Proof of the connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime.

One of the forgotton reasons for going to war with Iraq was Saddam's connection and support for Al Qaeda. While many dismiss such a connection the evidence clearly shows such a connection did exist. For example why did members of the Iraqi secret service meet with senior Al Qaeda terrorists in Sudan? Why did Saddam give a safe haven to one of the 1993 World Trade Centre bombers? There has also been a detailed in depth book written about the subject as well.

In the above book Stephen Hayes draws on CIA debriefings, top-secret memos from our national intelligence agencies, and interviews with Iraqi military leaders and Washington insiders to demonstrate that Saddam and bin Laden not only could work together, they did -- a curious relationship that stretches back more than a decade and may include collaboration on terrorist acts, chemical-weapons training, and sheltering some of the world's most wanted radicals.For more information on the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime visit this link: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=1

 

That's what we call "circumstantial".

 

No, one of the no-longer mentioned reasons for going to war was the invocation of a link between Iraq and al-Qaeda. Why is it no longer mentioned? Because it was a lie. The US congressional inquiry into 9/11 and al-Qaeda conclusively demonstrated that there was absolutely no collaborative link between al-Qaeda and Iraq. Al-Qaeda was of course diametrically ideologically opposed to Saddam's secular regime. This is pure fiction.

 

There are much more direct and proveable links between Bush and Al-Qaeda than between Saddam and Al-Qaeda...

 

And thanks to our invasion, there most certainly is a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq now... Job's a good'un, eh?

 

It's interesting to note that the pro-war apologists are so fanatical over this issue that they're now wheeling out dusty old arguments that even the US administration has quietly put to one side.

 

To be honest, the war has happened, and while I'll never "agree" with it myself, I'd rather people threw their resources into sorting out the mess they made rather than waste their time trying to convince me they did it with the right reasons. you know what they say about good intention...

 

yeah I do, "they never had any"

 

Somehow, I think, if there were any credible links between the two, then Bush and Blair would still be ramming them down our throats as justification for the war, especially since no weapons of mass destruction have been found and the humanitarian issue was a farce. Even Bush has admitted there were no links. Give it up, you're playing a broken record. It's quite clear we were right and you were wrong. My advice to you would be to start making some fabricated bollocks up about the next country we're going to attack to justify an imperialistic invasion....

 

Then why did Saddam allow a terrorist from the 1993 attack on the World Trade Centre sanctury in Iraq after he feld to Bagdad? Why did Iraqi secret service personell travel to Sudan to meet with leading Al Qaeda terrorists? Why have so many numerous contacts between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda terrorists been recorded by the CIA? Where did all the information come from for the book "The Connection" by Stephen Hayes? How come Al Qaeda training bases were found in northern Iraq? How come Osama bin Laden is now directing terrorist forces in Iraq against coalition troops? How come Osama bin Laden publicly stated just before the war that he would wage war on allied forces if they attacked Iraq?

Why would that stop them working together. Osama bin Laden worked with the secular American and British armed forces in Afghanistan in the 1980s. Why because they both had a common enemy - Russia. Just as in recent years Iraq and Al Qaeda both had a common enemy the United States! Saddam wasn't as secular as he seemed either. He built the biggest Mosques in the world often naming them after himself.

From the Weekly Standard :- "Iraq's contacts with bin Laden go back some years, to at least 1994, when, according to one U.S. government source, Hijazi met him when bin Laden lived in Sudan. According to Cannistraro, Iraq invited bin Laden to live in Baghdad to be nearer to potential targets of terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. . . . Some experts believe bin Laden might be tempted to live in Iraq because of his reported desire to obtain chemical or biological weapons. CIA Director George Tenet referred to that in recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee when he said bin Laden was planning additional attacks on American targets."
Source :- http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/152lndzv.asp?pg=2

 

Connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda
does not =
Connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda

Al Qaeda have far greater links with the UK, but no-one proposed going to war with us. At least, not at the time.

 

That post was some funny shit, Treehouse! Terrorist camps in Iraq! Shock! Horror!!! Ummmm.... you do know the IRA have training camps in Northern Irland, right? Perhaps we should invade ourselves......

Oh yeah, and "Saddam not as secular as you might think"! Excellent! That one had me in stitches!

 

Ah yes, the al-Qaeda training base in Iraqi Kurdistan, an area of the country not controlled by Saddam Hussein. Why did they have a base there? Because it was a safe place for al-Qaeda to operate precisely because Saddam's regime had absolutely no presence in the region. The region was autonomously controlled by Kurdish fighters and protected by coalition air cover as part of the no-fly zone! Once again, "Muppet"...

Read up on the 911 Commission report into all the intelligence of an alleged link between al-Qaeda and Hussein. It explains all the links this Hayes seeks to inject significance into and conclusively demonstrates that there simply was no collaboration.

The commission's report says bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to [Saddam] Hussein's secular regime. Bin Laden had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

"The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded bin Laden to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda."

A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting bin Laden in 1994.

Bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded.

"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," the report said.

"Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied" any relationship, the report said.

The panel also dismissed reports that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in the Czech Republic on April 9, 2000. "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/16/911.commission/

This is evidence that the invasion has created a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda that was never there before. It has turned the country into a crucible for terrorism and a recruiting ground for al-Qaeda. By allowing Islamic fundamentalists to hijack the issue of the West attacking the middle east in Iraq we have gifted al-Qaeda this incredible opportunity for them to further their own interests. We have made the world a far more dangerous place. On no possible analysis was this attack on Iraq at this time a good idea.

 

Iraq had less terrorist history than Wales before the war.

 

If Saddam was oppossed to Al Qaeda why didn't he alert the western allies about the Al Qaeda presence as his secret service was so advanced it could detect an attempted coup against Saddam anywhere in Iraq.

But a link would still have existed had their not been a war to oust Saddam. Al Qaeda and Saddam were natural allies both bound by a fanatical hatred for both the West and Israel! The two also shared the same quality - absolute ruthlessness and extreme brutality. This overrode their differences on other things. During World War II Nazi Germany regarded the Japanese as inferior wogs as they were not aryans but was prepared to fight alongside them against the allies.

Why some supposidly left wing people can't see the danger in allowing such brutal fascistic regimes to continue is beyond me. A few decades ago the Communist Party of Great Britain came up with the slogan "Fascism Means War", meaning it is extremely dangerous to be complacent about totalitarian regimes. As they were proved right when the government of the day chose to appease Hilter rather than confront him head on.

 

Do you not understand? Iraqi Kurdistan was a no-go area for Saddam's regime. There was a front-line between Iraqi troops and Kurdish fighters at the point where Saddam's regime stopped in the north of the country. And the CIA knew all about the al-Qaeda presence in Iraqi Kurdistan. The reason this is not presented as evidence of a link between Saddam and al-Qaeda is because it is not evidence of a link, in fact its location points very clearly towards the obvious conclusion that Saddam and al-Qaeda had no relationship whatsoever. A fact widely accepted.

It's quite alarming how wilfully ignorant you are on this issue. There was no link; Saddam and al-Qaeda were diametrically ideologically opposed. Evidence of other Faustian pacts in history is not evidence of such a link in this case. It is proven there was no link.

You utterly miss the point. The issue here is with this particular war at this particular time. We warned before that it would cause more harm than good. This warning has come true, beyond many of our worst imaginings.

 

Ain't that the truth. Even negative ol' me is surprised at just what a disaster this is turning into.

 

If you didn't know secret service personel often operate behind enemy lines. In fact they wouldn't be much use if they couldn't. For example during World War II the allies success lay mainly in information provided by behind the lines secret agents who supplied details of enemy troop movements. Then there is radio survelance which provides an even greater knowledge of what is going on behind enemy lines. Like the radio listening centre GCHQ in Britain for example.

Not that diametrically opposed, as Saddam built massive Mosques often naming them after himself. True he was a Sunni non-othordox Muslim but that wouldn't stop him working with fundamentalists if it suited him. Saddam was totally ruthless and devious he would do anything to get back at the West. He would have no qualms about working with anyone as long it would benefit his position.

But my example of Hitler in 1933 was right as in 1933 most people didn't consider Hitler a threat. Only the totalitarianism and extreme brutality of his regime gave any indication of the potential threat he posed. The moral is never trust brutal, tyrannical dictators.

 

**************

 

I take it you support G.W.B....stop being a hypocrite.