Bring our troops home!!!!!

That's not really an argument. You may dislike the label but a mainstay of conservative pro-(Iraq)war apologists is this supposed link between "global terrorism" and Saddam. We've been over this many times in many places, and 'people like you' (conservatives, apologists for the war) are at pains to attempt to draw some meaningful connection by demonstrating that "people affiliated with al-qaeda" may have at some point met with members of Saddam's regime. The evidence seems to suggest that such approaches from al-qaeda were rebuffed and resulted in no co-operation.

What is perfectly clear is that as Phoenix says, Iraq had nothing to do with al-Qaeda, had no relationship with al-Qaeda, that Saddam prevented extremists from operating within his zone of influence, and saw islamic fundamentalism as a threat to his secular regime. That situation has been reversed as a result of the invasion, and now Iraq is a hotbed and a recruiting ground for precisely the kind of extremism the war was purportedly meant to combat.

 

World oil prices have skyrocketed since the war. Oil exports, I expect, would be up from 2003 levels with the removal of sanctions, but Iraq is way behind its productive capacity. And it is an empirically observable fact that oil traded in euros is more profitable than oil traded in dollars given the comparative strenght of the euro next to the dollar. Thus it HARMS the Iraqi economy by adopting dollar sales. It is also concensus that American deficits depend on oil being traded in dollars - thus it HELPS the American economy. Fair and true. Please if you're going to respond, at least give me some meat, not a load of slush....

 

So whatever i say or whatever i produce as ''evidence'' you will chalk up to me or the ''evidence'' being produced / gleaned from ''conservative pro-(Iraq)war apologists'' - mmmm as unlikely as that is - one quick question Did Saddam Hussein Comply With the Provision of UN Resolution 687 Regarding Terrorism?.

There are far more terrorist organisations and ways and means to facilitate ''global terrorism'' than directly or indirectly through al-Qaeda.
Not that you are any more original than I but come on lithium ''people like me'' - i deserve a little bit more credit than that.

 

What evidence?

edit:
You're probably going to talk about the bursaries for Palestinian suicide bombers. This is not what we're talking about. It's a specific local political issue resulting from Saddam's longstanding hatred for Israel. It is not "global terrorism", it is not a threat to the west, it is not support for islamic extremism.

 

Indeed, Palestinian militants have been at pains not to foster links with al Qaeda, in part because of differences in ideology, but also because it would significantly undermine just sympathy for their plight. In turn al Qaeda have not attempted to operate in the Palestinian territories....

 

Nope i'm not - http://www.un.int/usa/02_158.htm

On April 8, 1991, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 687, the first post-Gulf War disarmament resolution, which declared, among other things, that Iraq

not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism.

H 32. Requires Iraq to inform the Security Council that it will not commit or support any act of international terrorism or allow any organization directed towards commission of such acts to operate within its territory and to condemn unequivocally and renounce all acts, methods and practices of terrorism

Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism….

Mr. Straw:

On the question of whether there is a link between Iraq and terrorism, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given precise answers—as he did earlier today before the Liaison Committee. When he said that there has been no link between Iraq and terrorism, he was explicitly referring to al-Qaeda in the run-up to 11 September. There is of course a lot of linkage between Iraq and terrorism generally. One of the international terrorist organisations that I banned—proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000—was the MEK, an Iraqi-backed terrorist organisation operating in Iran. Moreover, the Iraqi regime actively supports several rejectionist terrorist organisations, including Hamas and Hezbollah which operate inside Israel and the occupied territories. We have to recognise the possibility of great danger if we fail to deal both with what the hon. Gentleman described as international terrorism and with the murderous regimes in rogue states. Al-Qaeda would have been a shadow of what it was had it not been able to base and feed itself in a rogue state—at that stage, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/vo030121/debtext/30121-05.htm

Mujahedin-e-Khalq [MEK] facilities in Iraq included

Camp Ashraf, the MEK military headquarters, is about 100 kilometers west of the Iranian border and 100 kilometers north of Baghdad near Khalis
Camp Anzali near the town of Jalawla [Jalula] (120-130 km (70-80 miles) northeast of Baghdad and about 40-60 km (20-35 miles) from the border with Iran)
Camp Faezeh in Kut
Camp Habib in Basra
Camp Homayoun in Al-Amarah
Camp Bonyad Alavi near the city of Miqdadiyah in Mansourieh [about 65 miles northeast of Baghdad]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/mek.htm


Jihadi groups were patronized by Saddam to counter-balance Shi'ite influence from Iran. Saddam may not have entered into a formal alliance with Al Qaeda. However, he was in league with Al Qaeda-style Jihadis, such as Jund al-Islam (Army of Islam) and Ansar al-Islam (Victors of Islam), for a decade before he was toppled.

.......... Saddam’s links to al Qaeda being a 2.5 on a 10 scale while “looking at terrorist links between Al Qaeda and state sponsors of terrorism, including Iraq,” He [Congressman Carney] went on, “Saddam had links to every terrorist group in the region. I still think there were links to Al Qaeda.”

add to an already sizeable list of ex-Baathists/Saddam loyalists who sided with Islamic/jihadist fighters and al Qaeda in Iraq. While it is certainly possible that many of these religious conversions and new relationships were initiated post-invasion, drawn together by the common enemy of U.S. led forces in Iraq, it is unlikely that the countless (likely hundreds) remnants of Hussein's secular regime did not have at least some kind of a foundation for a relationship with these groups prior to March 2003. The type of trust and confidence necessary to give assets including money, weapons, arms, safehouses and training and reciprocal placement of Baathists into al Qaeda leadership positions only leads an outside observer to conclude that the two sides shared common grievances, common goals and common beliefs.

It has been 4 years since Operation Iraqi Freedom began and many of these relations that have been discovered post-invasion give cause for re-thinking prewar assumptions that secular Baathists wouldn't cooperate with Islamic militant/terrorist groups, just as some in the government had predicted as being possible prior to invasion, contrasting the conventional wisdom of then and now.


http://regimeofterror.com/

Al-Qaeda Infiltration of Gaza: A Post-Disengagement Assessment

Though al-Qaeda in Gaza currently may have only a limited numerical presence, preventing it from gaining a real foothold needs to be an important counterterrorism priority of all interested parties. This includes the Palestinians, first and foremost, as well as Egypt, Israel, the United States, and other regional and international actors. If there is one thing the already combustible Arab-Israeli arena does not need, it is the addition of a strong al-Qaeda operating from the Palestinian territories.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2421

 

Well, yes you did (did you read what you pasted?) and also another local political issue - the militant Iranian political party the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK) which stands for overthrowing the Iranian government. Part of another long-standing regional political dispute with a history of military action, as with Israel.

Quite clearly these are regional political issues, the MEK is "a terrorist organisation" because the US defines it to be so, in fact it's a militant political faction with a clear regional political agenda, opposing the Iranian government - its designation as a "terrorist organisation" was overturned by the EU in 2006.

And from these half truths coupled with unsupported speculation about a supposed al-Qaeda link - for which there is zero evidence - you attempt to conclude that Iraq under Saddam was a part of "global terror" in the sense we understand "al-Qaeda" to be?

Laughable - I honestly thought even you had more intelligence than that, matty boy.

 

Where ? where have i mentioned - Saddam Hussein distributing $260,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers, bringing to more than $35 million the total he has spent on the Palestinian intifada - or anything remotely like that ?.

PMOI aka MEK is designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada, European Union, and Iran.

Although the European Court of Justice has overturned this designation in December 2006, the Council of the EU declared on 30 January 2007 that it would maintain the organization on the blacklist.

What was it defined as BEFORE 2006 ?.
I doubt Saddam had much control over who operated in Iraqi after Dec' 2006 - do you ? - So it hardly matters what the clasification was AFTER that date - we should be focusing on when he WAS in power.

True - but one of many groups that had refuge in Iraq - all adding to ''global terror''.
To be fair that last line was a little unfair - i was not attempting to suggest that organisation was carrying out ''global terror'' or it was in anyway near the realms of other organisations - the only reason i mention it more lucidly is because it was within Mr Straws speach. It does have a element of truth within it though.

No i'm not trying to say that at all - infact i was at pains to highlight the low connection of a direct evidence based link with Saddam's regime and al-Qaeda.
Unless EVERY document suddenly rises out of the ashes it will only be speculative links that are as difficult to prove - as is to prove [with evidence] there was not a link.

I was highlighting terrorist groups [not nesseseraly islamic extremists] within his borders - that is why i initialy said ''There are far more terrorist organisations and ways and means to facilitate ''global terrorism'' than directly or indirectly through al-Qaeda.''. I'm sure we both know what facilitate means ?. Know where did i elude to anything like authority, direction or control.

There is substantial evidence that Saddam was not a ''clean skin'' as far as terrorist organisations are concerened. It would be wrong to suggest he did not have any links to any type of terrorist organisations or allowed terrorist organisations to operate within his border. Ignoring the fact he was a threat to global security in of himself - he did FACILITATE terrorist organisations that have effected every corner of the globe - their is plenty of evidence to support that.

Are you suggesting that there is not evidence of terrorist organisations operating within Iraqs borders with links to ''global terror'' prior to 2003 ?. That is one of the reasons why i asked - : one quick question Did Saddam Hussein Comply With the Provision of UN Resolution 687 Regarding Terrorism?.

Where is YOUR evidence ?.

There really are people who still believe that SADDAM HUSSEIN could not have supported terrorist groups like Al Qaeda because he was a SECULAR fascist dictator while Osama bin Laden is said to be for a global Islamic theocracy, a kind of modern Caliphate. Yet Al Qaeda has about as much to do with Religion and Islam as Saddam Hussein had to do with Iraqi Democracy and good air quality in Halabja.
http://philippinecommentary.blogspot.com/2006/03/how-saddam-hussein-supported-terrorism.html

 

Your argument is absurd.

If you mean by "facilitating global terrorism" that Saddam was involved in funding local politically motivated militant groups as part of his strategic regional political objectives, that such activity can be defined as terrorism and that the middle east region is part of the world therefore anything anyone ever does in any location is in some sense "global", then yes, Saddam added to "global terror". This is pretty much where you stand, and it is a meaningless notion. It bears no relation to any meaningful conception of "global terrorism" in the sense we understand when we discuss al-Qaeda or Islamic extremism in general. You are desperately attempting to establish this link between Saddam and "global terrorism" in spite of no evidence (as many conservatives and pro-war apologists like you do) because it supports your political ideology and this biased misrepresentation of the situation feeds into your support of the war.

The idea seems to be - if Saddam was a supporter of global terrorism, then invading Iraq was a good idea because it reduces the risk of global terrorism (such as might be said about the invasion of Afghanistan). But as we have seen, terrorist activity facilitated by Saddam was for local, regional, political ends, and did not feed into what we commonly understand by "global terrorism" in the way the Taliban's support for al-Qaeda did. As a consequence of invasion, the opposite has become true, so invasion has made Iraq into a hotbed of precisely the kind of extremism you are desparately attempting to suggest Saddam supported despite there being no evidence for such a claim. So even *if* Saddam contributed as you suggest in some essentially meaningless way to "global terrorism", the invasion has had the effect of redoubling the threat from global terrorism where Saddam held these forces in check.

Iraq posed no threat in terms of the encouragement, recruiting, funding or support of al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda-type groups with a global agenda of terror and therefore played no part in what we understand when we discuss the issue of "global terrorism". The situation in Iraq post 2003 by contrast plays a large part in facilitating groups whose agenda is not regional or political but who seek wider confrontation with the West and whose aims can truly be classed as "global terrorism". Under Saddam Islamic extremism was not encouraged in Iraq (or even tolerated) and Iraq was no part of the global terrorism threat. Now Iraq is the front-line of that struggle, precisely as a consequence of the removal of Saddam.

This is a meaningless question based upon the misunderstanding of simple logic. You are attempting to make the case that Iraq under Saddam was a part of global terrorism in the sense we understand al-Qaeda to be. There is NO EVIDENCE that this is the case. It is not possible to provide evidence that something did not happen. This is the logical fallacy of negative proof.

Yes, I've removed much of your meaningless fatuous cut-and-paste waffle, and questions which are based on other such simple failings of understanding or comprehension. I'm tired of pandering to your ignorance.

It's also worth pointing out that this thread was a promising discussion of the situation in Iraq now and what can be done to solve it, until you came along and ONCE AGAIN attempted to justify the the 2003 war with arguments that have long ago been debunked. Again you are going around this merry-go-round, derailing a thread (on a liberal anti-war site might I remind you) with your ignorant pro-war views and taking it off-topic. You are trolling.

 

I think this was concise enough. Well said John. You just can't through to some people unfortunately.

 

No i'm not suggesting that anything that relates to terrorist activity can be deemed ''global terrorism''.
That is why i continued onto saying

To be fair that last line was a little unfair - i was not attempting to suggest that organisation was carrying out ''global terror'' or it was in anyway near the realms of other organisations - the only reason i mention it more lucidly is because it was within Mr Straws speach. It does have a element of truth within it though.

Like i have just said this is not what i was wishing to say - in any serious way.

I never said he supported global terrorism. I said he facilitated global terrorism. Neither have i said invading Iraq would reduce global terrorism.

I never said he did support a certain type of extremism.
Just looking at your last post

''The only al-Qaeda type group operating within Iraq prior to 2003 based itself in the area of the country over which Saddam had no control, because he had no control there.''

So for tha last countless amount of time you refuse to say these types of groups were NOT in Iraq. Now your saying Saddam did not have control of certain parts of Iraq - well how convenient is that. Do you not think he allowed terrorists groups to enter certain parts of Iraq and then he could maintain the notion he had no idea or had no dealing with these groups.

I even asked you that a few posts ago -

There is substantial evidence that Saddam was not a ''clean skin'' as far as terrorist organisations are concerened. It would be wrong to suggest he did not have any links to any type of terrorist organisations or allowed terrorist organisations to operate within his border. Ignoring the fact he was a threat to global security in of himself - he did FACILITATE terrorist organisations that have effected every corner of the globe - their is plenty of evidence to support that.

Are you suggesting that there is not evidence of terrorist organisations operating within Iraqs borders with links to ''global terror'' prior to 2003 ?. That is one of the reasons why i asked - : one quick question Did Saddam Hussein Comply With the Provision of UN Resolution 687 Regarding Terrorism?.

How can he hold forces in check that he had no control over and had no connection with. How meaningless is that ?. All your saying is that *if* what i say is true then it is twice as bad now. How ridiculous is that.

That makes no sense at all -

Not talking about post 2003 - whole other debate.

Well we will never agree about if ''Under Saddam Islamic extremism was not encouraged '' . if we agree on the groups that were in Iraq pre 2003 we might get somewhere. Though all you will do is say ''oh Saddam had no control over that bit of Iraq''.

 

Provide one single scrap of evidence.

You make almost no coherent or substantive arguments in that post. If you cannot make a point coherently in a paragraph, do you have a point to make? You seem either to cut and paste or repeat what you've said before or make incomprehensible one line remarks. Either that or ask questions which seem to indicate a lack of basic English comprehension. Consequently I have again chosen not to respond to much of what you say in the idiotic and vapid quote-by-quote-by-quote manner you so adore. I simply find no argument to engage with. Where I can find any discernible ideas I will engage with them, but you do not address any of my points with responses which have not already been dealt with in any meaningful or coherent way here. You are still trolling in this thread.

A serious question - have you ever been diagnosed with any form of mental impairment?

 

From an earlier copy-and-paste of yours:

This idea of a link between "al-Qaeda style jihadis" Ansar al-Islam and Saddam is a fiction. I believe it was mentioned in a speech by Colin Powell in the run up to invasion but no evidence of any kind of co-operation was found and Powell later backtracked. Ansar al Islam (I think "Jund" is the SAME group, not a different one as that article implies) operated in the Kurdish controlled north of Iraq, where Saddam's regime had no control, and was an anti-Saddam faction.

I remember pointing out this LIE you have repeated a long time ago in another thread matthew, and still you come along and repeat it. You are the very definition of a troll.

There is NO EVIDENCE of any co-operation between Saddam and al-Qaeda type Islamic extremists with an agenda of global terrorism. Simply none. It was not in his interests to co-operate with these kinds of groups, and consequently they were apparently not allowed to operate within Saddam's zone of influence. The only al-Qaeda type group operating within Iraq prior to 2003 based itself in the area of the country over which Saddam had no control, because he had no control there.

 

Very true - but i hope i have now.

No -

Unfortunately, there are no definitive answers to these questions.

Well i do not

Go check what i said about evidence supporting links with Saddam - i'd hate to repeat myself.

''apparently'' yeah well ''apparently'' gets you out of a lot of difficulty..

 

I think you will find I used the term "within Saddam's zone of influence" as tacit reference to this fact that Ansar al-Islam was operating within Iraqi Kurdistan, an area of Iraq over which Saddam's regime had no control. This is well documented fact. Your simple ignorance of this well documented aspect of Saddam's (lack of) influence over the separatist Kurdish area in the north of Iraq does not make it "convenient" that I now inform you of it. I'm sorry, I was making the assumption that you had a fucking clue what you were talking about. It appears you are incredibly ill-informed about the subject about which you expound at such length with such palpable ignorance.

There was a front-line between Saddam's Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan for many years prior to 2003. A basic understanding of the situation at hand is a prerequisite for discussion.

I'm losing patience with the fatuousness and obvious stupidity of your posts. You fail to understand simple English sentences. Clearly this was a reference to Saddam's "zone of influence". Clearly I was not talking about Saddam being able to have influence over areas that were outside of his influence. Please properly read what I have written several times and attempt, in the depths of your ignorance, to approach some faint glimmer of comprehension before you attempt to reply.

 

Some reading for you on Iraqi Kurdistan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Kurdistan

Where Ansar al-Islam operated outside Saddam's zone of influence:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/ansarbk020503.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansar_Al_Islam

From the US Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-c.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-k.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sheehan-m1.html
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031107.html

 

From post 41:

 

lithium i can read and comprehend English - thanks. I might not type it very well but i can comprehend it.

I HAVE read everything you have posted in post 56 BEFORE.
There are no definitive answers if Saddam was linked too Ansar al-Islam or not - at this point in time - that is true.
We have to rely on what is written about Saddam and his supposed view of Islamic extremism plus what is written in documents like you have highlighted. Even these have paragraphs deleted. And are one opinion of many.
I NEVER made a big deal out of that at all.
Maybe i should have avoided putting those few lines into my post - because you like to pick out certain points that you can argue the toss about and ignore the bulk of what i say that are factualy more sturdy. I appreciate that is your style - it really is frustrating though.
The key question i wanted you to respond too and i asked from the start ''Did Saddam Hussein Comply With the Provision of UN Resolution 687 Regarding Terrorism?.''.

Did i mention Ansar al-Islam or Iraqi Kurdistan ? No.
When you mentioned THAT group in a post [in response to me mentioning them] - and after the big who har ''I remember pointing out this LIE you have repeated a long time ago in another thread matthew. I said ''I do not'' . As far as i was concerened that was as far i was going to go with that particular group.

You said :
''There is NO EVIDENCE of any co-operation between Saddam and al-Qaeda type Islamic extremists with an agenda of global terrorism. Simply none. It was not in his interests to co-operate with these kinds of groups, and consequently they were apparently not allowed to operate within Saddam's zone of influence. The only al-Qaeda type group operating within Iraq prior to 2003 based itself in the area of the country over which Saddam had no control, because he had no control there.''

Where in that do you mention Ansar al-Islam or Iraqi Kurdistan ?.
Am i splitting hairs ? I do not think so.

I think if you had said ''The only Ansar al-Islam type group operating within Iraq prior to 2003 based itself in Kurdistan Iraq a part of the country over which Saddam had no control, because he had no control there.''

That might have warranted your condesention but you did not mention either one.

When YOU decide to to say things like ''the MEK is "a terrorist organisation" because the US defines it to be so /cut/- its designation as a "terrorist organisation" was overturned by the EU in 2006.'' .

That suits your own prejudice ''because the US defines it to be so'' - ofcourse it is not a lie that the US defined it as that BUT it was ALSO other countries - including Canada, European Union, and Iran. Do you see me banging on about it ?. Saying things like ''I'm losing patience with the fatuousness and obvious stupidity of your posts.'' . Do you see me calling you derogatory names or pigeon holing you into bullshit labels ? NO.

 

Obviously you would believe you are an expert at English comprehension even if you were not, since the absence of a skill comes hand in hand with an absence of the meta-cognitive ability to understand that you do not have that skill. Your inability to communicate in any coherent manner infuriates, and it's fairly likely that you also have severe difficulties in understanding English if you are so poor at communicating in it. Your answers here do repeatedly demonstrate fairly fundamental failings in comprehending what I've posted.

No, that was not "one opinion of many". That was the published opinion of the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report 'The US Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Asessments on Iraq' which consisted of a thorough analysis of all the CIA's intelligence material on these issues from the pre- and post-war era. The information I posted from that report came from multiple independent intelligence sources. Yes, some of the details of the source information were still classified, but enough of it was declassified to give you an idea of the character of information the committee was using, and of course their findings were not classified, and were clearly based upon multiple independent information sources even where some of those sources themselves were blacked out. All this you would have known if you had properly read and understood my last posts. To call this "one opinion among many" is absurd and demonstrates a fundamental failure of understanding on your part. One opinion alongside what - alongside that doubtless pro-war propaganda site you cut and paste from, which used outdated and long-since debunked half-truths? Your response is laughable.

My answer to that is I don't know. Quite possibly he was in violation yes, but I haven't done enough research on that to be able to form a valid opinion. I don't know what definition of "international terrorism" the UN was working from, whether groups like MEK would be classed as a 'terrorist organisation' and not a recognised political group, what the UN's timetables were, how such stipulations were to be verified, etc. I haven't read any opinion from the UNSC on whether Iraq was in violation of this (seemingly rather vague sounding) part of the resolution. But it's certainly possible a case can be made. He was technically in violation of several parts of 687 relating to the 1991 war and ceasefire at various points in the years following it, almost by definition: many of them were not simple "yes / no" issues but were part of an ongoing process of bringing an offending regime into line with the UN's proscriptions on certain types of activities. I did not respond to the point before because it's not the slightest bit relevant to the issue at hand: if he were technically in violation because of his activities involving MEK or Palestinian groups that does not in any way suggest any kind of link between him and Islamic extremist al-Qaeda type groups, nor does it in any way justify the war or have any bearing on anything in this discussion.

You mentioned Ansar al-Islam in one of your cut and pastes, yes. Asking this question seems to suggest (again) that you don't actually read what you paste from your pro-war websites. You did not mention Iraqi Kurdistan because it was apparently news to you that the place existed, and therefore that the half-truth taken from that website regarding Ansar in seeking to establish some kind of link between Saddam and the group made no sense whatsoever - read the findings of the US Senate Committee in reference to the CIA's own intelligence about Ansar al-Islam and Saddam - namely, that there was no link, and that such co-operation was unlikely.

That was the ONLY Wahhabi Islamist type group you mentioned! And the supposed links between Saddam and Ansar have been thoroughly debunked.

What we have established is that Saddam supported Palestinian anti-Israeli groups, militant political factions opposed to the government of Israel because of his longstanding dispute with Israel with a history of military action. We have established Saddam tolerated the presence of and might have financed MEK, a militant political faction opposed to the government of Iran because of his longstanding dispute with Iran with a history of military action. We have established that Saddam was ideologically opposed to and deeply distrustful of Islamic extremists, going so far as to outlaw Wahhabism and to arrest, torture and execute members of these kinds of groups within his zone of influence (or as I put it before, "keeping these forces in check"). Such groups represented a threat to Saddam's regime both on their own terms and strategically and such groups were themselves outspokenly opposed to Saddam's secularism.

We have established that the only such group able to operate within Iraqi borders (technically) based itself in the de facto autonomous state of Iraqi Kurdistan because Saddam had no personnel or influence there and consequently had no power to stop them (between 1991-2003 there was a military front-line between Saddam's Iraq and Iraqi Kurdistan and the area was protected by a no-fly zone). Not only have we established that such a link was exceptionally unlikely, we have also established that despite perhaps one of the most focused intelligence gathering exercises in recent history, looking for evidence of precisely such a link, no evidence whatsoever of Saddam having any kind of relationship with or support for Islamic extremists or "global terrorism" has ever been found. Not a single shred.

Saddam's support for such activities would be the last thing that would be of strategic benefit for Iraq. Saddam was a master strategist. That's how he survived in power for so long. Why on earth would he do the one thing most likely to draw unequivocal international opprobrium and probably end his regime? Quite apart from the fact that we have established Saddam's dislike and distrust of such groups, the fact that he arrested and executed members of such groups, and that there is no evidence of any co-operation or any reason to believe there would have been co-operation on an issue which was not of strategic benefit to Iraq, Saddam co-operating with al-Qaeda type extremists would have been committing suicide for him, and he knew it.

I have presented plenty of evidence to support this reading. Where's your evidence suggesting that Saddam did or was even the slightest bit likely to have any truck with Wahhabi style terrorist groups?

 

This again is utterly irrelevant but while I'm feeling generous I suppose I should nip another of your idiotic little obsessions in the bud: I mentioned the change in definition of the MEK by the EU in 2006 to demonstrate that their designation as a 'terrorist organisation' is debatable. I'm not saying they are not a terrorist organisation or have not been involved in terrorist activites against Iran, that was merely part of my demonstration that the MEK is an Iranian militant political organisation with clearly defined regional political objectives. The IRA were a terrorist organisation with local political objectives, but it would be a total misreprentation to lump them in with the likes of al-Qaeda or "global terrorism" generally. Similarly, it would be to completely fail to understand the MEK to label them as anything other than a regional militant political faction. They were not part of "global terrorism" according to any meaningful commonly understood definition of that term or how it has been used in this thread.