Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 November 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep and cleanup. |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
 Archives |
| August 2006 - January 2007 |
Contents |
[edit] this page is not about the gulf war
Stuff establishing "possible motive" for Saddam to attack the US back in 1991 has absolutely nothing to do with this page. I will continue to remove it and I will ask that if you think it needs to stay please explain why. The evidence you are including here should directly mention a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda; if you have to add your own speculation to establish its relevance, it is original research and unacceptable by Wikipedia standards. Thank you. csloat (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saddam Threat
In 1990 Saddam made a direct threat against the US; this was referenced in the NY Times (see below). This note keeps on being deleted first as being SOAP and then and not being directly about Saddam and al-Qaeda working together.
- July 20 Saddam Hussein threatens the US with attacks in a meeting he calls with United States Ambassader to Baghad, April Glaspie:
| “ | "The United States wants to secure the flow of oil. This is understandable and known. But it must not deploy methods which the United States says it disapproves of - flexing muscles and pressure.
If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you. " |
” |
I argue that this established Saddam's desire to directly attack the US either through Iraqi Intelligence Services or by working with non-state actors who want to attack the US. The "individual Arabs" Saddam speaks of latter did attack the US and US interests around the world. This quote simply established motivation to work with al-Qaeda.
ITBlair (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- your argument in this regard may be accurate but it is original research -- see WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your speculations -- that quote does not mention al Qaeda and indeed there is no evidence Saddam even knew al Qaeda existed in 1991. There is of course a connection to the Gulf War and al Qaeda -- bin Laden tried to get the Saudis to approve a plan for him to attack the Iraqis. The Saudis asked the Americans to do that for them instead, and bin Laden got very upset and that is a big part of his animosity towards the US. But the stuff you are putting in here does not mention bin Laden or al Qaeda and it will continue to be removed. Please review WP:NOR before adding more of this sort of thing to the article; thanks. csloat (talk) 08:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Saddam made a Threat and this threat should be noted. I am not publishing my speculatons, my inferences as to whether he actually tried to implement this threat would be original research. However, I made no attempt to publish them. The Threat Itself is not Original Research or SOAP. Even in a standard criminal investigation (which intelligence is not) a Threat against a Victum by a suspect would be a key bit of evidence.
I think we should publish the threat and let the Readers draw whatever conclusions they wish to. I hope other Editors will chime in on this issue.
ITBlair (talk) 08:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- Your speculation is the only thing connecting those "threats" to this article. That is original research and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not a criminal investigation and the reader is not a juror. This is an encyclopedia. Please read this page and do not add further original research to this article as it will be removed. csloat (talk) 11:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, this is not Original Research. The Threat was made and documented. It stands on firmer grounds then the recent summaries of the Senate Reports on Al-Qaeda, it is not an inference from murky data, it is a fact. The intentions, planning, and actual operations of Terrorist organizations are always very murky. There is not much documented evidence available. This is clearly documented. This is "information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda." It is not complete, conclusive or final. However, it is directly relevant to this issue, well-documented (unlike most information in this area) and should be published. To exclude this information is to "Not Let the Facts Speak for Themselves" (per NPOV), and continues (I think) this article's tendency to selectively cite references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- The "threat" is not the original research; the original research is the analysis that connects the threat to this page. I don't care if you want to put the "threat" quotes on the gulf war page but they don't belong here. Again, see WP:NOR, especially WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 19:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I believe that this article is focused on meetings "as well as other information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda." That Saddam made the threat to attack the US is clear (A is TRUE); that al-Qaeda attacked the US is also factual (B is TRUE). If I stated that because Saddam made the Threat and Attack occured then I would be guilty of WP: SYN. However, I am not making this connection. I am simply letting the facts speak for themselves. A reader may or may not make this connection. That is something for the Reader to decide, we only have to present the documented facts from a neutral point of view. I think many readers may make this connection, but it is not in the Wiki Article. By Not presenting the fact of a Threat we are limiting the information available to the Reader and moving away from NPOV. It is possible to add that no evidence has been found that Saddam carried out this threat via Al-Qadea has been found.
ITBlair (talk) 08:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- The fact that Saddam made a threat says absolutely nothing about any al Qaeda connection. Shall we start an article called Kim Jong-il and al-Qaeda based on a threat from the north korean leader? Or Hugo Chavez and al-Qaeda? Of course not. If there was a connection to this article from this particular threat you should be able to find a reliable source making that connection explicit, rather than having to make it yourself as an editor. This is the very definition of WP:SYN -- you are taking a quote that does not explicitly make this point and you are inserting it into an article to make the point that is not made in the quote. By placing the quote in this article you are making the connection, and that is improper according to WP:SYN. csloat (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Whether Saddam's Threat is Connected to Al-Qaeda or Not is NOT for us (the Editors) to say. I argue that you are commiting a SYN violation by your refusable to allow a well-documented fact to be included. The implication is that No such threats were made, which is untrue (i.e., Do not permit A; note that B (operational links) remains unproven, thus no C is reasonable. I do not promise to make or unmake the link in this article. I say leave it up to the reader to make (or not) any connections. Again, we can explicitly note that no operational links have been demonstrated in the assessment of the current opinion of the Intelligence Agencies. Similarly, if Hugo Chavez made a direct threat and an attack occured, but no operational links were found it would be entirely reasonable to list both the Threat and the lack of operational links. We simply do not known what happened, but we can certainly present all the "other information relevant to the theory that Saddam conspired with al-Qaeda." I argue that a direct threat by Saddam is clearly relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITBlair (talk • contribs) 04:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- "Whether Saddam's Threat is Connected to Al-Qaeda or Not is NOT for us (the Editors) to say" -- I agree 100%. By putting it on this page, you are connecting Saddam's threat to al Qaeda. Your implied connection between the two is a violation of WP:SYN. It is pretty simple, actually, but if you think I am incorrect, start an RfC and we can get some other editors to weigh in. But I do not believe it serves Wikipedia's purpose to include extraneous information in this article just because an editor can make an argument as to why it is connected. If no published third party has suggested it is connected, it is not Wikipedia's place to suggest that it is. csloat (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I can only note that it is interesting that Quotes from Saddam (see 2006) where he states (mid-1990s) that Iraq would not use WMD against the US are included in the Time Line, but the quote I propose on his conventional threats are blocked. Again, this is cherry-picking the facts and not letting the Facts Speak for themselves. The Saddam quote allowed is shown below:
"Nightline airs translations of taped conversations of Saddam Hussein speaking candidly with advisers.[251] On the ABC transcript of one of the tapes, Saddam is heard speaking with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz discussing terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.[252] Saddam specifically mentions that he had warned the United States in 1989 (when the two countries were allies) that terrorists would eventually gain access to weapons of mass destruction. "Terrorism is coming," the Iraqi leader is translated as saying. "I told the Americans a long time before August 2 [1990, the day Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S./Iraqi relationship changed dramatically] and told the British as well, I think Hamed was there keeping the meeting minutes with one of them, that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction. What prevents this technology from developing and people from smuggling it? All of this, before the stories of smuggling, before that, in 1989. I told them, 'In the future, what would prevent that we see a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?'" Saddam later adds, "This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq."
In terms of Wiki Policy this Information suppression, mainly through the selective representation of sources See [Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial] "A common way of introducing bias is by one-sided selection of information. Information can be cited that supports one view while some important information that opposes it is omitted or even deleted. Such an article complies with Wikipedia:Verifiability but violates NPOV. A Wikipedia article must comply with all three guidelines (i.e. Verifiability, NPOV, and No original research) to be considered compliant.
Some examples of how editors may unwittingly or deliberately present a subject in an unfair way:
Biased or selective representation of sources, eg: Explaining why evidence supports one view, but omitting such explanation in support of alternative views. "
You wish to include Quotes from Saddam that imply No links, but block quotes from Saddam that imply a link. In any event I will go and research how to go the Rfc route...
ITBlair (talk) 09:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- The quote that is in there is there because the tapes that quote was from were cited by authors such as Stephen Hayes and Tom Jocelyn as evidence that Saddam was connected to al Qaeda. Same with the "blessed july" thing or whatever it is. If you can show that such authors have cited these earlier threats in the context of that same argument I would agree that it could be included, but you have not yet shown that. I think WP:NOR is pretty clear on the matter. This has nothing to do with biased selection of sources -- the only bias here is to eliminate sources that are not actually talking about the topic of the article. csloat (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Saddam Use of Terror?
It might be useful to note that Iraq was on the list of Nations that Directly support Terror and list the relevant background of the Terrorist Organizations and Conferences he supported as well as when. This broader article could point to this Timeline.
For example, Putin claimed he warned the US that Iraq was planning terror attacks on US Soil (See: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/06/18/saddam.terror/ ).
ITBlair (talk) 08:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. We already have that information in the articles on Saddam Hussein and in numerous articles about the Iraq war. If you want to start a Saddam Hussein and the PLO article go ahead, but please do not start putting irrelevant information on this article. However, the Putin warning seems reasonable to include here. csloat (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- I added the material to the timeline. I forgot to type an edit summary but here is what I added to the article under 2004:
- 18 June: Russian President Vladimir Putin claims that Russian intelligence warned the U.S. "that official organs of Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist acts on the territory of the United States and beyond its borders, at U.S. military and civilian locations." CNN reported that Putin "did not elaborate on any details of the warnings of terror plots or mention whether they were tied to the al Qaeda terror network," and that Putin "also said Russia had no information that Saddam's regime had actually committed any terrorist acts." [203] csloat (talk) 09:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Please also see [[1]] for more on Saddam Hussein and terrorism. The site is very narrow in it's focus on that topic but mainly targets anti American terrorism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikez78 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] documents from the Telegraph
I'm going to be rewriting that section; the documents from the telegraph are not taken seriously by anyone in the Intel community. This article does a nice job of taking Gilmore's allegations apart step by step, but I don't think it's published anywhere reliable; when I track the necessary stuff down I will add it in. There are a couple paragraphs on these documents in the Senate Phase II report; it's pretty clear the Intel Community gave these documents zero credibility. csloat (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
