Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future. - Page 6




 
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
 
September 11th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Bush said they have cooperations.

but 9/11 report said "there are connections" but no cooperations together.
I know, I just don't find it contradicting my previous lines.
September 11th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
interesting, we agree on the same thing now?

so our conclusion is that Saddam did have contact with Laden, but not cooperation,

is that right?
September 11th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
interesting, we agree on the same thing now?

so our conclusion is that Saddam did have contact with Laden, but not cooperation,

is that right?
No, I agree on the fact that "the 9/11 report found no evidence of cooperation", because the 9/11 Commission's goal was not to find them. It was to find evidence of the role of Saddam in the 9/11 attacks.
But I gave you a lot of proofs that Al Qaeda and Saddam did cooperate. It's on my post here above.
--
Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future.
September 11th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
sorry but i got a source http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html

where is yours?
September 11th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Nice source, it's just a pity I can't see anything in there.

Mine: http://ilfoglio.it/camillo/
September 11th, 2005  
WARmachine88
 
sorry i accidentally added a comma there

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html


my source is washingtonpost, a reputated newspaper,

but your source is a blog (i translated it with AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation).

Everybody can make a blog and starts to spread whatever information.
I dont consider it credible
September 11th, 2005  
Italian Guy
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
sorry i accidentally added a comma there

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html


my source is washingtonpost, a reputated newspaper,

but your source is a blog (i translated it with AltaVista - Babel Fish Translation).

Everybody can make a blog and starts to spread whatever information.
I dont consider it credible
The blog is by one of Italy's most important journalist who writes on one of our most important newspapers. The articles that you find on that blog are the same article the nespaper has been publishing in years.
I gave you my opinions, you gave me yours. I don't think we need to go any further on this.