Saddam and Al-qaeda

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • cosmo
    Gold Gabber
    • Jun 2004
    • 583

    Saddam and Al-qaeda

    Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but this is hardly known.




    Tech Central Station is the best place to find and compare prices on a variety of tech products and services. You'll save time and money with Tech Central Station!



    Every day it seems another American soldier is killed in Iraq. These grim statistics have become a favorite of network news anchors and political chat show hosts. Nevermind that they mix deaths from accidents with actual battlefield casualties; or that the average is actually closer to one American death for every two days; or that enemy deaths far outnumber ours. What matters is the overall impression of mounting, pointless deaths.

    That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

    Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

    * Abdul Rahman Yasin was the only member of the al Qaeda cell that detonated the 1993 World Trade Center bomb to remain at large in the Clinton years. He fled to Iraq. U.S. forces recently discovered a cache of documents in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, that show that Iraq gave Mr. Yasin both a house and monthly salary.

    * Bin Laden met at least eight times with officers of Iraq's Special Security Organization, a secret police agency run by Saddam's son Qusay, and met with officials from Saddam's mukhabarat, its external intelligence service, according to intelligence made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who was speaking before the United Nations Security Council on February 6, 2003.

    * Sudanese intelligence officials told me that their agents had observed meetings between Iraqi intelligence agents and bin Laden starting in 1994, when bin Laden lived in Khartoum.

    * Bin Laden met the director of the Iraqi mukhabarat in 1996 in Khartoum, according to Mr. Powell.

    * An al Qaeda operative now held by the U.S. confessed that in the mid-1990s, bin Laden had forged an agreement with Saddam's men to cease all terrorist activities against the Iraqi dictator, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

    * In 1999 the Guardian, a British newspaper, reported that Farouk Hijazi, a senior officer in Iraq's mukhabarat, had journeyed deep into the icy mountains near Kandahar, Afghanistan, in December 1998 to meet with al Qaeda men. Mr. Hijazi is "thought to have offered bin Laden asylum in Iraq," the Guardian reported.

    * In October 2000, another Iraqi intelligence operative, Salah Suleiman, was arrested near the Afghan border by Pakistani authorities, according to Jane's Foreign Report, a respected international newsletter. Jane's reported that Suleiman was shuttling between Iraqi intelligence and Ayman al Zawahiri, now al Qaeda's No. 2 man.

    (Why are all of those meetings significant? The London Observer reports that FBI investigators cite a captured al Qaeda field manual in Afghanistan, which "emphasizes the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.")

    * As recently as 2001, Iraq's embassy in Pakistan was used as a "liaison" between the Iraqi dictator and al Qaeda, Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

    * Spanish investigators have uncovered documents seized from Yusuf Galan -- who is charged by a Spanish court with being "directly involved with the preparation and planning" of the Sept. 11 attacks -- that show the terrorist was invited to a party at the Iraqi embassy in Madrid. The invitation used his "al Qaeda nom de guerre," London's Independent reports.

    * An Iraqi defector to Turkey, known by his cover name as "Abu Mohammed," told Gwynne Roberts of the Sunday Times of London that he saw bin Laden's fighters in camps in Iraq in 1997. At the time, Mohammed was a colonel in Saddam's Fedayeen. He described an encounter at Salman Pak, the training facility southeast of Baghdad. At that vast compound run by Iraqi intelligence, Muslim militants trained to hijack planes with knives -- on a full-size Boeing 707. Col. Mohammed recalls his first visit to Salman Pak this way: "We were met by Colonel Jamil Kamil, the camp manager, and Major Ali Hawas. I noticed that a lot of people were queuing for food. (The major) said to me: 'You'll have nothing to do with these people. They are Osama bin Laden's group and the PKK and Mojahedin-e Khalq.'"

    * In 1998, Abbas al-Janabi, a longtime aide to Saddam's son Uday, defected to the West. At the time, he repeatedly told reporters that there was a direct connection between Iraq and al Qaeda.

    *The Sunday Times found a Saddam loyalist in a Kurdish prison who claims to have been Dr. Zawahiri's bodyguard during his 1992 visit with Saddam in Baghdad. Dr. Zawahiri was a close associate of bin Laden at the time and was present at the founding of al Qaeda in 1989.

    * Following the defeat of the Taliban, almost two dozen bin Laden associates "converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there," Mr. Powell told the United Nations in February 2003. From their Baghdad base, the secretary said, they supervised the movement of men, materiel and money for al Qaeda's global network.

    * In 2001, an al Qaeda member "bragged that the situation in Iraq was 'good,'" according to intelligence made public by Mr. Powell.

    * That same year, Saudi Arabian border guards arrested two al Qaeda members entering the kingdom from Iraq.

    * Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi oversaw an al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan, Mr. Powell told the United Nations. His specialty was poisons. Wounded in fighting with U.S. forces, he sought medical treatment in Baghdad in May 2002. When Zarqawi recovered, he restarted a training camp in northern Iraq. Zarqawi's Iraq cell was later tied to the October 2002 murder of Lawrence Foley, an official of the U.S. Agency for International Development, in Amman, Jordan. The captured assassin confessed that he received orders and funds from Zarqawi's cell in Iraq, Mr. Powell said. His accomplice escaped to Iraq.

    *Zarqawi met with military chief of al Qaeda, Mohammed Ibrahim Makwai (aka Saif al-Adel) in Iran in February 2003, according to intelligence sources cited by the Washington Post.

    * Mohammad Atef, the head of al Qaeda's military wing until the U.S. killed him in Afghanistan in November 2001, told a senior al Qaeda member now in U.S. custody that the terror network needed labs outside of Afghanistan to manufacture chemical weapons, Mr. Powell said. "Where did they go, where did they look?" said the secretary. "They went to Iraq."

    * Abu Abdullah al-Iraqi was sent to Iraq by bin Laden to purchase poison gases several times between 1997 and 2000. He called his relationship with Saddam's regime "successful," Mr. Powell told the United Nations.

    * Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a smuggler hired by Iraq to transport weapons to bin Laden in Afghanistan, was arrested by anti-Hussein Kurdish forces in May, 2000. He later told his story to American intelligence and a reporter for the New Yorker magazine.

    * Documents found among the debris of the Iraqi Intelligence Center show that Baghdad funded the Allied Democratic Forces, a Ugandan terror group led by an Islamist cleric linked to bin Laden. According to a London's Daily Telegraph, the organization offered to recruit "youth to train for the jihad" at a "headquarters for international holy warrior network" to be established in Baghdad.

    * Mullah Melan Krekar, ran a terror group (the Ansar al-Islam) linked to both bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Mr. Krekar admitted to a Kurdish newspaper that he met bin Laden in Afghanistan and other senior al Qaeda officials. His acknowledged meetings with bin Laden go back to 1988. When he organized Ansar al Islam in 2001 to conduct suicide attacks on Americans, "three bin Laden operatives showed up with a gift of $300,000 'to undertake jihad,'" Newsday reported. Mr. Krekar is now in custody in the Netherlands. His group operated in portion of northern Iraq loyal to Saddam Hussein -- and attacked independent Kurdish groups hostile to Saddam. A spokesman for the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan told a United Press International correspondent that Mr. Krekar's group was funded by "Saddam Hussein's regime in Baghdad."

    * After October 2001, hundreds of al Qaeda fighters are believed to have holed up in the Ansar al-Islam's strongholds inside northern Iraq.

    Some skeptics dismiss the emerging evidence of a longstanding link between Iraq and al Qaeda by contending that Saddam ran a secular dictatorship hated by Islamists like bin Laden.

    In fact, there are plenty of "Stalin-Roosevelt" partnerships between international terrorists and Muslim dictators. Saddam and bin Laden had common enemies, common purposes and interlocking needs. They shared a powerful hate for America and the Saudi royal family. They both saw the Gulf War as a turning point. Saddam suffered a crushing defeat which he had repeatedly vowed to avenge. Bin Laden regards the U.S. as guilty of war crimes against Iraqis and believes that non-Muslims shouldn't have military bases on the holy sands of Arabia. Al Qaeda's avowed goal for the past ten years has been the removal of American forces from Saudi Arabia, where they stood in harm's way solely to contain Saddam.

    The most compelling reason for bin Laden to work with Saddam is money. Al Qaeda operatives have testified in federal courts that the terror network was always desperate for cash. Senior employees fought bitterly about the $100 difference in pay between Egyptian and Saudis (the Egyptians made more). One al Qaeda member, who was connected to the 1998 embassy bombings, told a U.S. federal court how bitter he was that bin Laden could not pay for his pregnant wife to see a doctor.

    Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate. Meanwhile, Forbes estimated Saddam's personal fortune at $2 billion.

    So a common enemy, a shared goal and powerful need for cash seem to have forged an alliance between Saddam and bin Laden. CIA Director George Tenet recently told the Senate Intelligence Committee: "Iraq has in the past provided training in document forgery and bomb making to al Qaeda. It also provided training in poisons and gasses to two al Qaeda associates; one of these [al Qaeda] associates characterized the relationship as successful. Mr. Chairman, this information is based on a solid foundation of intelligence. It comes to us from credible and reliable sources. Much of it is corroborated by multiple sources."

    The Iraqis, who had the Third World's largest poison-gas operations prior to the Gulf War I, have perfected the technique of making hydrogen-cyanide gas, which the Nazis called Zyklon-B. In the hands of al Qaeda, this would be a fearsome weapon in an enclosed space -- like a suburban mall or subway station.
  • White_Hindu
    Getting Somewhere
    • Dec 2004
    • 165

    #2
    Well, I think Bush misled America by saying Saddam had WMDs. I have yet to see any proof. Inspectors found nothing, soldiers found nothing, and I think the reason we haven't found anything is because there ISN'T anything. I'm angry because when I wake up in the morning I fear for my life. I live right next to DC and if The White House were to get nuked I get the feeling I'd be nuked along with it.

    Comment

    • Chris B
      Fresh Peossy
      • Dec 2004
      • 6

      #3
      Re: Saddam and Al-qaeda

      To me, the question isn't of links between Al-Quaeda and Iraq, It's a question of priority. There are countries out there (N.Korea, for example) that we know for a FACT have multiple nukes, but here we sit, wasting lives, time and money with a country that, at best, could have produced a couple non-nuclear ICBMs, and harbored no known terrorists during and after the time of question.

      We set the pre-emptive strike precedent with Iraq. Personally, I find that much more dangerous than putting off the war, because if every other nation in the world adopted the same principle, they would surely all ban together at some point in attempt to destroy the US.

      Comment

      • mixu
        Travel Guru Extraordinaire
        • Jun 2004
        • 1115

        #4
        Re: Saddam and Al-qaeda

        Originally posted by cosmo
        Bin Laden's personal wealth alone simply is not enough to support a profligate global organization. Besides, bin Laden's fortune is probably not as large as some imagine. Informed estimates put bin Laden's pre-Sept. 11, 2001 wealth at perhaps $30 million. $30 million is the budget of a small school district, not a global terror conglomerate.
        I think this interesting alone... Draw your own conclusions.
        Ask me a question...

        Comment

        • Yao
          DUDERZ get a life!!!
          • Jun 2004
          • 8167

          #5
          Well, if you don't use high tech weapons, this can get you going...
          Blowkick visual & graphic design - No Civilization. Now With Broadband.

          There are but three true sports -- bullfighting, mountain climbing, and motor-racing. The rest are merely games. -Hemingway

          Comment

          • thesightless
            Someone will marry me. Hell Yeah!
            • Jun 2004
            • 13567

            #6
            Originally posted by White_Hindu
            Well, I think Bush misled America by saying Saddam had WMDs. I have yet to see any proof. Inspectors found nothing, soldiers found nothing, and I think the reason we haven't found anything is because there ISN'T anything. I'm angry because when I wake up in the morning I fear for my life. I live right next to DC and if The White House were to get nuked I get the feeling I'd be nuked along with it.
            one thing everyone who cries about this war must realize is,

            the amount of time saddam had to get rid of the stuff, if it did exist. its not like we went in overnight. we gave him months to move items a few hundred miles. not to hard to do. think about it. it is perfectly realistic to think that hussein simply moved it to iran, or buried it, or destroyed it. it could have happened. most criminals try to leave no evidence. why wouldnt he

            they have multiple findings of sarin in small houses. where was it made>
            many abandoned chemical labs, but those labs still had the utilities running.
            traces of chemicals used to create other agents, as well as sealed chambers with instructions for handeling biological agents.
            your life is an occasion, rise to it.

            Join My Chant. new mix. april 09. dirty fuck house.
            download that. deep shit listed there

            my dick is its own superhero.

            Comment

            • Yao
              DUDERZ get a life!!!
              • Jun 2004
              • 8167

              #7
              The Sarin might just as well have been import I guess, and as for the WMD's: I've seen so many satellite pictures, they were monitoring that shit 24/7, and all of a sudden they lost track of it? I don't believe that.

              They had the locations on the scuds and the storage facilities, so if there was any movement, they must've known. I just can't put it together, seeing those pics and suddenly there's no info whatsoever?
              Blowkick visual & graphic design - No Civilization. Now With Broadband.

              There are but three true sports -- bullfighting, mountain climbing, and motor-racing. The rest are merely games. -Hemingway

              Comment

              • cosmo
                Gold Gabber
                • Jun 2004
                • 583

                #8
                It was the Bush administrations fault to base the war solely on the WMD's. A complete failure on their part to communicate properly in regards to getting all of this information out.

                It was always: 'If he doesn't get rid of the WMD's'.

                He financed and supported terrorism. There should've been more of that language.

                Comment

                • Yao
                  DUDERZ get a life!!!
                  • Jun 2004
                  • 8167

                  #9
                  Maybe that would've been better yes, he might have had me goin' for it, too...
                  Blowkick visual & graphic design - No Civilization. Now With Broadband.

                  There are but three true sports -- bullfighting, mountain climbing, and motor-racing. The rest are merely games. -Hemingway

                  Comment

                  • davetlv
                    Platinum Poster
                    • Jun 2004
                    • 1205

                    #10
                    Ok lets be clear, for a decade he played games with weapon inspectors, flauted UN resolution after resolution, stuck two fingers up to the world whilst treating his own people in a most horrific way.

                    F*ck the language the US/UK used. They did the right thing.

                    As for where are his weapons, not sure Iran is the place to check; I'd try Syria first.

                    Comment

                    • White_Hindu
                      Getting Somewhere
                      • Dec 2004
                      • 165

                      #11
                      Well the UN was doing weapons inspections on a pretty regular basis, right? I mean, Clinton bombed Baghdad because Saddam stopped the inspectors. What sense would it make to bomb Baghdad then stop all inspections?

                      Comment

                      • elove
                        Fresh Peossy
                        • Jul 2004
                        • 38

                        #12
                        Re: Saddam and Al-qaeda

                        Yeah the reason why we didn't invade NKorea is that they have nukes and the US knows that. This is why the US moved most their troops out of the DMZ because that is the 1st target to get nuked in a confrontation with N. Korea. No one wants a tons of highly trained troops jacked up in 1/10 of a second.

                        Iraq was mainly invaded to establish a US beachead to conduct further operations to secure US Oil interests for future global conflicts. Other countries can't act tough with us if they can't conduct land based military ops with no oil.

                        Its all about priorities but so far it seems logical to me.

                        Originally posted by Chris B
                        To me, the question isn't of links between Al-Quaeda and Iraq, It's a question of priority. There are countries out there (N.Korea, for example) that we know for a FACT have multiple nukes, but here we sit, wasting lives, time and money with a country that, at best, could have produced a couple non-nuclear ICBMs, and harbored no known terrorists during and after the time of question.

                        We set the pre-emptive strike precedent with Iraq. Personally, I find that much more dangerous than putting off the war, because if every other nation in the world adopted the same principle, they would surely all ban together at some point in attempt to destroy the US.

                        Comment

                        • brakada
                          Gold Gabber
                          • Jun 2004
                          • 622

                          #13
                          Call me naive, but I simply cannot accept the evidence, which is based on (more or less) what "Mr Powell told the United Nations" or Iraq defectors (which prooved to be a very unreliable source of information. I thought that the links between Saddam and bin Laden were rather cleared up by the 9/11 commission and as far as I know, the commission concluded, that there wasn't really that much of cooperation between Al Quaeda and Iraq regime...

                          What I don't understand exactly is why the US and the UK didn't allow the inspectors to finnish their job, once Sadam seemed (or let me rephrase; was forced :wink: ) to cooperate with the inspectors. If you ask me, that would be a better way to determine the fate of his WMDs, than the state is today (when noone knows whether the weapons are Iraq, they have been moved, or they might have been destroyed), which I find even more disturbing for world peace and security.

                          Originally posted by davetlv
                          Ok lets be clear, for a decade he played games with weapon inspectors, flauted UN resolution after resolution, stuck two fingers up to the world whilst treating his own people in a most horrific way.
                          Hey, didn't Israel flaut a lot of UN resolutions, too? And you don't see any country using that as an excuse to attack the "Holy land", do you?
                          :wink:

                          I agree about treating his own people in a most horrific way, though, and this was the only justifiable reason, that he had to go...
                          We shall boldly dance, where no man has danced before..."

                          Comment

                          • cosmo
                            Gold Gabber
                            • Jun 2004
                            • 583

                            #14
                            the commission concluded, that there wasn't really that much of cooperation between Al Quaeda and Iraq regime...
                            No they didn't. Read the report again. I can cite reference after reference that shows ties between the two entities.

                            How can you say that?

                            Comment

                            • davetlv
                              Platinum Poster
                              • Jun 2004
                              • 1205

                              #15
                              Originally posted by brakada
                              Hey, didn't Israel flaut a lot of UN resolutions, too? And you don't see any country using that as an excuse to attack the "Holy land", do you?
                              :wink:
                              My dear friend, nice to have you back again . . . now then there are two types of UN resolutions, The General Assembly and The Security Council. Only the Security Council has the backing of International Law.

                              I think you will find that the resolutions against Iraq were via the S.C whilst those against Israel were from the G.A. (or certainly more than 95%), and anyhow, no resolution against Israel threatens them with military action backed by the UN if the resolution is not complied with, unlike resolutions passed against Iraq.

                              Does that clear it up for Brakada

                              Comment

                              Working...