Probably some kind of conspiracy theory. I would encourage people on both sides of the issue to use more credible information.

 

I was asked my reasons and not yours so I posted MY reasons. Whether they are credible it is how I think and regardless of how you view my post I really could care less because...once again...I was asked my view and I was not aware that anyones view were really open for debate.

 

I was talking about g2tegls's post, not yours...

 

While i can't dispute that Osama is the leader of Al Queda, the fact of the matter is that he is a leader along the same lines as the Queen of England. That is that he is merely a figurehead. Each of the Al Queda terrorist cells is basically autonomous. Each cell works within it's own people and camps to carry out attacks on US interests.

With that said(and myself not divulging any classified information), it is definately possible and highly probable that one or more of those same Al Queda(or equivalent, Al Queda isn't the only one. just the one that the news broadcasts to the world.) terrorist cells could be/is working with the Hussein regime to carry out attacks on US, or our allies' interests using weapons of mass destruction or improvised weapons of mass destruction. While there may or may not be any direct connection between Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the fact still remains that neither of them is or has been in complete control of their regime/network(respectively) and there are other high level members of their regime/network that call the shots too.

edit: In short, it's most likely not a connection between Osama and Saddam individually, but more like a connection between [insert your favorite terrorist cell here] and the regime that Saddam is(or was at this point ) the leader of.

 

My badh:

But actually the same principle still applies but if hes arguing his view then credible sources would be a very important factor in this case.

I'm out.

 

"President Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara told the Amewrican public there was an attack by North Vietnamese torpedo boats on American destroyers. 'While on routine patrol in international waters,' McNamara said, 'the U.S. destoyer Maddox undewent an unprovoked attack.' It later turned out that the Gulf of Tonkin episode was a fake, that the highest American officials had lied to the public - just as they had in the invasion of Cuba under Kennedy. In fact, the CIA had engaged in a secret operation attacking North Vietnamese coastal installations--so if there had been an attack it would not have been 'unprovoked.' It was not a 'routine patrol,' because the Maddox was on a special electronic spying mission. And it was not in international waters but in Vietnamese territorial waters. It turned out that no torpedos were fired at the Maddox, as McNamara said. Another reported attack on another destroyer, two nights later, which Johnson called 'open aggression on the high seas,' seems also to have been an invention."

-Zinn, Howard. A People's History of the United States. p476

BTW, I realize that "stage" was a bad word to use. I meant invent, but I figured you'd get the point anyway.

 

And then there's the story of how the Spanish American war started...