Documents Support Saddam-Taliban Connection

[swaroopm]

If you talk to Chommie and LeftyDevil, yes, he was a swell guy.

Does anyone think Hussein was a swell guy? No. I mean, there's no need for ridiculous statements. There are a lot of leaders around the world who are not swell at all, but that obviously doesn't mean that the US should go invading all those countries. I wish people could have a civilized discussion about these subjects without name-calling and without ascribing ridiculous viewpoints to those with whom one disagrees.

[autographcollector]

I'm confused. I thought the U.S. went to war with Iraq because of the violation of UN terms regarding WMDs?!?!

Every few weeks... I'm hearing completely different reasons for the war.

Is the war in Iraq about al-Qaeda? Or Saddam? Or the Taliban? Or terrorism as a whole? Or WMD?

All of the above

[luckydevil]

The anti war junkies make it seem like Dubya himself wrote the intel reports for the law makers to read. Come on people we're there, now it's time to put the women and children to bed and go looking for supper.

Look up my archives

I have slammed both parties on this war. It was a bipartisan war. The truth is liberal democrats and movement liberals (think-thanks, mainstream columnists, many liberal intellectuals, etc) laid the foundation for this war (Clinton administration). They deserve a great deal of blame. I do tend to agree with Wolf on one thing, opposition to war is largely fueled by partisanship.

[dreamingwolf]

But they did hit us and Germany declared war against us. But there is no doubt I would have spoken out against things like internment (which people used the war to justify)or certain war tactics.

You would have stood behind King George III.

I think your not being true to form, you would have been against us getting involved at all including supplying England and other allies. Am I wrong? Really think about this, cause the major mood was lets not get involved so it was very comfortable to be isolationist about it.

You might not want to own up and say you would have been against getting involved in that, but Im not. Where I will agree with you is that once we were involved I would support our effort till we were victorious. I think thats were you will agree with me on WWII. Thats old school.

As for King George, Im not sure about that I do like a good revolution. Im not saying I wouldnt have reservations about joining it if I was wealthy but if I was just a commoner I would be right on it. Shoeless without a care.

[dreamingwolf]

Originally Posted by ZoEd

The anti war junkies make it seem like Dubya himself wrote the intel reports for the law makers to read. Come on people we're there, now it's time to put the women and children to bed and go looking for supper.

================

I agree with luckys response. Hes not your typical political dissenter.

[luckydevil]

I think your not being true to form, you would have been against us getting involved at all including supplying England and other allies. Am I wrong?

I think that's fair, but we did. So I guess we were involved, but it did not justify Pearl Harbor.

Where I will agree with you is that once we were involved I would support our effort till we were victorious.

What exactly does that mean? If my government commits a crime or an evil, I want them to stop.

[ZoEd]

Look up my archives

I have slammed both parties on this war. It was a bipartisan war. The truth is the liberal left laid the foundation for this war ( Clinton administration). They deserve a great deal of blame. I do tend to agree with Wolf on one thing, opposition to war is largely fueled by partisanship.

You are a minority on this board. I agree 110% that it is fueled by partisanship as well. Thing is most of the Bush bashers say that Bush is the reason for this. They say that he has splintered the unity between the parties. That's funny to me because I can't remember the last time the parties were truely united.

I remember during the debates when Kerry was asked what his plan was for Iraq his answer was always "I have a plan but I can't tell you, but I can assure you I have a plan" WTF? That's my point, what plan can there be except finishing what we've started. It's way too late to continue pointing fingers. Let's just finish it.

[dreamingwolf]

I think that's fair, but that didn't justify Pearl Harbor.

What exactly does that mean? If my government commits a crime or an evil, I want them to stop.

then we should have stopped WWII, there were more crimes committed durring that war than will ever be committed durring our current effort. Our soldiers in the field that read this please dont take this as a challenge

Our application of war durring WWII makes our current wars look like slaps on the wrist.

[luckydevil]

then we should have stopped WWII, there were more crimes committed durring that war than will ever be committed durring our current effort.

Absolutely. Atrocities were committed by both sides. But what seperated the Allies from the Axis is we/Allies met the criteria of jus ad bellum.

Our application of war durring WWII makes our current wars look like slaps on the wrist.

Are you suggesting we embrace those type of tactics?

[dreamingwolf]

Absolutely. Atrocities were committed by both sides. But what seperated the Allies from the Axis is we/Allies met the criteria of jus ad bellum.

the winners always are jus ad bellum. Im guessing that means justified at war or something to that extent.

Are you suggesting we embrace those type of tactics?

It worked before, and lots of people seem sated with the outcome. Lots of people, you cant find a democrat or a Republican who will tell you WWII was a bad war. We won.

[luckydevil]

the winners always are jus ad bellum.

I am not into that whole might makes right nonsense.

Im guessing that means justified at war or something to that extent.

Yes

It worked before, and lots of people seem sated with the outcome. Lots of people, you cant find a democrat or a Republican who will tell you WWII was a bad war. We won.

Ugh. Now I am going to make it personal. People like you make me sick. Why in the world would you want to repeat something like that? Thank God you don't have any real power.

[dreamingwolf]

I am not into that whole might makes right nonsense.

Yes

Ugh. Now I am going to make it personal. People like you make me sick. Why in the world would you want to repeat something like that? Thank God you don't have any real power.

Cause I dont believe people are permissive. Also I would like to note that I didnt say I would like to repeat it, I just noted it was successfull. Since you are against me you chose to paint me that way and I have no problem with that.

[Seabee1973]

...so does this mean Iran must have really been Iraq's friend this whole time? :laugh:

If it had come down to attacking isreal then yes

[Seabee1973]

If you go back to 93 Saddam did say he would support any country that was involved in terrorist acts againts the united states or something to that affect. Fast forward to the first Twin tower bombings if i remeber correctly the men involved with those were Iraqi residents with Al-queda ties

[luckydevil]

Cause I dont believe people are permissive.

huh?

Also I would like to note that I didnt say I would like to repeat it, I just noted it was successfull. Since you are against me you chose to paint me that way and I have no problem with tha

But you implied that we should embrace those types of tactics.

[Seabee1973]

I don't see a TON of evidence Mike. The president of this country down played the link( in the past). Threads like this only reinforces my belief that the pro war supporters are growing increasingly desperate.

Probably the reason for the down play is the validitry of the issue. we could all assume there was a connection we can all assume there was no connection. You think if al-queda was being supported by Saddam that he would have taken a check? most likely not cash or no deal Bin laden quite using cell phones or satellite phones in the 98-99 time frame to make it harder to catch him. As far as we know he might not be in afghanistan he could be in india or china or north korea as far as we know.

[dreamingwolf]

If you go back to 93 Saddam did say he would support any country that was involved in terrorist acts againts the united states or something to that affect. Fast forward to the first Twin tower bombings if i remeber correctly the men involved with those were Iraqi residents with Al-queda ties

a single man was and that was lose by any accounts. The thought was that his idendity he was using was of a kuwaiti that went missing durring iraqs invasion, and that saddams services altered their information before his withdrawl allowing his agent to assume his passport identity. The accusation is impossible to defend on a message board, there is nothing concrete enough to defend it.

[Seabee1973]

It's definitely true. I spoke to several of our fighter pilots during the gulf war, over a few brews no less, and asked them how the fighting was going. They said there were no planes left to fight, they all high tailed it to Iran. Furthermore the MIG 29's, don't quote me on the #, that were supposedly so advanced are the ones that he sent to Iran. Most of the ones we did shoot down were the less advanced MIG's. :2cents:

did you know they found 35 planes buried in the sand in iraq?

[Seabee1973]

I'm confused. I thought the U.S. went to war with Iraq because of the violation of UN terms regarding WMDs?!?!

Every few weeks... I'm hearing completely different reasons for the war.

Is the war in Iraq about al-Qaeda? Or Saddam? Or the Taliban? Or terrorism as a whole? Or WMD?

It was actually about all of the above

[herrmag]

I'm just disappointed. This thread is proof positive that the sides of politics we cling to are more important than anything else. If I was a leftist, and Fox News had something interesting to say, with supposed FACTS, I'd want to know more, rather than just dismiss it. And, if I was a conservative, and heard the NY Times had some interesting supposed FACTS, I'd want to know more. Instead, we just act like puppets and argue who the source is. Chom, if this turns out to be BS, then you can call a TON of people out on it. If it turns out to be FACT, then now they will call you out on it. I say f' it all, the truth usually has a funny way of making itself known. It's only a matter of time.

[swaroopm]

It was actually about all of the above

:laugh:

[swaroopm]

I find it laughable that people are still trying to draw a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists. The Sept 11 Commission disavowed a connection, after which George Bush did as well. Yet, some people will go to their graves insisting that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Sigh.

If we were really trying to undermine a state sponsor of terror, we would have invaded Iran, a country much more widely acknowledged as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Someone call me if anyone comes up with a legitimate justification for our invasion of Iraq.

[Mad Mike]

I'm confused. I thought the U.S. went to war with Iraq because of the violation of UN terms regarding WMDs?!?!

Every few weeks... I'm hearing completely different reasons for the war.

Is the war in Iraq about al-Qaeda? Or Saddam? Or the Taliban? Or terrorism as a whole? Or WMD?

When you personally decide to do something, is it better to do something for one reason or do multiple reasons for an action make it more compelling?

And If you really need on reason. Lump it all into the war on terror as a whole and it will still encompass all of the reasons Saddam had to go.

[Mad Mike]

I find it laughable that people are still trying to draw a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists. The Sept 11 Commission disavowed a connection, after which George Bush did as well. Yet, some people will go to their graves insisting that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Sigh.

If we were really trying to undermine a state sponsor of terror, we would have invaded Iran, a country much more widely acknowledged as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Someone call me if anyone comes up with a legitimate justification for our invasion of Iraq.

Maybe you should read the full report.

Pg 61:

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.

There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54

With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55As

The new translated evidence DOES indicate that Iraq responded positively to the request.

the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

Pg 66

Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response.According to one report,Saddam Hussein’s efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.74

In mid-1998,the situation reversed;it was Iraq that reportedly took the ini-

tiative.In March 1998,after Bin Ladin’s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin’s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.75

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq.

What the 9/11 commission said was that they did not have the evidence to prove anything. Not surprising when Iraq and AQ are trying to keep their relationship secret. New evidence has come out since then however that makes a fairly strong case.

Pg 98

Kuwaiti security services warned Washington that Iraqi agents were planning to assassinate the former president. President Clinton not only ordered precautions to protect Bush but asked about options for a reprisal against Iraq.

pg 128

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.”109 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.”

There's more but I have a life and I need to go to work. Do a little research yourself. One ground rule... Don't look to defend your position... look at the info as somone who is tasked to protect the US from threats. When you put Saddam's history of supporting terrorism, his hatred for the US and his desire for rvenge for the gulf war, his known contacts with al Qaeda, and the new information that keeps coming out together, Do you REALLY think it is smart to dismiss him as a threat?

[Redskins Diehard]

I find it laughable that people are still trying to draw a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terrorists. The Sept 11 Commission disavowed a connection, after which George Bush did as well. Yet, some people will go to their graves insisting that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. Sigh.

If we were really trying to undermine a state sponsor of terror, we would have invaded Iran, a country much more widely acknowledged as a state sponsor of terrorism.

Someone call me if anyone comes up with a legitimate justification for our invasion of Iraq.

Thats funny. I find it laughable that whenever anyone says "Iraq involved in terrorism" someone responds with "Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11". Terrorism is not a tactic that begins and ends with the actions of AQ on 9-11-01. Do you acknowledge that it is possible for someone to be involved with terrorism, an active sponsor of terrorism, an enabler of terrorism, etc WITHOUT being involved with 9-11?

GWOT isn't only about punishment for 9-11, it is also about prevention of 9-12.