@Missy:

In your embed your “http” portion is doubled up.

When it comes up automatically in the little popup link box delete it, then paste in your link.

Sorry, I missed that step in the instructions.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Oops, guess I did something wrong, that old dog thing.

Oops, guess I can edit stuff, I don’t know what’s going on.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Here’s an excellent response Wordsmith did a couple of weeks ago on the al Qeada/Saudi relationship

________________________________________

Thanks Aye!

Oops, guess I did something wrong, that old dog thing I guess.

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/09/11/yes-the-iraq-war-and-the-911-attacks-are-related/#comment-248396

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@Ryan:

Sorry, hope my comment isn’t too hard on the eyes with the big URLs. I don’t know how to make links like everyone else.

Here’s how to embed links:

See the little right arrow under the word “Comment” above the comment box? Click on that and you get an HTML menu with shortcut buttons.

The one that says “Link” is that one that you are interested in.

Type your text, then highlight the words that you want to use for the embed. Once highlighted, click “Link” and paste the link in the pop up box and click “OK”. (Make sure the “http” portion that is in the popup box disappears when you paste your link.)

Also, here are some pretty good articles that show why Michael Kellog (a lawyer from the 9-11 families’ lawsuit against the Saudi royal family mentioned in the New York Times article) believes that the Saudis aren’t responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

Hope that’s clear as mud.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Sorry, hope my comment isn’t too hard on the eyes with the big URLs. I don’t know how to make links like everyone else.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Green Eagle, Al Qaeda is not considered Saudi supported. In fact, the terror group shares a distaste of the Saudi government and the royal family with Saddam Hussein. Some of the 9-11 attackers were Saudi, and had a history of operating against the Saudi government and royal family when they were being learning in the Madrasas.

Here is a good article for your scrutiny, it’s from the New York Times newspaper and even though it does offer a tiny amount of evidence supporting the 9-11 families’ lawsuit against the Saudi government, it goes on to say that as lawyers study the documents being used to support a case against the House of Saud, they are finding no connections between the two or the charities that are supposedly aiding Al Qaeda. Either way, it provides a pretty balanced view on the subject.

Here is the URL if you would like to take a look for yourself rather than have me tell you what’s in it; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html. Also, here are some pretty good articles that show why Michael Kellog (a lawyer from the 9-11 families’ lawsuit against the Saudi royal family mentioned in the New York Times article) believes that the Saudis aren’t responsible for the 9-11 attacks. The URLs are; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/world/middleeast/24saudi.html, and http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/29/saudi-royal-injured-by-al-qaeda-suicide-blast/

I think it’s also quiet relevant to mention that the Saudi royal family shares a common enemy with the U.S. and that’s Al Qaeda. At the same time, they’ve done a lot to help us capture and fight members who were trying to carry out attacks.

-Here are some additional articles that I thought were interesting;

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/2009/08/30/2009-08-30_al_qaeda.html
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aapKi2HaofqU

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Patvann,

I have nothing to say to you. You are here not to discuss the issues, but to stoke your ego at the expense of others, and that is a game I will not play.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

GreenEagle’s very first post:

Anyone with the most superficial knowledge of modern Arab history would know that Saddam and Al Qaida would have absolutely nothing to do with each other. I suggest you try acquiring some knowledge on this subject before falling for this ludicrous assertion.

I repeat: no one with any real knowledge of the Baath party and of Wahabism could possibly imagine an alliance between these people. Don’t let yourselves be suckers for Bush’s nonsensical claim.

(Notice the harshness, and the insulting nature)

Aaaand his last post:

Does it mean that Saddam, or Hafez Assad would never stoop to alliances of convenience with Hamas or Hezbollah? No, but Saddam certainly would not share power with a group which he saw as Saudi-backed, and which was a direct threat to his rule, should it ever become established in the mideast.

I submit, that NO ONE in this thread has put forth the position that Saddam was somehow open to powersharing.

I also submit that GreenEagle has now turned, and accepted the premise put forth, that Saddam “stooped to allianaces of convenience”, which is what everyone else has just spent 60 some-odd posts telling him.

I futher submit that opening with insults, usually results in counter-insults.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I was in no way confused by your statement, as I am familiar with Saddam’s tactics in keeping his neighbor “in line”. In fact it only show even more strongly the willingness of Saddam to use whomever to support his goals, even if those “tools” are religious in-nature, and are used against an entity whom many people thought of as his ideological/political-twin.

Saddam knew that Assad only remains in power because of the fear he and his father have lorded over the country for lo these many years. His tribe (the Kalbiyya, an offshoot of Alawi, which is Shia in creed, but considered heretical by all Moslems, and members of Ba’ath) have long been a small, but rich and powerful force in the country, but because of their size and exposure, are susceptible to overt/covert violence which if successful, would let the non-moderate, non Ba’ath Shia, (which are far more numerous, and backed by Iran) threaten Assad’s power.

Saddam would regularly use this weakness to push Assad into doing what he wanted done, when he needed it done. The Assad’s have played their chess-pieces in all this as well, alternating “loyalties” to Ba’athist Saddam, Khomenist Iran, Wahib Saudi, and the feckless, bleeding-heart Europeans… meanwhile using Lebanon as a “Queen” for/against all of the above, plus Israel and America.

Again…It’s all about the Power, and the survival.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Ryan,

Of course, I agree with you about Saddam not being particularly concerned with Baath precedents; he was a bad man who would do just about anything that would benefit himself. What would not benefit him was an Islamist movement which would threaten his legitimacy (such as it was,) and in this regard it suited his convenience to follow this particular Baath precept.

Does it mean that Saddam, or Hafez Assad would never stoop to alliances of convenience with Hamas or Hezbollah? No, but Saddam certainly would not share power with a group which he saw as Saudi-backed, and which was a direct threat to his rule, should it ever become established in the mideast.

Like or Dislike: 0  0