Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
burdell - can you show some links showing how Saddam was "an enemy of al Qaeda"? The 9/11 Commission Report notes some complexity in the relationship but arrives at the opposite conclusion:
Quote:
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda-save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against "Crusaders" during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.53
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
burdell - can you show some links showing how Saddam was "an enemy of al Qaeda"? The 9/11 Commission Report notes some complexity in the relationship but arrives at the opposite conclusion:
We know that Saddam harbored terrorists and that this contributed to our decision to forcibly remove him.
Where's TnHilltopper?
Well I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Your quote provides evidence Iraq may have "tolerated" some terrorist groups because they were fighting their common enemy, the Kurds.
That is a long stretch from connecting the dots to say Saddam helped in any way to plot with terrorists against the U.S. or participate in any way in 9/11, as the Bush adminsitration has indicated many times.
Al-qeada is known to be located all over the world, so that argument does not hold a whole lot of water when you are talking about attacking another nation.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
burdell - can you show some links showing how Saddam was "an enemy of al Qaeda"? The 9/11 Commission Report notes some complexity in the relationship but arrives at the opposite conclusion:
From a June 17, 2004 Washington Post article:
The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq.
Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein's government and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."
But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation. In yesterday's hearing of the panel, formally known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, a senior FBI official and a senior CIA analyst concurred with the finding.
So, to be clear, Saddam was -not- an enemy of al Qaeda.
And al Qaeda was in Iraq (and other countries all over the world).
bily4 - "That is a long stretch from connecting the dots to say Saddam helped in any way to plot with terrorists against the U.S."
Consider Saddam's direct actions against the US, from the law as quoted in TnHilltopper's comment above:
Quote:
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces
It's quite a long stretch to believe that Saddam would shrink from using surrogate terrorist forces even as he commits his own intelligence and military forces.
So, to be clear, Saddam was -not- an enemy of al Qaeda.
And al Qaeda was in Iraq (and other countries all over the world).
bily4 - "That is a long stretch from connecting the dots to say Saddam helped in any way to plot with terrorists against the U.S."
Consider Saddam's direct actions against the US, from the law as quoted in TnHilltopper's comment above:
It's quite a long stretch to believe that Saddam would shrink from using surrogate terrorist forces even as he commits his own intelligence and military forces.
But still we are into semantics, are we not. No matter what the stretch, we had no evidence Saddam was plotting anything at all against the United States, despite the administration's repeated public claims to the contrary. And that was what got the American Public behind the War, after the emotions of 9/11.
And in relation to Desert Storm, perhaps from Saddam's perspective he was trying to defend himself. Had our Coalition Forces not attacked the Iraqi Army to drive them out of Kuwait, for example, it is highly unlikely that Saddam would have crossed the ocean after Kuwait to attempt a US invasion and to fire any bullets at American forces.
Edit: I am not saying we should not have engaged in Desert Storm. I am however saying Iraq was never interested either before or after Desert Storm in attacking the United States, and no evidence has ever been shown to support this.
Last edited by bily4; 10-26-2007 at 03:05 PM..
Reason: clarification
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,400,252 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
So, to be clear, Saddam was -not- an enemy of al Qaeda.
.
Based on? There were reports at the time that Saddam viewed Osama as a threat to his regime.
EDIT: From a 2002 NY Times article:"Like other Middle Eastern rulers, Saddam Hussein has long recognized that Al Qaeda and like-minded Islamists represent a threat to his regime. Consequently, he has shown no interest in working with them against their common enemy, the United States. This was the understanding of American intelligence in the 1990's. In 1998, the National Security Council assigned staff to determine whether that conclusion was justified. After reviewing all the available intelligence that could have pointed to a connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, the group found no evidence of a noteworthy relationship. "
You state:"can you show some links showing how Saddam was "an enemy of al Qaeda"? The 9/11 Commission Report notes some complexity in the relationship but arrives at the opposite conclusion." The opposite conclusion you claim was made would be that Saddam was an ally of al Qaeda, what is your source for that?
And let's be clear that Cheney's allegations were a load of crap.
What...no citations from the Feith Memo? And Iraq had every right to fire on aircraft in its sovereign airspace. Enforcement of the no-fly zones was undertaken on no more basis than the enforcers having taken it upon themselves to respond to a humanitarian crisis, one that they themselves had helped to create. Otherwise, this is a very weak case over very old ground. Saddam may have been many things, but he was neither a madman nor an idiot. He had long supported Palestinian terrorist groups and approved of Islamic terrorist groups in Kurdistan in their attacks on pro-US Kurdish factions. There was no such arrangement, collaboration, or tolerance with respect to al Qaeda, and nothing even beginning to approach the 'overwhelming' evidence of 'numerous' and 'long-established' ties that Bush, Cheney, et al harped upon incessantly in the run-up to their entirely misguided and disastrous invasion. All of that was a house of cards and it still is.
saganista - you're right, it's an estimate, but I don't 'trust' the "fiercely non-partisan" CBO or GAO (Congressional) as much as BLS and other agencies (Administrative) - YMMV - in my experience, many times those agencies start with a conclusion then support it... And you're right re: methodologies and interpretation of policy: and I'll concede that for the purpose of discussion it's a good number - war is costly.
What evidence lead you to this conclusion? I've never heard anyone, left or right, ever complain about the CBO this way before.
I think that's pure rationalization. The fact is we deposed an enemy of al Qaeda who was not an imminent threat to the US when we should have been going full force at the real enemy. To lightly toss off attacks on coalition members as being meaningless, since the US wasn't attacked just shows it to be a coalition of convenience and no real meaning.
it wasnt downplaying there attacks nor did i ever infer that, those attacks had specific goals which were two fold.
as far as being a coalition, spaoin backed out because of this and britian is pulling there forces slowly. what are we as america doing? what should we be doing? spain rolled over and pissed itself, the brits are walking away from Iraq, but do you really think we arent working together to try and do something about it. we have alot on our plate now you want us to go and find the people the brits are already hunting (they are capable of this) or spain has capitulated too. we are operating world wide to find and Bring to justice (i.e. kill or capture) any sort of terror organization, we just cant do it all at once, and not fighting a war in Iraq willl not help
again here is what is happening and why those attacks occured
1. retaliation on the infidel for invading muslim lands (Iraq and afghanistan, but mostly Iraq). Have you heard that catchy phrase...revenge killing? that is EXACTLY one of the PURPOSES for those attacks.
2. secondly, knowing that and counting on the fact that todays society across the board cant stomach the kind of violence these people are use to. So to scare the populous of both Britain and Spain in political action- another attack. With britain it leaned more towards the revenge killing and to unsettle the political climate and decrease the support for the war. With spain it was timed to coincide with upcoming elections to try and favor the Govt that wanted spain out of Iraq. it worked...hands down the spanish people gave them exactly what they wanted.
America-didnt quite have the reaction the terrorist suspected although this had been a long term goal for them. they expected america, being the paper tiger to react just like vietnam, Somalia and yemen with our tail between our legs...it didnt work. it galvanized the american people in to war, not just war there (afghanilind) were at but in the Muslim heartland.
they realized that maybe that was a mistake in a sense. because we are now in there backyard and that is one of there primary goals...out of muslim lands. while they still desire to strike us again, they have to deal with us being there and them being badly battered (yes we are whooping there butts when we can engage). first and foremost they want us out of the middle east, that has been a goal for a long time. now we are there in force..not what they wanted. so they are fighting there war against us, they are planning attacks against us in the states, they are not pursuing them too hard at the moment for the fear of regalvanizing the american people. but they will try and hit us again, when it is best for them and will have the most desired effect (like spain)
and like i said they are instead struggling to hang on in Iraq just to show they are there and we are not "winning" becasue they are counting on the fact that we will elect officials who do not want to continue with this war, becasue in there eyes we are cowards. and you know what...it worked so far
while another attack might reinterest america.
these people arent dumb, they are dedicated, they are willing to die but arent reckless (as a whole), they are not cowards...well i have mixed feelings on them, and they want to kill, subjegate or convert us.
they have the VC playbook in there mits and are not going to quit because it cost too much or they are tired or they got beat up. (just like the VC) but they are not as tough as the VC IMO
this isnt conjecture, this isnt some wild ass scheme i thought of, this is what they are doing. you can deny it, lie about it or convince yourself there is no threat, but this is what they are doing and will continue doing. and they will try again when its in there favor....
Well I don't think anyone would disagree with you. Your quote provides evidence Iraq may have "tolerated" some terrorist groups because they were fighting their common enemy, the Kurds.
there is a saying in the muslim world "me against my brother, my brother and I against our cousin. My cousin and I against my uncle, my uncle and I against the world" i might have partially misquoted, but that is the main idea, falls right in line with, "my enemies enemy is my friend"
That is a long stretch from connecting the dots to say Saddam helped in any way to plot with terrorists against the U.S. or participate in any way in 9/11, as the Bush adminsitration has indicated many times.
it was said there was a possible link from intel. after that which was made public there wasnt. Al queda and Saddam talked probably in depth about there common friend america. ok maybe saddam wasnt involved in the attacks, but to say he wouldnt work with terror organizations who were harassing his country and trying to take him out is about foolish....see my quote above
Al-qeada is known to be located all over the world, so that argument does not hold a whole lot of water when you are talking about attacking another nation.
when alqueda and Saddam are talking and they both dont like you and one has WMDs and is developing WMDs then yeah it becomes a threat
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
