Al Qaeda-Iraqi relationship proven beyond any doubt.

ABC World News Now | 4/27/2004

[Beckwith]

ABC World News Now. April 27, 2004

In an interview broadcast by ABC's World News Now, the leader of the Al Qaeda cell organizing the explosive and chemical attack on the Jordanian security headquarters and the American Embassy in Jordan stated that he received his training from Al-Zawahiri in Iraq, prior to the fall of Afghanistan.

[Peach]

You are right. 100%.

[MizSterious]

How about this?

Oil Center Falls: Kirkuk Falls to Coalition Control; U.S. Says Battle Not Over Yet
ABCNEWS ^ | Thursday, April 10, 2003

Posted on 04/10/2003 10:18:55 AM CDT by JohnHuang2

B A G H D A D, Iraq, April 10 — The oil-rich northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk has fallen to U.S. and Kurdish forces, delivering a key victory just one day after Saddam Hussein's regime lost control of Baghdad.

Reporting from Kirkuk, where he is traveling with U.S. special operations forces, ABCNEWS' Jim Sciutto said a last Iraqi defense on a ridgeline near Kirkuk collapsed "very quickly" after days of intense fighting.

The strategic northern city — which is the center of Iraq's oil industry — is now free, said Sciutto. "U.S. forces were greeted by thousands of very happy Kurds celebrating in the streets, hugging, kissing some of these special forces troops," he said.

But Kirkuk was not entirely secure and gunshots could be heard across the city amid reports that some Iraqi troops were holed up in the southern part of the city, said Sciutto.

Source

Sounds like Iraq troops up there to me. Other headlines at that time read, "Bloodshed as Kirkuk Falls," "Mosul Long a Center of Saddam Support," "Northern Iraqi City of Mosul Falls," "Iraqi 5th Corps surrenders at Mosul." Iraqi military were there when we went in. Do you need more "proof?"

[lugsoul]

As far as the level of autonomy goes - the Kurds weren't getting their door kicked in the middle of the night and getting dragged away to a mass grave site. They elected their own leaders. The developed a grass-roots economy. And, if anyone thinks that Saddam "let" them do this out of the goodness of his heart, well... Let's just say that if they were doing these things it could only be because Baghdad did not have the power in the area to stop them.

I don't think we should bomb Kurds. At all. My question was directed at the premise of this article - i.e. that because these guys got training in Iraq, Iraq was complicit. That is a false assumption, and if it were not, then the Kurds would be complicit. It happened in their territory.

Now, Pakistan is another story. I understand that the issue has nuance, but if we are going to take the position that those states that support terror are our enemies, then it would be hard not to place Pakistan in the #1 slot, with our other ally, Saudi Arabia, in at #2. So maybe that is not really our policy after all.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The President has made clear there is no link between Saddam and 9.11.

He's made clear there's no link they can prove, yes.

That being said, nobody was suggesting your straw man in the first place. What the thread is about, is links to AL QAEDA not to "9.11".

Why some people keep switching back and forth between those two things is beyond me.

[lugsoul]

Your assertion means nothing. What "northeast" do you say we were fighting in? The 173rd dropped in to no resistance. They did encounter resistance in Kirkuk and Arbil - along the line of Kurdish control - and around the Ansar enclave on the Iranian border. Do you have a shred of proof that we encountered Iraqi forces in between? Any at all?

[WOSG]

Now you are changing your story.

Your claims dont match the record nor the statements of the administration.... Here is the basic administration position:


"There‘s no question Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
- President George W Bush

Here's you:

"there is no link between Saddam and 9/11"
administration in particular Bush has not said that, they said there was "no evidence of a 9/11 link"
still, there are some curious links out there ...
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_03/6590.html

... the administration is just not going out on a limb on them.

"any "link" between AQ and the Iraq government was through a separate entity called Ansar al-Islam. "
That was just one of *many* links that we have evidence for, and mentioned by various administration sources. Are you putting Zarquawi under the 'ansar al-islam' link? what about the training in the sudan by IIS agents to Al Qaeda? what about the meetings in Afghanistan between Saddam's agents and Bin Laden and Zawahiri?

"The nature of the relationship between Ansar al-Islam and Saddam's government was minimal and non-operational."
This too is disputed by administration and other sources; IIS was paying members of ansar al-islam, saddam was bankrolling the group, just as saddam bankrolled many palestinian and other terror groups.

The evidence is there ...
"One of the more interesting pieces of postwar evidence was uncovered in Baghdad by reporters for the Toronto Star and London‘s Sunday Telegraph. The February 19, 1998, memo from Iraqi intelligence, in which bin Laden‘s name was covered over with Liquid Paper, reported planned meetings with an al Qaeda representative visiting Baghdad. Days later al Qaeda issued a fatwa alleging U.S. crimes against Iraq. At about the same time, a U.S. government source tells Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard, Iraq paid bin Laden deputy Ayman Zawahiri $300,000."
http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_03/5635.html

[cake_crumb]

"I believe that Israel obtained a document from their raid on Arafat's headquarters a couple years ago with a note from Hussein promising something like $25,000 to any homicidal bomber's family"

Heck, Saddam bragged openly about that.

[Peach]

Your theory that Saddam had no control has been debunked by Rumsfeld and a host of others within the administration. It was also debunked quite thoroughly by, without counting, approx. a half dozen freepers.

Why you think I'd waste my time trying to convince you of something I know to be true when you would just change the goalposts again is beyond me.

By all means, feel comfortable in your worldview that Saddam didn't support terrorists.

Didn't pay the PLO. Didn't let the first WTC bomber come there to live. Didn't permit Salmon Park training to occur. Didn't permit WMD training to occur with the Jordanian head of AQ. IN your view, those things mean nothing. It means nothing to you that over 100 mainstream press reported in the 90's that there was alarm all over the world that Saddam and OBL were forging a relationship.

Don't worry about the links posted above by another poster that clearly showed the connections between Iraq and AQ in Iraq's own state controlled newspaper which quote Saddam, his sons and his own intelligence people.

Don't let these host of facts get in the way of your convictions. I could spend all day looking for the newspaper articles and press briefings from the beginning of the war in Iraq that quoted Rumsfeld talking about the Kurdish zones which dispute what you say. What good would it do? I'm having an enjoyable day by our pool. You wouldn't change your mind anyway.

[lugsoul]

Care to support your assertion that the area was held by "pro-Saddam" loyalists? Your quote does not say that at all.

If it is such common knowledge, why is it so hard to support?

As for the quote, I think we could have a lot of fun now with comments in the WS based upon "sensitive reporting."

[An.American.Expatriate]

I don't think we should bomb Kurds.

I understood your post as a rhetorical question. :-) Let's just say that if they were doing these things it could only be because Baghdad did not have the power in the area to stop them.

I'll buy that.

I think there is still a lot we DON'T know about the inner workings of Iraq between 1991 and 2003, and I think there is a lot we DON'T know (and maybe never will) about the relationship between the US - Pakistan & Saudi Arabia. There are times when I think we must accept that the government generally does know what it is doing and there are good reasons for why they support one country or another. Congress is supposed to be the check against executive abuse, and as much as it pains me to say it - we have to trust someone.

[lugsoul]

"WASHINGTON, April 10 (AFP) US and Kurdish forces began to move into the northern Iraqi city of Mosul on Thursday, as Iraqi forces surrendered their weapons along the "green line" separating Iraqi and Kurdish-controlled areas of the north, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said."

For future reference, to "debunk" somethink you need to submit proof, not simply make an unsupported assertion. But, since you are out in the sun, I'm sure you will now assert that this "green line" had absolutely no significance and may as well not have existed at all - or that Saddam so loved the Kurds that he just gave them freedom to demostrate that love.

[MizSterious]

Please see #202. Plenty of proof that the Iraqi military was in control of these places at the time we moved it, just do FR searches of the archives using Mosul and Kirkuk for search words. Go back to April 2003. (But don't ask us to do your grunt work.)

[cake_crumb]

There's a lot most people don't know about the influence Iran exerted in Iraq, trying to topple it from within and gain the mullahs even more power, even as Saddam tried to topple Iran from within to expand his own influence, Soviet Union-like.

The fact is that few people ever paid attention to terrorism or Arab politics before 9/11, and few people know anyhting about either now.

[Peach]

The funny thing is that you think that link debunks the theory that Saddam could have known or supported AQ terrorist activities in the Kurdish area. And, of course, the link does not prove that at all. It doesn't even come close to that

The other funny thing is the last sentence of your paragraph. "...or that Saddam so loved the Kurds that he just gave them freedom to demostrate that love." And there you inadvertently hit on the point. Saddam didn't give anyone freedom.

But the points have been aptly made by other freepers and I will leave it at that.

It's like trying to deal with a teenager.

And, by the way, the smell of vindication is as sweet in the afternoon as it was this morning. And I've had fun watching you try to avoid the scent.

[blackie]

We are winning ~ the bad guys are losing ~ trolls, terrorists, democrats and the mainstream media are sad ~ very sad!

~~ Bush/Cheney 2004 ~~

[lugsoul]

Good grief. Can you read? Mosul and Kirkuk, as everyone knows, were along the line of control between Baghdad and the Kurds. You presented proof of fighting along that line - not any proof of Iraqi troops within the Kurdish controlled territory. None.

If you want to believe that Baghdad had political or military control over the area where the Ansar enclave existed, fine. I don't care if you have a strong desire to believe something that is completely untrue. But don't run around pretending to present proof of it by posting crap that doesn't even come close to saying that.

[lugsoul]

"The funny thing is that you think that link debunks the theory that Saddam could have known or supported AQ terrorist activities in the Kurdish area. And, of course, the link does not prove that at all. It doesn't even come close to that"

NO. I didn't say that, and you are making things up again.

What I did say is that the simple fact that AQ had activities in the Kurdish area does not - as asserted by you and others in this thread - prove that Saddam supported or controlled those activities. That simple fact would just as easily prove that the Kurds did - which, as I've said, I don't believe to be true.

Your lies about what I've posted are quite tiresome. Can you not debate the point without a straw man?

[Dr. Frank fan]

What LexBaird said.

I find it hilarious that some people think it's just inconceivable that Saddam could have supported the Ansar al-Islam base, logistically, and with personnel, etc., "because it was in the No-Fly Zone".

Last I checked, bases, and people on those bases, are usually situated on the *ground* not floating up in the air. Unless the "fly" in "No-Fly Zone" means something very strange, there's no reason whatsoever to doubt that Saddam could have blessed that base, supported it, etc. Also, any jihadis who went to train at that base, had to get there somehow. Did they fly into Kurdistan, and then go south? Or did they fly into Baghdad (with visa issued by Saddam) and go north? Which is more plausible?

The lefty talking-point that Saddam "didn't control" that region because it was in the "no-fly zone" needs to be retired. Obviously he didn't *fly* in that region but that wouldn't have prevented him, AT ALL, from setting up a base there - or at least supporting a base that *was* set up by AQ there. Do you think "no fly" also means "no drive"? Were our planes going to bomb some Jeep on the ground *driving* north to the camp, carrying a couple of jihadis who just flew in from Afghanistan? because it was a "no-fly zone"? Come on.

I don't know or claim that Saddam set that camp up himself, but if he *were* going to set up such a camp, the "no-fly zone" would have been the most logical place to do it. As Lex says, plausible deniability. In other words, he would know he could count on some fraction of useful... people in the West to shake their heads and say "that's not Saddam's fault! that base was in the No-Fly Zone!"

[Peach]

We are winning. It's funny watching them as that sinks in, isn't it?

It's really made my day. Then when you try to debate with them they whine that you misrepresent things. That's another leftist debating tactic. They accuse others of the very things they do. Hah!

Thankfully the sane people of the world know about the links. The polls bear that out. Even though the administration rarely talks about this (although they should).

So many trolls. So little time. later...