Saddam/Al Queda link

[Gaard]

Not!

Hussein Warned Iraqis to Beware Outside Fighters, Document Says

ASHINGTON, Jan. 13 ? Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

...

It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein.

...

At the Pentagon, several officials believed that Iraq and Al Qaeda had found common ground in their hatred of the United States, while at the C.I.A., many analysts believed that Mr. bin Laden saw Mr. Hussein as one of the corrupt secular Arab leaders who should be toppled.

 

[syzygy]

there are a couple of known instances where saddam sent his cronies overseas to conduct terrorist operations. a direct link
with al-qaeda doesn't need to be established to prove saddam had exported terrorist activities to countries in europe and
his immediate neighbors.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: syzygy
there are a couple of known instances where saddam sent his cronies overseas to conduct terrorist operations. a direct link
with al-qaeda doesn't need to be established to prove saddam had exported terrorist activities to countries in europe and
his immediate neighbors.

That's right. We immediately thereby gained the right and duty to slaughter thousands of Iraqis with 39000 bombs and undetonated cluster bombs to kill kids for generations to come so we wouldn't wake up at night in cold sweats. Killing is the answer to terrorism. You know that. I hope. Yup, just kill kill kill. Rid the world of trash.

 

[LunarRay]

I think a link to Al Qaeda needs to be established in order to say there is a link with Al Qaeda. The allegation that Iraq sent terrorists to other nations, if true, would establish that Iraq sent terrorists to other nations. I think..

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

That's right. We immediately thereby gained the right and duty to slaughter thousands of Iraqis with 39000 bombs and undetonated cluster bombs to kill kids for generations to come so we wouldn't wake up at night in cold sweats. Killing is the answer to terrorism. You know that. I hope. Yup, just kill kill kill. Rid the world of trash.

Yeah, those few thousand Iraqi's who died during the war are just SO much greater of a loss than the MILLIONS who were murdered under Saddam's regime during the last 24 years, right? Oh, but it's OK because after all, he was a Sovereign Nation's leader, right? And it's OK for governments to MURDER their citizens, imprison their children for "political crimes" and feed people feet-first into a plastic shredding machine, right? Those are ALL OK actions just so long as the UN feels that you're a Sovereign Nation, isn't that right?

If you want to sit there and wallow in sorrow over the loss of life, perhaps you should think about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who died in the intervening years between the two gulf wars because Bush Sr. actually LISTENED to the UN and DIDN'T remove Hussein from power.

Try THINKING before you blow a bunch of gas out your ass for once.

Jason

 

[Red Dawn]

Yeah, those few thousand Iraqi's who died during the war are just SO much greater of a loss than the MILLIONS who were murdered under Saddam's regime during the last 24 years, right?

Nah, as far as the American Government is concerned, especially this aqministration, neither was that great of loss.

 

[Czar]

does anyone have the exact number of people killed during Saddam's reign?

 

[syzygy]

Originally posted by: Czar
does anyone have the exact number of people killed during Saddam's reign?

saddam's murder accountants didn't keep meticulous records. census figures leave you with ballpark numbers. thats
sufficient. the range is large. from 1 million to tens of thousands. but the point is to look at the design and practice of
his totalitarian regime against others of similiar bent.

Nah, as far as the American Government is concerned, especially this aqministration, neither was that great of loss.

you have made a grazing ground out of cynicism. tiresome.

 

[Jhhnn]

from syzygy-

there are a couple of known instances where saddam sent his cronies overseas to conduct terrorist operations.

mere allegation w/o substantiation...

Not that i doubt it, but our own govt has done the same for generations. CIA involvement w/ the Contras and Salvadoran death squads were such examples, as are Colombian paramilitaries... the list is huge, and includes some of the forces we oppose today, like afghan mujahedin...

While piously pointing the finger at Saddam's regime, we also need to remember that UN sanctions, actually US sanctions, led to huge loss of life as well...

The links between the Bush family and the Bin Laden clan are stronger than those between Saddam and Islamic fundamentalists- make of that what you will...

 

[kage69]

mere allegation w/o substantiation...

The hostile take-over of the Iranian Embassy in London back in 1980 (at Saddam's direction) is no mere allegation and has plenty of substance. Please get your history right before dismissing the statements of others, lest you be considered an ignorant ass.


Here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

That's right. We immediately thereby gained the right and duty to slaughter thousands of Iraqis with 39000 bombs and undetonated cluster bombs to kill kids for generations to come so we wouldn't wake up at night in cold sweats. Killing is the answer to terrorism. You know that. I hope. Yup, just kill kill kill. Rid the world of trash.

Yeah, those few thousand Iraqi's who died during the war are just SO much greater of a loss than the MILLIONS who were murdered under Saddam's regime during the last 24 years, right? Oh, but it's OK because after all, he was a Sovereign Nation's leader, right? And it's OK for governments to MURDER their citizens, imprison their children for "political crimes" and feed people feet-first into a plastic shredding machine, right? Those are ALL OK actions just so long as the UN feels that you're a Sovereign Nation, isn't that right?

If you want to sit there and wallow in sorrow over the loss of life, perhaps you should think about the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS who died in the intervening years between the two gulf wars because Bush Sr. actually LISTENED to the UN and DIDN'T remove Hussein from power.

Try THINKING before you blow a bunch of gas out your ass for once.

You mean all those Iraqis Bush senior riled up to revolt and then abandoned? The only thing our government was interested in in Iraq is Israel and oil. And careful about projecting your own wallowing in sorrow. You're barking up the wrong tree. But naturally it takes a special THINKING to see the insanity of killing to stop killing. 'gone to graves yards everyone, when will they learn. when will they learn?'

Jason

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: syzygy
there are a couple of known instances where saddam sent his cronies overseas to conduct terrorist operations. a direct link
with al-qaeda doesn't need to be established to prove saddam had exported terrorist activities to countries in europe and
his immediate neighbors.

That's right. We immediately thereby gained the right and duty to slaughter thousands of Iraqis with 39000 bombs and undetonated cluster bombs to kill kids for generations to come so we wouldn't wake up at night in cold sweats. Killing is the answer to terrorism. You know that. I hope. Yup, just kill kill kill. Rid the world of trash.

well, diplomacy doesnt work either, so what do you suggest? we just let them live thier lives out how ever they may choose, even if it is killing innocents that dont agree with their radical ideology?

edit for spelling

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: kage69

mere allegation w/o substantiation...

The hostile take-over of the Iranian Embassy in London back in 1980 (at Saddam's direction) is no mere allegation and has plenty of substance. Please get your history right before dismissing the statements of others, lest you be considered an ignorant ass.


Here.

So that must be why we help Saddam in that same war?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

While piously pointing the finger at Saddam's regime, we also need to remember that UN sanctions, actually US sanctions, led to huge loss of life as well...

Saddam chose to divert resources from the civil to the mililtary sectors. The intentions of the sanctions (supported by most countries and ignored by Syria) was to encourage him to comply with his agreements after the Gulf War. Humanitarian supplies were not sanctioned. He diverted funds from oil $$ to build up his security forces to the determent of the general population. Food was available and being provide by international aid groups. He just prevented it from getting to the people.

This allowed him to place the blame on the sanctions and maintain the popular support.

The image that he projected was the little guy standing up to (and defeating) the great Satan. After all, he defeated Iran.

 

[kage69]

So that must be why we help Saddam in that same war?

Don't you love it when people think they're being witty or insightful, but it comes out all wrong?

If you haven't noticed, politicians often aid the lesser of 2 evils. We gave Stalin all kinds of aid. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, same deal.

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: syzygy
there are a couple of known instances where saddam sent his cronies overseas to conduct terrorist operations. a direct link
with al-qaeda doesn't need to be established to prove saddam had exported terrorist activities to countries in europe and
his immediate neighbors.

That's right. We immediately thereby gained the right and duty to slaughter thousands of Iraqis with 39000 bombs and undetonated cluster bombs to kill kids for generations to come so we wouldn't wake up at night in cold sweats. Killing is the answer to terrorism. You know that. I hope. Yup, just kill kill kill. Rid the world of trash.

well, diplomacy doesnt work either, so what do you suggest? we just let them live thier lives out how ever they may choose, even if it is killing innocents that dont agree with their radical ideology?

edit for spelling

Lybia had far more established connections to terrorism than Iraq did. They were even convicted in court of state-sponsored international terrorism. They did have KNOWN stockpiles of chemical weapons. Why didn't we go after them then first? Hmmm.... In the end diplomacy has worked there (as least of late.)


Yes, Saddam was a big mean nasty guy, and in the end the Iraqi people will be better off with out him. The question is, is it our responsibility to right all the evils in the world? Should we re-invade Somalia? Where were we in Rawanda?
"That goddam liberal" Clinton was bashed from the left and right for those decisions, and Bush ran specifically against these Clinton actions. (Not a nation-builder, ha!)

What about all the other places in the world where people are being oppressed? Are you suggesting we should invade NK? Are you going to be the first one to sign up? Want to send you brother to Liberia, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe or the next African hellhole? Nigeria wants to stone women, lets go! We missed out on all the bloody messes in Latin America during the 80's (oops, did we cause some?) but I'm sure there is still enough injustice and oppression our military can clean-up. Just go get you checkbook!

3000 of our people get killed by a bunch of mostly SAUDIS, and we are cleared to kill 10,000 Iraqi's (to date)? Well I'm glad our military's resources were used and all our tax-dollars well spent. Who cares about Osama when we've got Saddam!



The world is inherently unfair, and the ambitions of man can cause great evil. All of our bombs, blood and bullets will not change this. Does that mean we never do anything? No. But that was not what this war was about. Its just a convient excuse when the original justification proved to be a failure, and at worst a lie.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: syzygy

Originally posted by: Czar
does anyone have the exact number of people killed during Saddam's reign?

saddam's murder accountants didn't keep meticulous records. census figures leave you with ballpark numbers. thats
sufficient. the range is large. from 1 million to tens of thousands. but the point is to look at the design and practice of
his totalitarian regime against others of similiar bent.

That what I thought, being close to a million as the highest and and about 20-30 thousand being in the low end or something like that. Because of that its just always weird when people say millions when there is nothing to back that up, that I have seen at least.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: syzygy
there are a couple of known instances where saddam sent his cronies overseas to conduct terrorist operations. a direct link
with al-qaeda doesn't need to be established to prove saddam had exported terrorist activities to countries in europe and
his immediate neighbors.

That's right. We immediately thereby gained the right and duty to slaughter thousands of Iraqis with 39000 bombs and undetonated cluster bombs to kill kids for generations to come so we wouldn't wake up at night in cold sweats. Killing is the answer to terrorism. You know that. I hope. Yup, just kill kill kill. Rid the world of trash.

well, diplomacy doesnt work either, so what do you suggest? we just let them live thier lives out how ever they may choose, even if it is killing innocents that dont agree with their radical ideology?

edit for spelling

Lybia had far more established connections to terrorism than Iraq did. They were even convicted in court of state-sponsored international terrorism. They did have KNOWN stockpiles of chemical weapons. Why didn't we go after them then first? Hmmm.... In the end diplomacy has worked there (as least of late.)


Yes, Saddam was a big mean nasty guy, and in the end the Iraqi people will be better off with out him. The question is, is it our responsibility to right all the evils in the world? Should we re-invade Somalia? Where were we in Rawanda?
"That goddam liberal" Clinton was bashed from the left and right for those decisions, and Bush ran specifically against these Clinton actions. (Not a nation-builder, ha!)

What about all the other places in the world where people are being oppressed? Are you suggesting we should invade NK? Are you going to be the first one to sign up? Want to send you brother to Liberia, Ivory Coast, Zimbabwe or the next African hellhole? Nigeria wants to stone women, lets go! We missed out on all the bloody messes in Latin America during the 80's (oops, did we cause some?) but I'm sure there is still enough injustice and oppression our military can clean-up. Just go get you checkbook!

3000 of our people get killed by a bunch of mostly SAUDIS, and we are cleared to kill 10,000 Iraqi's (to date)? Well I'm glad our military's resources were used and all our tax-dollars well spent. Who cares about Osama when we've got Saddam!



The world is inherently unfair, and the ambitions of man can cause great evil. All of our bombs, blood and bullets will not change this. Does that mean we never do anything? No. But that was not what this war was about. Its just a convient excuse when the original justification proved to be a failure, and at worst a lie.

why do liberals always start off their anti-Iraq arguments with 'Saudi Arabia had this' or 'Lybia has this and this'? Who cares if Lybia or Saudi Arabia has clearly discernable connections to al Qaeda or if theyve mentioned their illegalweapons programs for everyone to hear. The upper brass in the US that makes decisions determined that Iraq was the place to start and so the decision was made. Now that Lybia and Saudi Arabia know that we're serious about taking out nations that support/harbor terrorists they're going to rethink their decisions [as we can see] .

Basically, you pick on the smallest weakest nation. We take them out, then our intentions are clear and our message cannot be mistaken. They know we're not bluffing [thank you Clinton] and that we're going to bust their balls if they dont cut the crap. Now that Iraq has been dealt with, look at the changes that are happening over there. Whats Saudi Arabia doing about terrorists in their own country? Whats Lybia doing about its weapons programs? Whats Syria doing with their weapons programs?

And the whole premise of pre-emption is to get at your enemy before they get a chance to get at you. Why would you want for Iraq to become an immenent threat and be able to cause any ammount of serious damage? And dont feed me the same tired old arguments about how it's not our business. If they threaten the security of our nation directly or indirectly, then it's definately worth the effort to deal with the problem now when it's small and to not let it grow out of proportion.

 

[Wolfdog]

When it comes down to it, all this retoric is sickening. How many times has the US government subsidized terrorist activities? <Too many to count.> How many times has the US detonated bombs,missiles or explosives and killed innocents at a time of peace. <too many times> We made terrorism what it is today. Al Queda and many more groups out there have been bought and paid for my the American taxpayer. The shortsidedness and ignorance of the american people as a whole couldn't see past thier own stupidity. As long as terrorism is in the pockets of the US governments pocket it is OK, but when other countries do it is EVIL. Hmmmmmm. Makes you think. We gave the weapons and armaments to these people, and now they shoot it back at us. If we hadn't armed them, then what would they use. Sticks and rocks?? When it comes down to it the US has killed(murdered) just as many people as Saddam ever did, but americans are way to stupid to crack open a history book and see for themselves. Maybe the world should join together and overthrow our government? It really isn't any better than Saddam. Just as long as it is someone else in the wrong. When you look at it the US has used chemical weapons against our own troops in vietnam. Never taking the time to see the aftereffects, like agent orange, and other defoliants. How many people have got cancer and died from the nuclear testing in Nevada? Plenty. Most of which were the poor fools of actors that made westerns out there.