Officer: Saddam trained al-Qaida pre-9-11

http://www.worldnetdaily.com ^ | Posted: October 20, 2003 | WorldNetDaily.com

[Valin]

Saddam's late son Uday

Oh I like the sound of that!
And the world is a better place for him NOT being in it.

[Lady In Blue]

Bumping for a read tomorrow. Thanks!

[Valin]

Ever hear of the old saying the enemy of my enemy is my friend?

As to what Al Qaeda got, access to, a safe base, modern communications, intel, recruits, access to Iraqi embassies throught out the world. All in all a pretty good deal for them.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

...Ya know, neither do I.

...Initially we saw NO TV Coverage from Imbed Reporters who went into SALMON PAK with the Marines. I saw only a single fleeting TV Tape showing the shell of a Jet Airliner and a Passenger Rail Car on FoX. T'was enough for me but it should have been playing all over CBS-NBC-ABC TV News as well and it wasn't.

...Even a BUSH-Supportng Former CLINTON CIA Director JAMES WOOLSEY had been focusing in on SALMOM PAK during the months leading up to the Iraq War.

...Nothing since from anyone.

AMAZING.

[Dolphy]

Claiming that Saddam would not be threatened by al-Queda operating within the borders of Iraq is substantial evidence of your ignorance. Concern over Islamic fundamentalism is one of the reasons Iraq invaded Iran in 1980

You sort of miss the obvious, the opportunistic nature of Saddam and bin Laden. They both share(d)a hatred of the United States. Iraq wanted out of the grip of the US and bin Laden wanted the US out of the region. Iraq had no way to wage a war for their objectives, bin Laden had a network of men. Iraq had money, technical ability and a country within which to train and house terrorists outside of the watchful eye of the world.

Even though Shia Muslims were the majority in Iraq, Saddam ruled them. And bin Laden and the Taliban Wahabis were killing the Shias in Afghanistan by the thousand. There was no natural religious alliance that Saddam need fear, and both had much to gain.

[Kay Soze]

Does not matter to Liberals as they dont and cannot defend me and my family from ME Terrorists.

This connection must be rejected by them to make their lives easier and to focus on the redistribution of weatlth.

[Sofa King]

"But now, he's not above exploiting them for his own gain, just look at the way his letters appeal to the zealots, urging them to "fight the crusaders" and "wage jihad.""

Don't forget the other end of it- IIRC, Al-Queda used American flight schools to learn how to fly the planes. Al-Queda isn't particular at all about where it operates from. As long as they had the US to fight, co-existing with Saddam was no problem for them.

"Me and my brother against my cousin; me and my cousin against the world"

[infowarrior]

Concern over Islamic fundamentalism is one of the reasons Iraq invaded Iran in 1980...

Partially correct, but not entirely, Saddam Hussein's concern was over Shiite fundamentalism, the form practiced in Iran, and boosted by the ascencion of Ayatollah Khomeni. Saddam Hussein, his cronies, and almost the entire Ba'ath party, are SUNNI Muslims, which while they held the power, were a numerical minority. Would, or could he have joined forces with OBL, also a Sunni? My opinion is yes, as there is precious little love lost between the two sects.

Politics, especially mixed with religion can make for strange bedfellows, indeed...

the infowarrior

[windchime]

Bump!

[GoGophers]

I can tell you what it doesn't mean: that Saddam and counter-terrorism units. You have no evidence that the training camp is for counter-terrorism units. No amount of floundering is going to change that fact.

I have offered an alternative hypothesis that will remain as or more credible as your hypothesis until you can explain the benefit al-Queda realized by cooperating with Saddam Hussein by sharing operational information, which is a significant deviation from the SOP of a terrorist group.

Al-Queda is not Iran, and this is not 1980. All you do when you call me ignorant without actually bothering to give any reasoning why what I said was untrue is show yourself to be full of shit.

Al-Queda and Iran represent the same type of threat -- Islamic fundamentalism. The fact that you don't appear to understand the connection speaks to your ignorance on this issue.

Seeing as you have yet to answer my question, you really have no room to complain.

I have answered your questions repeatedly. Your discomfort with my answers does not alter that reality.

[GoGophers]

Saddam was a Sunni Muslim, but in the same way Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist--for show only.

Exactly!

[GoGophers]

Iraq had money, technical ability and a country within which to train and house terrorists outside of the watchful eye of the world.

OBL had the necessary funds and training camps without the help of the Iraqs. The 9/11 terrorists gained the technical expertise in the United States at American flight schools. Thus, OBL had no rationale to cooperate with a professed enemy.

[GoGophers]

As to what Al Qaeda got, access to, a safe base, modern communications, intel, recruits, access to Iraqi embassies throught out the world. All in all a pretty good deal for them.

Access to a safe base: Afghanistan
Modern communications: Cell phones and e-mail
Intel: Gathered by al-Queda members found in over forty different countries
Recruits: Saudi Arabia
Access to Iraqi embassies: Evidence?

[GoGophers]

Al-Queda depends on terrorist states for funding and locations for training camps.

Afghanistan

[infowarrior]

Saddam himself may be a Sunni only for show, even as you say, but absent the support of the Sunni community, a minority in Iraq, how long would he have lasted?

theinfowarrior

[GoGophers]

Saddam himself may be a Sunni only for show, even as you say, but absent the support of the Sunni community, a minority in Iraq, how long would he have lasted?

Saddam used patronage to maintain the support of the Sunni community and coercion to keep the rest of the Iraqi population under control.

[Sofa King]

"I have offered an alternative hypothesis that will remain as or more credible as your hypothesis until you can explain the benefit al-Queda realized by cooperating with Saddam Hussein by sharing operational information, which is a significant deviation from the SOP of a terrorist group."

You mean you want it explained to you AGAIN? Somehow, the fact that you're slow on the uptake doesn't surprise me. Try re-reading posts #60, #65, and #38 a couple dozen times. If you still can't understand it, then just admit that you're too stupid to be debating politics and stop wasting FR's bandwidth.

"Al-Queda and Iran represent the same type of threat -- Islamic fundamentalism. The fact that you don't appear to understand the connection speaks to your ignorance on this issue."

The only ignorance here is your pathetic over-simplification of middle east politics. You're too ignorant to understand that things have changed since 1980 (before America was enemy #1, before a little thing called Desert Storm) and you're too ignorant to grasp the differences between Iran and Al-Queda (hint: One is a nation, the other is a terrorist organization).

"I have answered your questions repeatedly. Your discomfort with my answers does not alter that reality."

No, you never answered the question that I asked you in response to your question, and it is no more of an inappropriate waste of time than yours.

[GoGophers]

You mean you want it explained to you AGAIN? Somehow, the fact that you're slow on the uptake doesn't surprise me. Try re-reading posts #60, #65, and #38 a couple dozen times. If you still can't understand it, then just admit that you're too stupid to be debating politics and stop wasting FR's bandwidth.

I am finished wasting my time debating you. You seem impervious to logic so further discussion would be irrational.