NationStates Jolt Archive

I used to be dubious of any alleged link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam -- there did not seem to be concrete proof of such a relationship. However, a new document has been revealed which makes me doubt my previous views.

...this document appears to provide evidence that in 1999 the Taliban welcomed "Islamic relations with Iraq" to mediate between the Taliban, the Northern Alliance and Russia. It seems to provide evidence that the Taliban invited Iraqi officials to Afghanistan.

This reveals a connection between the Taliban and the Iraqi government. Of course, the Taliban also have close ties with Al-Qaeda, whom they shelter in Afghanistan to pursue their fundamentalist ideals.

The Institute for Afghan Studies has on its Web site a report of a Deobandi conference held in April, 2001, in Pakistan, organized by Maulana Fazlur Rahman. It states: "The highlight of the three-day conference near Peshawar from April 8 to April 11 was the prominence given to the messages of Qadhafi (RR: Muammar al Qaddafi), the Taleban leader Mullah Omar and the international terrorist, Usama bin Laden." The report indicates the conference "concluded after adopting resolutions challenging the hegemony of the U.S. and its allies in world; demanding an end to U.N. sanctions against Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and early withdrawal of U.S.-led Western troops from Arab lands."

The sources also seem to be quite credible.

Two captured documents — this notebook and the West Point document — seem to provide evidence of the same link between Maulana Fazlur Rahman and the Saddam regime, one captured in Iraq, the other in Afghanistan. The document captured in Afghanistan was used in a Combating Terrorism Center at West Point study about Al Qaeda indicating high confidence in its authenticity. The fact that two private communications captured in different countries with different authors make the same point is a good indicator that each is genuine. It thus lends creditability to the notebook that also indicates an Usama bin Laden associate was scheduled to visit Iraq.

This leads me to believe that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were, in fact, planning on becoming allies in their "war" against the US.

The strong ties between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and their joint responsibility for terrorism, are clear and well documented. This translated notebook segment provides possible evidence that the Saddam regime and the Taliban were planning diplomatic and possibly operational ties with each other. Independent research indicates Maulana Fazlur Rahman and Fazlur Rahman Khalil were both close to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The Maulana asked the Saddam regime to mediate with the Taliban's enemies to take off some of the pressure. A fair question is what would Saddam have wanted in return? One possible answer is the only thing the Taliban had left to offer: Islamic Jihad and extremists operating for his interests from outside Iraq. Other translations from this notebook appear to expose a commitment between the Saddam regime and the Taliban that goes beyond mediation in order to increase support among Islamic Jihad groups for Iraq via a secret intelligence relationship with the Taliban.

The only thing Al-Qaeda and Saddam shared was mutual hatred toward each other.

I recently saw a snippet of a press conference where Dubya was asked a question about Iraq, and started to reply with something about 9/11. The journalist asked him what 9/11 had to do with Iraq and a clearly flustered and off balance Bush admitted that they had nothing to do with one another.

In addition to that, Saddam would ally with whoever would keep him in power and make him richer. We should have taken him up on that and used him to help contain Iran's ambitions. Attacking Saddam was stupid.

QUESTION: A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?

BUSH: I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi. You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived [in Iraq] and — you know, the stir-up-the-hornet's-nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were …

QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with that?

BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?

QUESTION: The attacks upon the World Trade Center.

BUSH: Nothing. . . . .Except for it's part of — and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize…

The only thing Al-Qaeda and Saddam shared was mutual hatred toward each other.

I agree. They were idealogically polarised.

This article is from June 2006. Its bollocks, contains nothing of import and isattempting to close the stable doors after the Horses have left for fields anew.

Why didnt you link back to the original or note the source?

Attacking Saddam was stupid.

Amen.

The only thing Al-Qaeda and Saddam shared was mutual hatred toward each other.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm sure Saddam and Osama, both Sunni Muslims, hated the US more than they hated each other.

Why would the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda turn to secular Saddam for help? Many commentators have stated that collusion between the two was impossible because of diametric religious and political beliefs. But if you examine the historical context of this document, a clear picture of a desperate Taliban comes through.

This meeting appears to have taken place a few weeks after Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf took over the Pakistani government in a coup that threatened to remove Pakistan's key support for the Taliban. Russia and Iran were supporting the Northern Alliance at war with the Taliban in Afghanistan. At this time it also was widely reported in Pakistan that US forces were about to attack Afghanistan to get Usama. The U.N. and even Arab conferences were making clear their grievances with the Taliban. This is a time when the Taliban and its associates (like both Fazlurs) in the North West Frontier province of Pakistan had few friends. This series of threats may have spurred the Taliban to seek out Saddam, a mutual enemy of the U.S. and friend of the Russians, if a prior relationship between Saddam and the Taliban did not already exist. Thus, it seems Maulana Fazlur Rahman is a lynch-pin of the relationship between the Saddam regime, the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

This article explains the connection and the article in-depth:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,199052,00.html

Nice logic. Since A~B, and B~C, obviously A~C.

Not a link.

Foxnews. 'Nuff Said.

Begoner21;11651885']
The sources also seem to be quite credible.


What is the source?

Begoner21;11651885']
This leads me to believe that Saddam and Al-Qaeda were, in fact, planning on becoming allies in their "war" against the US.

When exactly did Saddam start a war with the US?

When exactly did Saddam start a war with the US?

Or ever intend to?


I hope you are done putting Foxnews articles up.

This article is from June 2006. Its bollocks, contains nothing of import and isattempting to close the stable doors after the Horses have left for fields anew.

Why didnt you link back to the original or note the source?

I didn't link to the source because I forgot. Of course, many liberals will probably have a hissy fit when they see the source, so no harm done. The "stable doors" should not be closed when new evidence of the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda come to light -- only somebody who wishes to continue ignorantly believing that Saddam was peaceful as a bunny rabbit would close the doors and refuse to listen to a contradictory article.

When exactly did Saddam start a war with the US?

I put the word "war" in quotes because it was more of a proposed terror campaign than a war. I never said Saddam was planning an amphibious assault on New York. Although, now that I think of it...

Begoner21;11651925']The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I'm sure Saddam and Osama, both Sunni Muslims, hated the US more than they hated each other.

Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. both hated the U.S., yet they weren't exactly best buddies (except during a brief period after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, but even then, there was mutual distrust and tension).

Begoner21;11651941']I didn't link to the source because I forgot. Of course, many liberals will probably have a hissy fit when they see the source, so no harm done. The "stable doors" should not be closed when new evidence of the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda come to light -- only somebody who wishes to continue ignorantly believing that Saddam was peaceful as a bunny rabbit would close the doors and refuse to listen to a contradictory article.

Saddam was a thug. Thugs can be controlled with rewards and punishments. Thugs can be useful. We could use Saddam today to keep Iran in check. Instead we've given Iran something they could never have with Saddam around, control over Iraq.

Begoner21;11651941']I didn't link to the source because I forgot. Of course, many liberals will probably have a hissy fit when they see the source, so no harm done. The "stable doors" should not be closed when new evidence of the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda come to light -- only somebody who wishes to continue ignorantly believing that Saddam was peaceful as a bunny rabbit would close the doors and refuse to listen to a contradictory article.

Nobody believes Saddam was as peaceful as a bunny rabbit. I very nearly added a strong insult there, but am proud of myself for resisting the urge.

Nice logic. Since A~B, and B~C, obviously A~C.


Yes, it is sort of like saying "since Canada has strong diplomatic ties with both Cuba and the US, that must mean that George W. Bush is in league with Castro". Equally preposterous.

I'm sorry, but I seem to be as confused as the OP... should the stable doors be kept shut or open?!? Please answer.

I'm sorry, but I seem to be as confused as the OP... should the stable doors be kept shut or open?!? Please answer.

If you have a horse in there, shut. Once the horse has left, it usually depends on what else you have in there. Other horses, mules, nonsequential banknotes to the tune of seven billion, bodies, etc. are all good reasons to close it again.

Yes, it is sort of like saying "since Canada has strong diplomatic ties with both Cuba and the US, that must mean that George W. Bush is in league with Castro". Equally preposterous.

It scarcely matters at this point.

What I find interesting today is that Iran is friendly with al-Qaeda up to a point - up to where it is convenient for them to flaunt it.

They've held several al-Qaeda people in Iran under a very friendly "house arrest", but refuse to turn them over to the US.

Having recently fled from Afghanistan, that's a pretty good deal. Sure beats cooling your anus in Guantanamo.

Yes, it is sort of like saying "since Canada has strong diplomatic ties with both Cuba and the US, that must mean that George W. Bush is in league with Castro". Equally preposterous.

Clearer and simpler, the US trades with Canada, and Canada trades with Cuba, so the US trades with Cuba.

Saddam was a thug. Thugs can be controlled with rewards and punishments. Thugs can be useful. We could use Saddam today to keep Iran in check. Instead we've given Iran something they could never have with Saddam around, control over Iraq.

A bit abhorrent, working with a gangster like Saddam, but it does have sound logic to it.

Begoner21;11651945']I put the word "war" in quotes because it was more of a proposed terror campaign than a war. I never said Saddam was planning an amphibious assault on New York. Although, now that I think of it...

Who proposed the terror campaign and when? Is Saddam also in league with the boogeyman and other things that go bump in the night?

Begoner21;11651941']I didn't link to the source because I forgot. Of course, many liberals will probably have a hissy fit when they see the source, so no harm done. The "stable doors" should not be closed when new evidence of the links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda come to light -- only somebody who wishes to continue ignorantly believing that Saddam was peaceful as a bunny rabbit would close the doors and refuse to listen to a contradictory article.

The source should only be attacked when the material is discredited, or clearly ridiculous, primarily for entertainment purposes. So others can have some amusement I present the following -

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan , but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

A bit abhorrent, working with a gangster like Saddam, but it does have sound logic to it.

It worked for Rumsfeld ...

A bit abhorrent, working with a gangster like Saddam, but it does have sound logic to it.

There is no place for morality in international politics. Unless you can use it to rally opposition to your enemies, of course.

If you have a horse in there, shut. Once the horse has left, it usually depends on what else you have in there. Other horses, mules, nonsequential banknotes to the tune of seven billion, bodies, etc. are all good reasons to close it again.OH! it's met-a-phor... I see. I wonder if we all do.

Clearer and simpler, the US trades with Canada, and Canada trades with Cuba, so the US trades with Cuba.

That is not an apt analogy. The Taliban have close operational ties with Al-Qaeda and that was their bargaining chip with Saddam -- Islamic jihad. That was the reason Saddam was willing to help. If Cuba and Canada were militarily aligned, then your analogy would be closer to the truth.

It worked for Rumsfeld ...

True.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

I'm not saying that there was co-operation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks. However, there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda which could have led to 9/11 #2 had we not removed Saddam before any potential plans could be finalized.

There is no place for morality in international politics. Unless you can use it to rally opposition to your enemies, of course.

Morality is only something you trot out for political hay amongst the proletariat.

Begoner21;11652005']That is not an apt analogy. The Taliban have close operational ties with Al-Qaeda and that was their bargaining chip with Saddam -- Islamic jihad. That was the reason Saddam was willing to help. If Cuba and Canada were militarily aligned, then your analogy would be closer to the truth.

Ok. The US deals with Saudis, the Saudis deal with terrorists (no?)... so what follows?

Ok. The US deals with Saudis, the Saudis deal with terrorists (no?)... so what follows?

Nokia is a Finnish cell phone company, selling the world's most popular cell phones.

Terrorists use cellphones to remotely detonate bombs.

Therefore, Finland is a supplier of terrorist armaments. ;)

Begoner21;11652016']I'm not saying that there was co-operation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks. However, there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda which could have led to 9/11 #2 had we not removed Saddam before any potential plans could be finalized.

But if they didnt cooperate at all, why would they perform another 9/11, as you so bluntly state it?

Especially if we have such wonderful national security?

Wait, we trade with Cuba?!

Therefore, Finland is a supplier of terrorist armaments. ;)
And damn proud of it. We sell the best terrist hardware.

Wait, we trade with Cuba?!

Using the OP's logic.

Begoner21;11652016']I'm not saying that there was co-operation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks. However, there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda which could have led to 9/11 #2 had we not removed Saddam before any potential plans could be finalized.

There were no ties whatsoever. And even if there were, Saddam had neither the will nor the capacity nor the stupidity to initiate an attack of any kind against the U.S.

Ok. The US deals with Saudis, the Saudis deal with terrorists (no?)... so what follows?

No, unless the US exchanged goods for terror-related services, which, last time I checked, they don't. The same thing applies to cell-phone manufacturers and whatnot.

But if they didnt cooperate at all, why would they perform another 9/11, as you so bluntly state it?

Especially if we have such wonderful national security?

1. No matter how much you spend on domestic security (scanners, etc., at ports, airports, rail stations, etc), the net effect is no real increase in security. Unless you do some intelligent profiling based on good intelligence about the changing nature of the threat, you're just going to be putting rubber gloves up the wrong peoples' asses.

2. If you don't conduct surveillance, don't conduct deep intelligence operations, you might as well sit in the office and wait for the attacks. You may also have to interrogate people in ways that will offend the general sensibilities. Apparently, a 2003 plot was foiled by torturing some of the CIA detainees in secret prisons. And it was the only way to get that information.

3. Going to war is not always a good idea, unless you like the idea of permanently disrupting that sector of the world. The tactic is rather like beating a hornet's nest and then trying to slap the hornets down one at a time while being stung. My idea of just burning the hornets' nest at night while they sleep is again, offensive to the general sensibilities, although it would resolve some sources of terror - but not all.

4. Better human intelligence operations - on a massive scale, to include satellite surveillance of individuals, surveillance of all communications and network traffic (targeted to key groups), and a clandestine kidnapping/assassination group composed of civilian agents and military operators is probably the most worthwhile investment - along with a more intelligent propaganda campaign.

5. Like it or not, they are at war with us, in a diffuse, non-state actor manner. We cannot ignore it. And, if we expect to stamp it out, we're going to have to do more than a few nasty things that ordinarily, we would not do.

But if they didnt cooperate at all, why would they perform another 9/11, as you so bluntly state it?

Especially if we have such wonderful national security?

It is really getting very annoying for liberals to put words in my mouth. Did I ever say that Al-Qaeda and Saddam didn't co-operate? No, I did not. I said they did not co-operate on the planning of 9/11. Our national security has indeed been getting better in the post-9/11 era, but it is not perfect. With proper Iraqi funding and support, I'm sure that Al-Qaeda could have launced another terror attack successfully.

Begoner21;11652079']No, unless the US exchanged goods for terror-related services, which, last time I checked, they don't. The same thing applies to cell-phone manufacturers and whatnot.When DID you check that?

Wait, we trade with Cuba?!

Actually, we do.

Actually, we do.

*strokes chin*

This calls for McDonald's food! Nothing like it to clog up their arteries and stop Fidel boasting about life expectancy.

When DID you check that?

I checked it just now and failed to find anything. Perhaps the US paid Abdullah bin Abdulaziz to go down and smack some Al-Qaeda operatives around, but that seems quite unlikely. His health isn't as good as it used to be, you know.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm
Thursday, December 4, 1997 Published at 19:27 GMT
World: West Asia
Taleban in Texas for talks on gas pipeline

A senior delegation from the Taleban movement in Afghanistan is in the United States for talks with an international energy company that wants to construct a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Tell me, who was governor and heavily involved in the Texan oil business then?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/west_asia/37021.stm


Tell me, who was governor and heavily involved in the Texan oil business then?

Ooh! Ooh! Fidel Castro!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Saddam_Hussein_as_a_secular_leader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

That's right folks, the fact that Saddam ran a secular state (in fact it was the only state in the Persian Gulf not to have a justice system based on Sharia Law) does not fit with Osama's Islamic Fundamentalism. Their views are so different there's no way they would've been bedfellows against the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Saddam_Hussein_as_a_secular_leader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

That's right folks, the fact that Saddam ran a secular state (in fact it was the only state in the Persian Gulf not to have a justice system based on Sharia Law) does not fit with Osama's Islamic Fundamentalism. Their views are so different there's no way they would've been bedfellows against the US.

Stranger things have happened. Iran is a Shia nation, and they currently shelter al-Qaeda and publicly admit it.

Political convenience can make strange bedfellows.

While we may never know the extent of it (or lack thereof), we can't assert that "they never dealt with one another on a friendly basis".

You would have to prove that, and you can't.

Tell me, who was governor and heavily involved in the Texan oil business then?

Wow, an international oil company conducted business with the government of Afghanistan, relating to an oil pipeline, in 1997. Forgive me for not being shocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Saddam_Hussein_as_a_secular_leader

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_fundamentalism

That's right folks, the fact that Saddam ran a secular state (in fact it was the only state in the Persian Gulf not to have a justice system based on Sharia Law) does not fit with Osama's Islamic Fundamentalism. Their views are so different there's no way they would've been bedfellows against the US.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Consider the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact referred to a few pages ago - The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were naural enemies, each being exactly the thing the other hated most in the world - but they were still able to agree to a mutual non-aggression pact and to carve up Poland together.
Yes, each had every intent to betray the other later. But likewise Hussein and bin Laden could quite easily have used each other for mutual short term gain, with the express belief that in the end the other must die. Pragmatism is the lubricant of international discourse.
I don't think it happened - the information would have surfaced by now. But it was certainly possible.

Sorry, but that doesn't wash. Consider the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact referred to a few pages ago - The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were naural enemies, each being exactly the thing the other hated most in the world - but they were still able to agree to a mutual non-aggression pact and to carve up Poland together.
Yes, each had every intent to betray the other later. But likewise Hussein and bin Laden could quite easily have used each other for mutual short term gain, with the express belief that in the end the other must die. Pragmatism is the lubricant of international discourse.
I don't think it happened - the information would have surfaced by now. But it was certainly possible.

Shhh. You don't want to confuse the issues with realistic things like pragmatism and realpolitik.

The only thing Al-Qaeda and Saddam shared was mutual hatred toward each other.

That's generally enough to form an alliance of convenience.

Take, for example, the US-UK-USSR Alliance during World War II. Neither the US nor the UK were exactly all that fond of the Soviets, but Stalin seemed a less distasteful choice than letting Hitler win...sooooooooooooooooo...yeah.

Not that I think that there was an Iraq-Al Qaeda link, but it's not beyond the realm of belief.

There was no link whatsoever. The American people didn't like going in with a draw with iraq in the first Gulf war. Told Saddam was an evil man, (even though no U.S President acted to get rid of him), was attacked by terrorists and decided that it would be just fitting for the son of the President who attacked Bush in 1991 finish him off under the guise of terrorism or WMD.

That poll seems a bit odd... I voted "yes, definitely" as a joke... So even you, Begoner, don't think there was a strong link?

That poll seems a bit odd... I voted "yes, definitely" as a joke... So even you, Begoner, don't think there was a strong link?

I'm currently undecided. I voted meh. The evidence seems a bit circumstancial for my liking, but I cannot rule it out based on facts to the contrary, either. It is possible, I guess, and if I were Saddam, I would do it. I'm leaning towards "likely."

I have to check now.
I didn't vote "def, yes", just wanted to know who did. I have to take your word for it. ;)

I was so certain you'd yell: NO! it was me who voted "Yes, definitely"

Begoner21;11652147']Wow, an international oil company conducted business with the government of Afghanistan, relating to an oil pipeline, in 1997. Forgive me for not being shocked.
The point is that you started your argument in the OP with two countries seeking relations, and officials from one travelling to the other.
And guess what, before more recent times (blowing up those Buddha statues and so on), the Taliban weren't recognised as being the big problem they were.

It shouldn't surprise that Iraq and Afghanistan had relations on some level.

You continue the OP with a pretty much unrelated topic, namely Deobandi maniacs having a conference. If you could show me how popular Deobandi ideology was in Saddam's government, that would be great.

I didn't vote "def, yes", just wanted to know who did.

Drats, what a clever psychological ploy! I don't really see how anyone can be definitely convinced of a link since there isn't much objective proof of such a link. Maybe it was just a joke.

It shouldn't surprise that Iraq and Afghanistan had relations on some level.

No, but if there was a "threesome" between Iraq, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda, that would be incriminating. The article also pointed out that an Osama associate was planning on making a diplomatic visit to Iraq. From the article:

It thus lends creditability to the notebook that also indicates an Usama bin Laden associate was scheduled to visit Iraq.

Since Iraq and Taliban did not have any ties on this level prior to 2001, there does seem to be a connection between Iraq and Taliban-sponsored terrorism (Al-Qaeda, specifically).

Begoner21;11652368']The article also pointed out that an Osama associate was planning on making a diplomatic visit to Iraq.
Calling the guy an "Osama associate" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? I mean, he is an Islamist, and I certainly disagree with pretty much all his views, but that doesn't make him a terrorist.

http://www.newsline.com.pk/newsJuly2003/cover3july2003.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2411683.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fazlur_Rehman

Calling the guy an "Osama associate" is a bit of a stretch, don't you think?

If the person to whom they are referring has no proven relations to Al-Qaeda, that would indeed cast doubts upon the entire article, making it conjecture based on scanty, circumstantial evidence with little basis in fact.

Everyone who has answered no needs to read the 9/11 report

It includes things like Saddam Hussein paying Suicide Bombers

Saddam Hussein setting up training camps for Suicide Bombers, who could be bought like mercenaries

Saddam Hussein harboring Osama bin Laden

While Saddam didn't have any links to 9/11, he did have links to al-Qaeda.

It includes things like Saddam Hussein paying Suicide Bombers
Paying their families, you mean. As a PR gag. He was much less happy about the Islamists who blew stuff up to get rid of him.

Saddam Hussein setting up training camps for Suicide Bombers, who could be bought like mercenaries
No. You're thinking of another group that set up camps in the north of Iraq where Saddam had no access after the Gulf War.

Saddam Hussein harboring Osama bin Laden
Care to find me a link? ;)

I personally think that there's a good chance that saddam and al-qaeda has some short term ties. I mean Saddam has to have some security against the US and possibly Iran as well. I recall hearing a long time ago (like a couple of years) that British Intelligance believed they had found a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda but with the way our extremely biased media goes I doubt we'd hear too much about any documents like that.

Paying their families, you mean. As a PR gag. He was much less happy about the Islamists who blew stuff up to get rid of him.


No. You're thinking of another group that set up camps in the north of Iraq where Saddam had no access after the Gulf War.


Care to find me a link? ;)

Darn it, I can't find the link. I do remember though, that they had a special on the History Channel about the Iraq Conflict, and the history of it, from Storm to Freedom, and how there was a time in September of '96 that Clinton fired Cruise Missiles into Iraq, but waited for two hours. One of the houses targeted had large numbers of positive intel that bin Laden was in there. We missed the devil because of it. Gonna keep searching for a link, cause I know there has to be a reliable link out there that bin Laden was in Baghdad during that time.

Darn it, I can't find the link.
In 1996 Bin Laden was in Sudan, which forced him out in May after much international pressure. He took a plane to Afghanistan and lived for a while in the same border region people are suspecting him in today. Then he met Mullah Omar and forged that relationship with the Taliban.

When Saddam invaded Kuwait, Osama offered his militia (which was unemployed after the Soviets left Afghanistan) to the Saudi family to help expel the Iraqis from Kuwait. The Saudis declined, and chose to call in Americans instead.

In other words, Osama was ready to fight Iraq as a secular, infidel state.

The Osama (or Usama, if you're braindead) bin Laden we stopped looking for?

When the Republican Congress pulled funding?

Begoner21;11652016']I'm not saying that there was co-operation between Iraq and Al-Qaeda on the 9/11 attacks. However, there were ties between Iraq and Al-Qaeda which could have led to 9/11 #2 had we not removed Saddam before any potential plans could be finalized.

You conveniently ignore the next two quotes, which say there was no link at all.

You conveniently ignore the next two quotes, which say there was no link at all.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

"The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had “reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.” This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was “probably a direct result of the Iraq–Al Qida agreement.” Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the “exact formula used by Iraq.” This language about al Qaeda’s “understanding” with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998"

Darn it, I can't find the link. I do remember though, that they had a special on the History Channel about the Iraq Conflict, and the history of it, from Storm to Freedom, and how there was a time in September of '96 that Clinton fired Cruise Missiles into Iraq, but waited for two hours. One of the houses targeted had large numbers of positive intel that bin Laden was in there. We missed the devil because of it. Gonna keep searching for a link, cause I know there has to be a reliable link out there that bin Laden was in Baghdad during that time.

Clinton launched cruise missiles at Afghanistan to hit Al Qaeda targets and at Sudan to hit the Al Shifa pharmaceutical plant which was believed to be making nerve gas. His attacks against Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, only with punishing Saddam for shooting at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zones.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

And what has that to do with Rumsfeld and Powells statements?

And what has that to do with Rumsfeld and Powells statements?

You were saying there was no link. Obviously, there was a link between the two. A link of convenience, based on the development of chemical weapons.

Well there are links between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family. There were links between the Saddam and the US during the Iran Iraq war. Would that justify the rest of the world pushing for regime change in the US and demanding that they get rid of their weapons of mass destruction?

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

I know you have this trigger-jerk thing with the Islams, but thats a quote from a US prosecutors indictment of Bin Laden, (New York State 1998). This person Clarke believed that the two were co-operating, in that both had interest in a plant in Sudan. Thats all she wrote baby.

"There's no evidence Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his al Qaeda associates, according to a Senate report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. "
"It discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbour, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060908/senate_iraq_report_060908/20060908?hub=World

And what has that to do with Rumsfeld and Powells statements?

Did either of them say that Saddam was not involved with Al-Qaeda? No. The quote shows that there was at least some suspected co-operation between the two.

Begoner21;11655586']Did either of them say that Saddam was not involved with Al-Qaeda? No. The quote shows that there was at least some suspected co-operation between the two.

What was it then? They swapped tips on mustache trimming technique?

What was it then? They swapped tips on mustache trimming technique?

No, I'm sure they were busy planning another terror attack. Actually, as it turns out 9/11 wasn't the only terror attack, ever. It wasn't the beginning, middle, and end all in one. There were other terror attacks and there will be other terror attacks. I'm sure Osama didn't say "well, since I already slaughtered innocent civilians once, I can't do it again. I might become (gasp) formulaic! I better start paying more attention to my mustache, which is getting out of control, instead of those freedom-loving, imperialist pigs." I'm sure that Saddam did not have similar reasoning, either. The fact that they did not collude on 9/11 in particular does not mean that they were not colluding on other terror attacks. No need for irony.

Clearer and simpler, the US trades with Canada, and Canada trades with Cuba, so the US trades with Cuba.

So, Canada is just a big money-laundering scam?

Nazi Germany and the U.S.S.R. both hated the U.S., yet they weren't exactly best buddies (except during a brief period after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was signed, but even then, there was mutual distrust and tension).

Not until after America entered World War II. Prior, Nazi Germany could be seen as apathetic towards the US and the Soviet Union at political odds and distrust, not hate.

Saddam Hussein could have been the best tool against terrorists in the Middle East, especially against Iran. Hussein loathed Bin Laden and vice-versa. The rise of hard-headed Iranian rulers, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and even possibly Al Qaeda are the end-result of Western actions against that specific region. Try punching a stranger on the street, and the normal reaction (s) would be surprise, anger, and obviously retaliation. I strongly believe that Saddam Hussein was a scapegoat for Sept 11. They couldn’t get the real perpetrators of Sept 11 because they died along with the victims (RIP) of Sept 11, or are scattered in what is believed to be the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan. If Bush had the balls, he would have really confronted president Musharaf of Pakistan to hand over or really join the anti-terror cause but he won’t because Musharaf is sitting on a real WMD unlike Saddam and that’s why it is easier to pick on Iraq and not lets say North Korea. What’s the outcome of this war (Iraq), lets say you are a president of a country and you’ve just witnessed what America has done to Iraq, would you A. wait for your turn, or B. Get the real thing so America won’t attack you (like North Korea). If Iran gets the bomb, then who would stop any other country in the world from getting the nuclear bomb? Every country would be powerful on its own right but won’t sleep feeling safe.

OK, my opinion, based on nothing special, is that there was a kind of marriage odf convenience, sort of enemy of my enemy thing. Al-Q are anti West, Saddam was getting boned by the West, and wasn't v popular with his neighbours. So after 20 years of aetheism, he went all Islamic, just to court his neighbours and hope they wouldn't let USA and co use their bases,airspace etc to splat him.
I honestly don't believe Saddam was anti West himself. Just pro himself. Only reason he would work with Al-Q would be to maybe preserve his power longer.I think he'd just as likely siddled up to Nike or the Dhali Lama or Big Bird if they might of protected him from getting splatted for oil.
Penguin

There.

Was.

No.

Connection.

At.

All.


None. Ever. At all. Finito. Discussion was done before it started. I feel nothing but pity and disgust for those two who voted that they absolutely have a connection, because they absolutely do not.

Oh they have a connection now, Iraq and Al-Queda. Yeah. Because now that the insurgents hate us more than they ever have, they've allowed Al-Queda into the country as an ally.

I will repeat this, because it bears repeating: US GOING INTO IRAQ HAS CREATED TERRORISTS. Thank you.

Begoner21;11652079']No, unless the US exchanged goods for terror-related services, which, last time I checked, they don't. The same thing applies to cell-phone manufacturers and whatnot.
Food, Stingers, FN FALS, the Muhadju'hadeen fight against the USSR.

There.

Food, Stingers, FN FALS, the Muhadju'hadeen fight against the USSR.

I consider the resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to be a legitimate resistance movement -- what makes you deem it terrorist in nature?

Begoner21;11655810']No, I'm sure they were busy planning another terror attack. Actually, as it turns out 9/11 wasn't the only terror attack, ever. It wasn't the beginning, middle, and end all in one. There were other terror attacks and there will be other terror attacks. I'm sure Osama didn't say "well, since I already slaughtered innocent civilians once, I can't do it again. I might become (gasp) formulaic! I better start paying more attention to my mustache, which is getting out of control, instead of those freedom-loving, imperialist pigs." I'm sure that Saddam did not have similar reasoning, either. The fact that they did not collude on 9/11 in particular does not mean that they were not colluding on other terror attacks. No need for irony.


'No idea' then.

Begoner21;11656181']I consider the resistance against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan to be a legitimate resistance movement -- what makes you deem it terrorist in nature?
That the exact same stuff being done by the Taliban in Afghanistan today often gets called that?

That the exact same stuff being done by the Taliban in Afghanistan today often gets called that?

I do not consider the Taliban resistance against American forces "terrorism," but a large part of the War on Terror is a propaganda war, so our enemies must be portrayed as evil, while we are portrayed as liberators.

Begoner21;11656780']I do not consider the Taliban resistance against American forces "terrorism," but a large part of the War on Terror is a propaganda war, so our enemies must be portrayed as evil, while we are portrayed as liberators.
Hmmm, well, do as you like. I don't think the populations in the West need propaganda, and the rest of the world has become quite cynical about us anyways.
On the other hand, we're running the risk of losing any sense of reality if we only think in terms of propaganda slogans.