Saddam link to terror group

The Daily Telegraph ^ | April 17, 2003 | Philip Smucker and Adrian Blomfield

[MadIvan]

So much for the argument that the likes of Bin Laden and Saddam had nothing in common and were not working together.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Dr. Frank fan]

I've said it before, I'll say it a thousand times:

This can't be true because Saddam Is Secular whereas Islamist terrorists are Religious.

Can't be true. Just can't.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks, Seamole!

Just think how much more we will know in 6 months!!!!

[Illbay]

How is this "the first hard link?"

What about the Ansar al-Islam training camps?

I realize the PLF training camp just uncovered wasn't "radical Islamist," but Palestinian Marxists (a fact that seems to elude many FReepers here), but Ansar al-Islam is "hard-linked" to al-Qa'ida.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Big Ping here!

[Illbay]

The only thing "religious" about the radical Islamist terrorists is their beards.

Most of them are illiterate, and know only what the "mullahs" tell them. Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs," in that they have never been accepted by and branch of Islam as having the required educational credentials, etc.

They're just their own little club.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

There are doubters out there !

[Dog Gone]

The claims that Iraq had no evidence to terrorists was pretty much put to rest with the capture of Abu Abbas yesterday in Baghdad.

Those that still oppose what Britain, Australia, Poland, and the US did in Iraq are those who will never be convinced.

[tubebender]

BUMP...

[Diva Duck]

Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs,"

Kind of like Jessie, huh?

[Gritty]

I haven't seen this report in the US media yet.

I'll check tomorrow's copy of the New York Times.

I'm sure it will be in there!

[Dr. Frank fan]

The only thing "religious" about the radical Islamist terrorists is their beards. Most of them are illiterate, and know only what the "mullahs" tell them. Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs," in that they have never been accepted by and branch of Islam as having the required educational credentials, etc. They're just their own little club.

A point worth emphasizing, yes.

The constant refrain that because Saddam is "Secular" while those other gangs of armed thugs over there - who hate the same people (Americans) and have many of the same goals - are "Religious", and thus they'd never work together or help each other, has always cracked me up. :-)

If I were Saddam, and had observed that see-no-evil attitude, I'd think to myself, "sheesh, these people are so stupid and suicidal, that I can just kill tons of 'em on the cheap by handing some cash to this or that private army of (ha ha) 'Religious' warriors and letting them do my dirty work. American gets attacked and they'll bend over backwards trying to argue that I couldn't have been behind it because I'd never associate with any 'Religious' group....the perfect crime."

[L`enn]

Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs," in that they have never been accepted by and branch of Islam as having the required educational credentials, etc

So, they have "mail-order" Mullahs like we have "mail-order" Ministers.

[Sabertooth]

((((((growl)))))

[dawn53]

When they keep saying Saddam had no links to terrorists, how do they discount the money he paid to the families of the "suicide bombers?"

Seems to me that letting it be known that you are going to pay the family of a suicide bomber after he blows himself up is encouraging terrorism and in effect, a link to terrorism?

Anybody know why these actions weren't considered a "link"?

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the post and ping !

[Victoria Delsoul]

Just think how much more we will know in 6 months!!!!

You're absolutely right. I wonder what the Leftists would say then.

[1066AD]

I've understood so far that "mullah" is more of an honorific title, that's how it was explained to me.
This is yet another article that makes the case for troops to secure these buildings so evidence can be gathered & preserved.