of al-Qaeda affiliates, achieved through exploitation of weak central authorities and a utilitarian willingness to work with seemingly differing ideologies for a common cause. Lengthy reports on Ansar have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and Kurdish leaders have given Washington a plethora of intelligence on the group. Nevertheless, Ansar has yet to appear on official U.S. terrorism lists. Meanwhile, political complexities would make military action against the group difficult, at best. Hence, this small force of 650 fighters is a textbook example of the ongoing challenges posed by the war on terror.

Northern Iraq's al-Qaeda

In August 2001, leaders of several Kurdish Islamist factions reportedly visited the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan with the goal of creating an alternate base for the organization in northern Iraq. Their intentions were echoed in a document found in an al-Qaeda guest house in Afghanistan vowing to "expel those Jews and Christians from Kurdistan and join the way of Jihad, [and] rule every piece of land . . . with the Islamic Shari'a rule." Soon thereafter, Ansar al-Islam was created using $300,000 to $600,000 in al-Qaeda seed money, in addition to funds from Saudi Arabia.

Today, Ansar operates in fortified mountain positions along the Iran-Iraq border known as "Little Tora Bora" (after the Taliban stronghold in Afghanistan). There, the group's Kurdish, Iraqi, Lebanese, Jordanian, Moroccan, Syrian, Palestinian, and Afghan members train in a wide array of guerrilla tactics. Approximately 30 al-Qaeda members reportedly joined Ansar upon the group's inception in 2001; that number is now as high as 120. Armed with heavy machine guns, mortars, and antiaircraft weaponry, the group fulfills al-Qaeda lieutenant Ayman al-Zawahiri's vision of a global jihad. Ansar's goal is to disrupt civil society and create a Taliban-like regime in northern Iraq. To that end, it has already banned music, alcohol, photographs, and advertising in its stronghold. Girls are prevented from studying; men must grow beards and pray five times daily.

Activities since 2001

Ansar first made headlines in September 2001 when it ambushed and killed forty-two Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) fighters. In February 2002, the group assassinated Franso Hariri, a Kurdish Christian politician. That spring, Ansar attempted to murder Barham Salih, a PUK leader; five bodyguards and two attackers were killed in the ensuing gunfight. In June, the group bombed a Kurdish restaurant, injuring scores and killing a child. In July, the group killed nine PUK fighters, and destroyed several Sufi shrines -- a move reminiscent of the Taliban. In September, Dutch authorities arrested the group's leader, Najmuddin Faraj (a.k.a. Mullah Krekar), for suspected ties to al-Qaeda. In December, Ansar launched a surprise attack after the PUK sent 1,500 soldiers home to celebrate the end of Ramadan. According to the group's website, they killed 103 PUK fighters and wounded 117.

That same month, Jordan's prime minister announced that al-Qaeda operative Fazel Inzal al-Khalayleh (a.k.a. Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi) had sought refuge with Ansar. Khalayleh had ordered the spring 2002 attack on Salih as well as the October 2002 murder of U.S. Agency for International Development officer Laurence Foley in Amman. Khalayleh's deputy, Nur ad-Din ash-Shami (a.k.a. Abu Abdullah), was killed in a battle with Kurdish fighters less than two weeks ago. Currently, more than thirty Ansar militants (about twenty of whom are Arab) are incarcerated in Sulaymaniyah. Their testimony has provided clues about the group's ties to Saddam Husayn, al-Qaeda, Iran, and weapons of mass destruction.

Chemical Weapons

Some Bush administration and PUK officials claim that Ansar has established chemical weapons facilities in Iraqi Kurdistan. Reports allege that Baghdad helped to smuggle these weapons from Afghanistan and that Ansar has tested substances such as cyanide gas and the poison Ricin. Salih has cited "clear evidence" that such tests have been performed on animals. Moreover, the Washington Post reported that the group smuggled VX nerve gas through Turkey in fall 2001.

Links to Saddam

Bush administration and PUK officials have also speculated that Ansar may be working with Saddam through a man named Abu Wa'il, reportedly an al-Qaeda operative on Saddam's payroll. Kurdish explosives experts also claim that TNT seized from Ansar was produced by the Iraqi military, and that arms are sent to the group from areas controlled by Saddam. Iraqi officials deny all such ties, yet Saddam clearly profits from Ansar's activities, which keep Kurdish opposition forces tied up on the border and away from Saddam. Indeed, support for Ansar is not unlike the money Saddam gives to families of Palestinian suicide bombers; turning up the heat in Kurdistan and the Palestinian territories takes heat off Saddam as a crisis looms.

Currently, Kurdish and international sources are accumulating evidence they say could soon present a clearer picture of Saddam's cooperation with al-Qaeda.

Links to Iran

Iran supports Ansar by allowing it to operate along its borders. Iran may also provide logistical support by permitting the flow of goods and weapons and providing a safe area beyond the front. The Turkish daily Milliyet has noted that Ansar militants check cars leaving their stronghold en route to Iran, indicating coordination with the Islamic republic. Moreover, the recently apprehended Mullah Krekar spent many years in Iran and was arrested in Amsterdam after a flight from Tehran.

Iran has several possible reasons for supporting Ansar. For one, having a democratic proto-state on its borders threatens the very nature of the Islamic republic. Thus, continued guerrilla activity benefits Tehran, as does any movement designed to spread Islamism in Kurdistan. Furthermore, by supporting Ansar and other Islamist groups in Iraq, Tehran may attempt to gain influence among the various factions that could contribute to a new Iraqi government if Saddam's regime is overthrown.

Implications

More than one year after Ansar announced its formation, the State Department has yet to designate it a Foreign Terrorist Organization, nor has the Treasury Department listed it as a Special Designated Global Terrorist. It would be interesting to know why. Other questions remain: Can Washington pressure Iran to cease cooperation with Ansar? Can it persuade Norway, where Mullah Krekar lived for several years, to examine his financial accounts? Can it verify ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam based on interviews with captured Ansar militants?

If such links are established, military force should be considered. Reports from the front indicate that Ansar could not withstand an aerial assault. Yet, Washington may be reticent to attack during this period of UN inspections for fear of international rebuke, particularly from Turkey. Ankara, already ambivalent about an Iraq war, may be sensitive to any measures that would potentially strengthen the Kurds. Still, Ansar al-Islam poses a threat to any future U.S. ground deployment. Moreover, dismantling the group would potentially weaken both Saddam and al-Qaeda -- two primary targets in the war on terror.

More:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/768rwsbj.asp

More:

Powell said that this current cooperation "builds on decades-long experience with respect to ties between Iraq and al Qaeda." High level meetings took place between Saddam´s lieutenants and al Qaeda operatives throughout the 1990s.


Bush administration officials today believe that Ansar al-Islam works with Saddam through an al Qaeda operative on Saddam´s payroll named Abu Wa´il. This is likely who Powell meant when he said, "Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels" of al Qaeda.


Powell added that "al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq" and that "they´ve now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months."


More than 30 Ansar militants are now incarcerated in the Kurdish city of Sulaymaniyah. Their testimony provides clues about the group´s ties to Saddam, al Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction. U.S. intelligence has reportedly interviewed them. Perhaps Powell´s speech was the culmination of those efforts.


With Saddam now linked to Osama bin Laden, Americans with doubts about invading Iraq are likely thinking twice. The administration already had justification for military action against Iraq, but Saddam´s regime is now clearly a legitimate target in the war on terror.
( from : http://www.meta-religion.com/Extremi...connection.htm )

So what?

Originally Posted by RnderSafe

It is a word I first picked up in the southern US, specifically Georgia. It means to harp on smallish details of no consequence.

The official definition:

Not much help there, though.

I must say that your explination was the better one