ArtCatDom
Posts: 478
Joined: 1/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DelightMachine
2. Terrorists. Before we invaded Iraq, the only terrorists in Iraq were a small faction of Al-Qaeda and a couple of Shiite militias. Most fascinating to me is how people who apparently cannot rub together a couple brain cells and actually read about a subject, would claim the very terorists hunted by Saddam who were trying to kill the socialist secular Baathists were somehow cooperating with Saddam. Saying the terrorists were in league with Saddam is like saying Hamas is in league with Israeli militias.
--------------------------------------
This is a hoary old chestnut. It was proven with captured documents long ago that Saddam's regime was quite open to working with Al Qaeda behind the scenes. I wouldn't go around talking about "people who apparently cannot rub together a couple brain cells and actually read about a subject" when you're ignorant about that very subject. Here's a recent article that goes into the latest on the subject.
The evidence of contact between Saddam and Al Qaeda has been out there for some time. From a July 18, 2005 article in The Weekly Standard ("The Mother of All Connections" by Stephen F. Hayes & Thomas Joscelyn):
Indeed, more than two years after the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was ousted, there is much we do not know about the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. We do know, however, that there was one. We know about this relationship not from Bush administration assertions but from internal Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) documents recovered in Iraq after the war--documents that have been authenticated by a U.S. intelligence community long hostile to the very idea that any such relationship exists.
We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
Yeesh. Yeah, bin Laden was a big asset at the time because the Iraqis were spying on him. This is not unusual as they were spying on a number of the leaders of the US trained and funded Afghani resistance to the Soviet occupation of the 80s. Those self-same documents reveal the intelligence value was high because its information about "underground" politics throughout the region and clues to what methods Western intelligence agencies might use to destablize Iraq and support resistance movements within the country. How shocking!
As for the WTC attacks of 1993, amazing that Iraq offered up Abdul Rahman Yasin at least three seperate times to the United States, isn't it? The last offer was in early 2002, reportedly refused by the Bush administration fearing a propaganda ploy. That last bit of info comes from the Dickey article referenced below. Fascinating, no?
quote:
We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999."
Whether or not you agree with the opinions in that magazine, this is a statement about facts, not political opinion. It's either wrong or right and should be falsifiable if it's not true.
You are utterly correct. That article is falsifiable. Or at least the colour with which the information is presented.
Mujahadeen were welcomed into Iraq. It is cannot be shown that the Iraqi regime was aware of any Al-Qaeda affiliations. However, it can be shown the Iraqi government outlawed Al-Qaeda along with a number of other "delusional extremist" groups. It can also be shown that Zarqawi was wanted by the regime for a number of crimes including espionage and inciting rebellion. I would mention at that point, if you're not familiar with the nuances between mujahadeen, Salafists, Al-Qaeda and such groups (as you *seem* not to be), you're not qualified to try to lecture another about the subject.
I will add that *any* information given by Allawi is highly suspect. Most of the information we publicly know that he provided has so far proven to be false. He was an exile well paid by the US Government to provide what they wanted to hear. His business associations and dealings also show a low level of trustworthiness.
quote:
Throughout the 1980s, including the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam cast himself as a holy warrior in his public rhetoric to counter the claims from Iran that he was an infidel. This posturing continued during and after the first Gulf war in 1990-91. Saddam famously ordered "Allahu Akbar" (God is Great) added to the Iraqi flag. Internally, he launched "The Faith Campaign," which according to leading Saddam Hussein scholar Amatzia Baram included the imposition of sharia (Islamic law).
Saddam did the same posturing as occured in other countries such as Egypt, UAE, Kuwait and others throughout the Middle East in response to the religious revival in the region starting in the 1970s. There is no indication this was anything more than a series of superficial measures.
I will additionally note the statment that Iraq was subject to sharia law is an utter lie. If it was, where are the sharia courts such as you'd find in Saudi Arabia? Again, the Iraqi campaign was a series of nearly empty posturing.
quote:
And throughout the decade [of the 90s], the Iraqi regime sponsored "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state.
Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it.
Talk about out of context! (I might also add that the quote is imperfect, if mostly correct.) It's no secret whatsoever that Saddam attempted to use some factions of mujahadeen for his own purposes. Nor is it any secret that he temporarily opened his arms to factions that before and after the period surrounding the First Gulf War were outlawed in Iraq. I DO happen to disagree with Dickey's assertions regarding the matter (as do many professional political and intelligence analysts who (at least in theory) know better than he or I do about the matter). However, it really is a moot point, since Dickey himself denies a Saddam-AlQaeda connection, repeatedly and clearly. If you want an actual idea of Dickey's opinion of the Al-Qaeda/Saddam link try this on for size:
"But it gets better. Zarqawi, you'll recall, was the gimpy Palestinian-Jordanian figure cited by Secretary of State Colin Powell last year as a vital link (sort of, maybe) between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. So the mere mention of his name allows those who conjured up the Iraq invasion in the first place to bring out their old smoke-and-mirror routine implying that Saddam was behind September 11."
(You can find the full article the quote is from here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4253025/)
If false assertions and misappropriated support from a journalist who explicitly denies the Saddam/9-11 and Saddam/Al-Qeada connections are the best you can do, your assertions are in sad shape my friend.
< Message edited by ArtCatDom -- 3/23/2006 2:56:45 AM >
|
RE: The War in Iraq Costs... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread