Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraqi officers: Al Qaida operatives were trained near Baghdad (Saddam recruited Al Qaeda)
Geostrategy Direct ^ | Dec. 30, 2003 | Geostrategy-Direct

Posted on 12/24/2003 5:33:52 PM PST by FairOpinion

Saudi nationals helped Saddam Hussein recruit and finance Al Qaida insurgents to confront U.S. troops in Iraq. Iraqi officers who have been interrogated by the United States and coalition officials said Saddam's contacts with Al Qaida preceded the group's Sept. 11, 2001 strikes on New York and Washington. They said Saudi envoys helped Al Qaida insurgents to enter Iraq and begin training in camps around Baghdad.


TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: alqaedaandiraq; insurgents; iraqiofficers; trainingcamps
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last
Smoking gun!!!
1 posted on 12/24/2003 5:33:53 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I hope this is it. If it is, both the democrats and the Saudis are sunk.
2 posted on 12/24/2003 5:35:42 PM PST by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
They said Saudi envoys helped Al Qaida insurgents to enter Iraq and begin training in camps around Baghdad.

Our "friends" the Saudi's again. Add them to the nations that support terrorism list.

3 posted on 12/24/2003 5:36:35 PM PST by Reagan is King (The modern definition of 'racist' is someone who is winning an argument with a liberal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Another smoking gun like Salman Pak.
4 posted on 12/24/2003 5:36:50 PM PST by flamefront (To the victor go the oils. No oil or oil-money for islamofascist weapons of mass annihilation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flamefront
"Another smoking gun like Salman Pak."

==

Which the Democrats and the media are still succeeding in ignoring, and pretending it doesn't exist.
5 posted on 12/24/2003 5:38:02 PM PST by FairOpinion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Of course the Mad Hatter Howard Dean will give cause to NOT believe the Iraqis.
6 posted on 12/24/2003 5:38:39 PM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
No, No, No, this never happened. Everyone knows that Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qeada terrorism and is absolutely pure and innocent.
7 posted on 12/24/2003 5:41:17 PM PST by Rebelbase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
Eventually it will be the Saudis' turn, but Iran and Syria will come first.

Priorities, you know.

8 posted on 12/24/2003 5:42:45 PM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Well, well, well. What do we have here?

Sure doesn't look good if Saudi envoys had ANYTHING to do with aQ ops getting into Iraq.

If true, the only question that remains is "What do we call Saudi Arabia after we take it over?"

9 posted on 12/24/2003 5:43:47 PM PST by Bosco (Remember how you felt on September 11?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999
I have a feeling that the administration has known that 9/11 was a Hussein project for a long time. I bet we'll hear a slow trickle of news over the next year that will make it incontrovertible.
10 posted on 12/24/2003 5:44:45 PM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bosco
If true, the only question that remains is "What do we call Saudi Arabia after we take it over?"

TEXACO

11 posted on 12/24/2003 5:44:57 PM PST by AlGone2001 (If liberals must lie to advance their agenda, why is liberalism good for me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: thoughtomator
I have a feeling that the administration has known that 9/11 was a Hussein project for a long time. I bet we'll hear a slow trickle of news over the next year that will make it incontrovertible.

In Saddam's trial, 9/11 should be included in the offenses with which he is charged.

12 posted on 12/24/2003 5:49:18 PM PST by Salvey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Bosco
"What do we call Saudi Arabia after we take it over?"
East Texas
13 posted on 12/24/2003 5:54:19 PM PST by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
What, if anything, do we know about this source? This is the first time I have seen it.
14 posted on 12/24/2003 5:56:51 PM PST by billhilly (If you're lurking here from DU, I trust this post will make you sick)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1066AD
ping for oil.... maybe we can send Ambassador Powell to smooth ruffled robes.....
15 posted on 12/24/2003 5:59:51 PM PST by pointsal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
Let's face it, the media will never report and the left will never admit that there was a connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Before we even moved into Iraq, common sense said that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were cooperating. Indeed, Clinton had flogged intelligence supporting that connection during Nov-Dec '98, when he was launching attacks on Iraq.

Once we rolled into Iraq in March, there has been a regular flow of evidence and testimony supporting the connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda. Hardly a week goes by without some new revelation.

But the New York Times, the Washington Post and the alphabeteers studiously ignore every development. And, to many, if these jerks don't report it, it didn't happen.

The left has a vested interest in the public's ignorance.

16 posted on 12/24/2003 6:00:13 PM PST by okie01 (www.ArmorforCongress.com...because Congress isn't for the morally halt and the mentally lame.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Salvey
It may not yet be prudent to reveal what we know about Saddam and 9/11, as that could give tips to the enemy with regard to who our spies might be, and what other SIGINT abilities we have.
17 posted on 12/24/2003 6:10:23 PM PST by thoughtomator ("I will do whatever the Americans want because I saw what happened in Iraq, and I was afraid"-Qadafi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bosco
The only part of Saudi Arabia with an appreciable amount of oil is the Eastern Province. It is also the only part which Mohammed never set foot in. It is entirely possible that the few genuinely pro-American elements in Saudi Arabia could declare an independent state under American protection. It would make Iraq look like a cakewalk by comparison. Without the oil province, Saudi's would basically have to go back to raising sheep, goats, dates and humping camels.

Occasional food aid could be released subject to good behavior.

18 posted on 12/24/2003 6:20:08 PM PST by Vigilanteman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
Hey don't post the tease if you don't post the full story. I am not going to sign up to read your myth.

19 posted on 12/24/2003 6:21:45 PM PST by CHICAGOFARMER (Citizen Carry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FairOpinion
I truly believe the only reason the Saudis are still around is they provide near 30% of our oil. Once we make other arrangements, then ?????
20 posted on 12/24/2003 6:22:17 PM PST by microgood (They will all die......most of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-49 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson