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


1 posted on 03/11/2008 5:56:53 AM PDT by jdm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: jdm

Given the fact that Saddam’s intelligence apparatus was but an extension of the Soviet/Russian intel. apparatus, and given Saddam’s claim that he was bluffing about WMD’s to keep Iran at bay, I’m starting to wonder if his position was fed to him and cultivated by the Soviets/Russians for the express purpose of drawing in the USA. Just a thought...


102 posted on 03/11/2008 9:19:41 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
Saddam and Osama did not have "operational ties" because they were on two completely different missions. Saddam was a secular Baathist thug, who cared little for the tenets of Islam, nor for any noble cause beyond the continued power and glorification of himself by any means necessary. Osama uses fundamental Islam to motivate his Islamic minions to sacrifice themselves and kill, and they believe they are on a noble religious cause.

Saddam had little use for religious foolishness, except when it was politically expedient, and Osama has little love for secular thugs. So naturally, they weren't exactly on the same page concerning most things.

However, there are common essential goals that both shared. The destruction of the Jewish state and the crippling of American power were both high priorities for them, particularly the defeat of the Great Satan. So even though their motives and goals were divergent, their primary enemy was the same. And as they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. They may have openly despised one another, but they surely collaborated in some way to at least discuss how they could both benefit from our loss.

105 posted on 03/11/2008 9:34:14 AM PDT by Sender (Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
An exhaustive review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents that were captured after the 2003 U.S. invasion has found no evidence that Saddam Hussein’s regime had any operational links with Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaida terrorist network.

Could be.
He just let 'em camp out and train unmolested.
We fixed that.

106 posted on 03/11/2008 9:50:57 AM PDT by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

Excellent news Saddam poses no further threat to the future of Mid-East Peace, he will never reconstitute his WMD programs and he will never have the opportunity to allie with Al-Qaida because the U.S. Acted. Now Iraq is a free and Democratic state in the heart of the ME.

Further, had Bush waited and not gone after Saddam, Is there any doubt that an emboldened dictator that hated the U.S. would have eventually sought ties with Al-Qaida as he was emboldened by the success of UBL on 911? Can’t we prove that is exactly what Iran is doing now? better we tackle this one country at a time vice giving them cause to unite for a common cause...

Like say Radical Islamists United against an American President, whom they have labeled a Mrutadd and that they believe it is their RELIGIOUS duty to kill and wage war against as stated by Mohammad in the Quran... “Any man that leaves the relgion of Islam, Kill Him.


109 posted on 03/11/2008 10:08:47 AM PDT by tomnbeverly (Standing by for the: if your not with us your a racist tactic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
The original title of this article said “no link” between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida, a patently false statement. Then, the very first line of this article, stated there was “no operational link” between the two.

There is a big difference between “no” and “no operational”.

Saddam Hussein authorized the Iraqi Embassy in Jakarta, Indonesia, to pay for Al-Qaida’s meeting, in April 2001, for the final planning of their coordinated attack against the United States on September 11, 2001 (9-11). Saddam Hussein, through the Embassy, paid for all transportation costs, accommodations, food and drink, and made all the arrangements for the meeting place.

Saddam Hussein wasn't directly involved in the terrorist group's operations, but he did aid and abet - he supported! - Al-Qaida in all its activities.

114 posted on 03/11/2008 10:22:37 AM PDT by SatinDoll (Desperately seeking a conservative candidate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

define “had”.

/s


118 posted on 03/11/2008 10:27:59 AM PDT by HonestConservative (I have not yet begun to fight.....J.P. Jones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
We were in a state of war with Iraq. They violated a ceasefire, many times over. Who cares if they had "operational" ties with al Queda? I don't, even though I am sentient enough to know about Ansar al Salam.

The best post mortem I can offer is that I will agree with the loons we should not have invaded Iraq. WE SHOULD HAVE INVADED IRAN INSTEAD.

121 posted on 03/11/2008 10:32:58 AM PDT by Republic of Texas (Socialism Always Fails)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

Do these moronski’s remember that it was SoDamn Hinsane that paid palestinian suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 each?


123 posted on 03/11/2008 10:33:55 AM PDT by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

“Had we let the sanctions regime collapse — which was what was happening when we invaded — Saddam would have restarted his WMD programs and would have continued in his ambitions to make himself the leader of a unified and hostile Arab state.”

I think it’s abundantly clear that Iraq will never be unified. If that were possible we’d have left a long time ago.


128 posted on 03/11/2008 10:39:12 AM PDT by Froufrou
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon
 
Spitzer had "no operational ties" to Emperor's Club: MSM

137 posted on 03/11/2008 11:36:41 AM PDT by CardCarryingMember.VastRightWC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
Who ever claimed there were operational ties pre-invasion? That little fact will be obscured in the Bush-lied furor this report will rekindle. That he did nothing of the sort is a pesky little fact to be ignored.
141 posted on 03/11/2008 12:05:59 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (Who Would Montgomery Brewster Choose?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

bs

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1983988/posts

Clinton first linked al Qaeda to Saddam
THE WASHINGTON TIMES ^ | Published June 25, 2004 | By Rowan Scarborough

Posted on 03/11/2008 12:22:16 PM PDT by newbie2008

The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein’s regime to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements. The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no “collaborative relationship” between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden. Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration’s defense by saying there had been such contacts. In fact, during President Clinton’s eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton’s defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.


148 posted on 03/11/2008 12:42:27 PM PDT by Grampa Dave ("Ron Paul and his flaming antiwar spam monkeys can Kiss my Ass!!"- Jim Robinson, Sept, 30, 2007)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

Oh good grief, not more of this crap.

I’m getting sick and tired of the endless debates over whether we were right or wrong to go to war with Iraq. None of it’s going to change the fact that our soldiers are still over there and we have an obligation to the Iraqi people to leave their country in capable hands.

Honestly, who among us gives a flip why we invaded anyway? I don’t care and I’m willing to be that the soldiers over there don’t care either. All we’re doing is wasting time and distracting ourselves from the important task that still remains.

And to the inevitable “We told you so’s” that are to come; WE DON’T CARE! And frankly, only an idiot would say the world isn’t better off with one less murderous tyrant to worry about.


156 posted on 03/11/2008 1:35:59 PM PDT by RWB Patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
no evidence of operational ties

Meaning that they did not act in direct concert with one another as allies. Yeah...so? That's hardly new...nor is it anything the Administration asserted.

169 posted on 03/11/2008 4:44:09 PM PDT by lepton ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

Of course, I don’t think operational support has ever been claimed.


179 posted on 03/11/2008 7:11:25 PM PDT by gogeo (Democrats want to support the troops by accusing them of war crimes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon State Department
181 posted on 03/11/2008 10:18:13 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm

I’ve always thought the Saddam-to-AQ link sounded weak. Plenty of other terror support from that waste of human flesh, but there has always been zero chance that the MSM would report it.

IMHO Bush’s greatest mistake regarding Iraq, one that has wound up doing great damage to his entire presidency, was that he jacked around with the (useless and worthless) UN long enough that Saddam was able to whisk all his WMD-related materiel into Syria.

MM (in TX)


183 posted on 03/12/2008 1:02:36 AM PDT by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
SEPTEMBER 1999 : (IRAQ : NINTH POPULAR ISLAMIC CONGRESS INCLUDES AYMAN AL ZAWAHIRI) Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period.
"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said.
According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said. Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman.
On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time."
In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said.
The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more. He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002.
----- (Ham/Aki) 23-May-05 12:08-----IRAQ: FORMER PM (ALLAWI) REVEALS SECRET SERVICE DATA ON BIRTH OF AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ it) | May 23, 2005 | AKI

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

Well, the Pentagon can stretch it and claim AQ wasn't in Iraq before 9/11 because Zarqawi's group went by its own name. Though Zarqawi and his group had operational ties to al Qaeda before 9/11 in Iraq and shared the same spiritual leaders, trainers, etc, Zarqawi had not yet "formally" sworn the oath of allegiance to bin Laden, and did not do so until after the invasion. I suppose since he forgot to notarize a written copy of his oath and file it down at the county courthouse, some could claim that lack of evidence of a pre-9/11 al Qaeda oath is proof of his innocence, no matter how well-established his relationship to bin Laden and AQ beforehand, and no matter his involvement with the pre-invasion London ricin plot or the even earlier 1999 Millennium Plot, etc.

Zarqawi's one thing but I'm not sure how they can explain away Zawahiri.

The phrase "for all practical purposes" tends to go over the heads of too many people these days.

202 posted on 03/12/2008 10:39:11 PM PDT by piasa (Attitude Adjustments Offered Here Free of Charge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm; All

Here are the FReeper videos we posted pointing out evidence of links between Saddam including WMD, Terrorist Training Camps along with incompetent journalism and fraud committed by the media and Democrats to cover this evidence.

People need to watch these before believing propoganda the left wants to distribute and disseminate about no links between Saddam, terrorism and Al Qaeda.

The behavior of the left has been treasonous and if they are upset about hearing it from me than I’m begging them to sue me for slander.

Salman Pak: Saddam’s Al Qaeda Connection (more details)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cSSKsUOVjE

The Failure of The 911 Commission and the disinformation from Scott Ritter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-Un1otZ37Y

Saddam’s WMD based on captured Iraqi documents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCdJ5HoxILQ

al Qaeda video documents Hussein era training in Northern Iraq

http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2007/07/al_qaeda_video_documents_husse_1/


205 posted on 03/13/2008 8:20:44 AM PDT by april15Bendovr (Free Republic & Ron Paul Cult = oxymoron)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: jdm
Saddam had “no operational ties” to AQ: Pentagon

Saddam had “no operational ties” remaining to AQ: Pentagon

There - fixed :-)

206 posted on 03/17/2008 12:05:57 AM PDT by prophetic (I'm not afraid of calling his full name: Obama's full name is BARAK HUSSIEN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

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