ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

: William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >> bin Laden wanted to kill Saddam. What evidence do you have of
: >> them colluding?

: http> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/7/12/95941

: Yes, I had seen that. It could turn into something,
: but who knows. I note that the lawyer is not named,
: and none of the details of the alleged papers are given.
: The lawyer could be putting a fast one over on Merritt,
: or it might be real.

: It does not change the fact that Saddam was secular, killed
: thousands of Islamists, and that bin Laden wanted to kill
: him.

It also does not change the real fact that Bin Laden called on the
jihadists to defend "the socialists" against the US.

The Arabs have a saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Saddam was the US's and Saudi Arabia's enemy. Those are Bin Laden's
enemies.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil

William David Thweatt <thweatt@rice.edu> wrote:

> : bin Laden wanted to kill Saddam. What evidence do you have of
> : them colluding?
>
> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/7/12/95941

A blatant propaganda site. Why not check what North Korean state radio
has to say?
> --
> --
> William "Dave" Thweatt
> Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
> Chemistry Department
> Rice University
> Houston, TX
> thweatt@ruf.rice.edu

Thats scary that you even read the site.

> dave.thweatt@us.army.mil

Is your presence at the University tied to government money?

<ahall@no-spam-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sodr84r3fg9.fsf@shell01.TheWorld.com...
> >>>>> p j writes:
>
> p> William David Thweatt <thweatt@rice.edu> wrote:
> >> : bin Laden wanted to kill Saddam. What evidence do you have of
> >> : them colluding?
> >>
> http> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/7/12/95941
>
> p> A blatant propaganda site. Why not check what North Korean state
radio
> p> has to say?
>
> The story was carried elsewhere. Of course the other
> places pointed out that Merritt was a Bush appointee
> to Iraq, and Newsmax claimed that he was close to Gore.
>
He his....do some research before you spout out shit idiot

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...e/merritt.html

On 15 Jul 2003 12:47:02 -0400, <ahall@no-spam-world.std.com> wrote:

>>>>>> p j writes:
>
> p> William David Thweatt <thweatt@rice.edu> wrote:
> >> : bin Laden wanted to kill Saddam. What evidence do you have of
> >> : them colluding?
> >>
> http> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/7/12/95941
>
> p> A blatant propaganda site. Why not check what North Korean state radio
> p> has to say?
>
>The story was carried elsewhere. Of course the other
>places pointed out that Merritt was a Bush appointee
>to Iraq, and Newsmax claimed that he was close to Gore.

and another place - forget where - pointed out that at the top of the
paper it said - all these traiters will soon be dead - or something
like that, which is sort of odd.

it's not clear who wrote it or why

ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

: William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >> >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

: William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >> >> bin Laden wanted to kill Saddam. What evidence do you have of
: >> >> them colluding?

: http> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/7/12/95941

: >> Yes, I had seen that. It could turn into something,
: >> but who knows. I note that the lawyer is not named,
: >> and none of the details of the alleged papers are given.
: >> The lawyer could be putting a fast one over on Merritt,
: >> or it might be real.

: >> It does not change the fact that Saddam was secular, killed
: >> thousands of Islamists, and that bin Laden wanted to kill
: >> him.

: William> It also does not change the real fact that Bin Laden called on the
: William> jihadists to defend "the socialists" against the US.

: Defend the socialists? He was hoping (assuming he is alive, which
: I doubt) for a war with us, and it doing what he can to take advantage
: of the post "major conflict" situation.

: William> The Arabs have a saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

: That was the excuse for the US to support a bunch of brutal
: thugs, including Saddam.

: William> Saddam was the US's and Saudi Arabia's enemy. Those are Bin Laden's
: William> enemies.

: But Saddam was also his enemy.

Actually, they never were enemies.

: If Saddam was willing to give him WMD, why didn't he do it
: a decade ago?

A decade ago, Iraq was reeling from a major ass-kicking and had a very
aggressive bunch of REAL UN inspectors running around looking for stuff.
Iraq's biggest problem was figuring out how to hide the stuff fast enough.
Also, I am sure it didn't cross Saddam's mind at the time that someone
else could use his WMD's as well as Saddam could.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil

>>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
>> >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
>> >> >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
>> >> >> bin Laden wanted to kill Saddam. What evidence do you have of
>> >> >> them colluding?

http> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/7/12/95941

>> >> Yes, I had seen that. It could turn into something,
>> >> but who knows. I note that the lawyer is not named,
>> >> and none of the details of the alleged papers are given.
>> >> The lawyer could be putting a fast one over on Merritt,
>> >> or it might be real.

>> >> It does not change the fact that Saddam was secular, killed
>> >> thousands of Islamists, and that bin Laden wanted to kill
>> >> him.

William> It also does not change the real fact that Bin Laden called on the
William> jihadists to defend "the socialists" against the US.

>> Defend the socialists? He was hoping (assuming he is alive, which
>> I doubt) for a war with us, and it doing what he can to take advantage
>> of the post "major conflict" situation.

William> The Arabs have a saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

>> That was the excuse for the US to support a bunch of brutal
>> thugs, including Saddam.

William> Saddam was the US's and Saudi Arabia's enemy. Those are Bin Laden's
William> enemies.

>> But Saddam was also his enemy.

William> Actually, they never were enemies.

You are mistaken. Saddam killed all the islamists he could
in Iraq. bin Laden wanted to lead a Muslim army against
Saddam in 1990/91. He has called Saddam an infidel (which
he is, by any Islamic standard).

>> If Saddam was willing to give him WMD, why didn't he do it
>> a decade ago?

William> A decade ago, Iraq was reeling from a major ass-kicking and had a very
William> aggressive bunch of REAL UN inspectors running around looking for stuff.
William> Iraq's biggest problem was figuring out how to hide the stuff fast enough.
William> Also, I am sure it didn't cross Saddam's mind at the time that someone
William> else could use his WMD's as well as Saddam could.

Saddam is not that stupid, the bio weapons can fit in a briefcase.
Had he wanted to arm al Qaeda, he would have.

There is no evidence he did so, or would have done so. I was afraid
he would release some after we attacked, but as we have not been attacked
yet, I am hopeful that did not happen.


--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in talk.politics.misc...)

ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

: William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >> >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

: William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >> >> >>>>> William David Thweatt writes:

: William> ahall@no-spam-world.std.com wrote:
: >> >> >> bin Laden wanted to kill Saddam. What evidence do you have of
: >> >> >> them colluding?

: http> http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecov...003/7/12/95941

: >> >> Yes, I had seen that. It could turn into something,
: >> >> but who knows. I note that the lawyer is not named,
: >> >> and none of the details of the alleged papers are given.
: >> >> The lawyer could be putting a fast one over on Merritt,
: >> >> or it might be real.

: >> >> It does not change the fact that Saddam was secular, killed
: >> >> thousands of Islamists, and that bin Laden wanted to kill
: >> >> him.

: William> It also does not change the real fact that Bin Laden called on the
: William> jihadists to defend "the socialists" against the US.

: >> Defend the socialists? He was hoping (assuming he is alive, which
: >> I doubt) for a war with us, and it doing what he can to take advantage
: >> of the post "major conflict" situation.

: William> The Arabs have a saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

: >> That was the excuse for the US to support a bunch of brutal
: >> thugs, including Saddam.

: William> Saddam was the US's and Saudi Arabia's enemy. Those are Bin Laden's
: William> enemies.

: >> But Saddam was also his enemy.

: William> Actually, they never were enemies.

: You are mistaken. Saddam killed all the islamists he could
: in Iraq. bin Laden wanted to lead a Muslim army against
: Saddam in 1990/91. He has called Saddam an infidel (which
: he is, by any Islamic standard).

Saddam only killed the Islamists who were not loyal to him. There are
many Islamist Sunnis loyal to Saddam still in Iraq today causing trouble.

: >> If Saddam was willing to give him WMD, why didn't he do it
: >> a decade ago?

: William> A decade ago, Iraq was reeling from a major ass-kicking and had a very
: William> aggressive bunch of REAL UN inspectors running around looking for stuff.
: William> Iraq's biggest problem was figuring out how to hide the stuff fast enough.
: William> Also, I am sure it didn't cross Saddam's mind at the time that someone
: William> else could use his WMD's as well as Saddam could.

: Saddam is not that stupid, the bio weapons can fit in a briefcase.
: Had he wanted to arm al Qaeda, he would have.

What makes you so sure he never did?

: There is no evidence he did so, or would have done so. I was afraid
: he would release some after we attacked, but as we have not been attacked
: yet, I am hopeful that did not happen.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

--
--
William "Dave" Thweatt
Robert E. Welsh Postdoctoral Fellow
Chemistry Department
Rice University
Houston, TX
thweatt@ruf.rice.edu
dave.thweatt@us.army.mil

>>>>> William David Thweatt writes:
William> Actually, they never were enemies.

>> You are mistaken. Saddam killed all the islamists he could
>> in Iraq. bin Laden wanted to lead a Muslim army against
>> Saddam in 1990/91. He has called Saddam an infidel (which
>> he is, by any Islamic standard).

William> Saddam only killed the Islamists who were not loyal to him. There are

No Islamists were loyal to him, he was an infidel.

William> many Islamist Sunnis loyal to Saddam still in Iraq today causing trouble.

>> >> If Saddam was willing to give him WMD, why didn't he do it
>> >> a decade ago?

William> A decade ago, Iraq was reeling from a major ass-kicking and had a very
William> aggressive bunch of REAL UN inspectors running around looking for stuff.
William> Iraq's biggest problem was figuring out how to hide the stuff fast enough.
William> Also, I am sure it didn't cross Saddam's mind at the time that someone
William> else could use his WMD's as well as Saddam could.

>> Saddam is not that stupid, the bio weapons can fit in a briefcase.
>> Had he wanted to arm al Qaeda, he would have.

William> What makes you so sure he never did?

See below.

>> There is no evidence he did so, or would have done so. I was afraid
>> he would release some after we attacked, but as we have not been attacked
>> yet, I am hopeful that did not happen.

William> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, which is why I did not state it as a fact. However,
had Saddam so armed al Qaeda some time ago, it is very
likely that al Qaeda would have already used the weapons.

If he armed them as we invaded, perhaps al Qaeda is still
holding on to them.

On balance, it seems very unlikely that he did arm them.

And there is no evidence that Bush's allegations were true.



--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)