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.

[cake_crumb]

"I imagine it's because they know the press will react like you have. Demanding absolute proof. Like in a court of law - blood evidence sort of stuff. Videotape. You know -the stuff we are never going to have. Don't have it in lots of murder cases either but we manage to put criminals away every day."

Exactly. We'd be inflicted with yet more tireing reruns of the "Hasn't Made His Case" show, which is probably been on hold a while, to be dredged up whenever politically expedient, rather than being cancelled outright.

[Trust but Verify]

I'll admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong. There is nothing wrong in my post. Go back and read it. The original post contained erroneous info, I was just pointing that out.

[Robert_Paulson2]

no evidence could change the mind of some folks.
some folk's world... is ever and irrevocably flat.

[lugsoul]

No, that would not be the no fly zone. The lack of precision on this issues is frustrating. The no fly zone included all of northern Iraq. The Kurdish autonomous area was a part of northern Iraq. Ansar was HQ'd in the Kurdish autonomous area. Saddam did not occupy the Kurdish autonomous area.

[AFPhys]

Listen, lugs, the one thing I was most surprised about during the course of the BASH was that it took so long for the Kurds+US to secure the "northern oil fields" and the environs thereabouts, and the areas linking the Tikrit-Baghdad area with northeastern Iraq. The Kurds clearly did NOT control that area, despite the pre-BASH** expectations of the press.

The no-fly zones certainly deterred Hussein's operations there, but that area was militarily controlled by Hussein in cooperation with the terrorists he installed and nourished there.


** BASH == Battle Against Saddumb Hussein

[lugsoul]

I invited you, nicely, to post any evidence that Saddam exercised control over the Kurdish autonomous zone. Instead, you choose to simply attack my assertion without a single fact in support of your position. If it is so obvious that Saddam controlled the area, as you assert, then it should be very easy for you to back that up. But I won't hold my breath.

I'm sure you'll just stick to your story - that Saddam decided to support an AQ group in Iraq and thought it would be a good idea to set them up in the one area of Iraq where he could not have absolute control over their security and secrecy. Sure, that makes perfect sense.

[Shryke]

Having you been following this story or not?

Yes, and? Are you suggesting I am ignoring terrorists inside our country? I just asked you a question DIRECTLY addressing this (which you did not answer)! Otherwise, you'll have to explain your question a little better.

I suggested that your ranking of Iraq as a top security threat is different then mine.

We agree there, but, allow me to rebut: you mentioned Mexican immigrants and Chinese bond-buying as your primary threats. Would you mind pointing out all the terrorist training camps in these countries? You know, like ones designed specifically to get bombs and weapons past airport security devices? How about all the hostile rhetoric? Funds sent to terrorists openly?

It's only logical that you will seek out information, in this case from highly dubious and criminal sources (Chalabi), to buttress your belief system.

Please amend "seek out information" to "become more and more convinced by rapidly mounting evidence", and we're in agreement.

As I've asked others on this thread, what kind of evidence could possibly change your opinion?

[AFPhys]

To maintain that the Kurds "controlled" northeastern areas of Iraq is ludicrous - see post#102

Really, sometimes wise, in order to maintain your own
credibility in other things if you admit when you are wrong.
Really, it is.

Now might be a good time to try it!

[Shryke]

Quite true. I am attempting to get these people to admit it, that's all.

[lugsoul]

You can assert it all you want, but that doesn't make it true. Do you contend that we encountered ANY Iraqi troops to the NE of a line running roughly from Kirkuk to Arbil to Mosul? If you do, you're gonna have to put up some proof. As I'm sure you know, that part of the country is where the Ansar enclave existed. And, contrary to your assertions, that part of the country was not occupied and controlled by Baghdad.

[lugsoul]

Do you see any statement in #102 that serves as proof of the assertions in that post? Didn't think so.

[cake_crumb]

Don't let the career naysayers get you down. Some of them are the same individuals who called Afghanistan a "dirty little police action" even as the troops were being deployed there. Some are the same ones who said there would be bloody, house to house fighting in the streets, our boys would be slaughters, and chanted "Vietnam, Vietnam" right along with the Dems.

They're the same ones who said our boys would be slaughtered by the hundreds in the bloody, house to house fighting in Baghdad adn chanted "Vietnam, Vietnam" right along with the Dems.

They have a set idea and spent a lot of intellectual capital rationalizing and justifying their concrete point of view. They will fight viciously against any chance they might have been wrong, because they simply have too much invested in their particular opinions.

[MizSterious]

Thanks for the memory jog! I'd almost forgotten about that one. There has long been a "connection"--a pretty close one, too. I doubt there will be any convincing certain kinds of people, however. It's all about that reading between the lines thing, not to mention the re-drawing of the maps thing (as in, "the Kurds were never under the control of Saddam...". It's just so difficult presenting a logical argument to the illogical.

[AFPhys]

I think I misdirected the post you are referring to. Sorry.

[An.American.Expatriate]

The lack of precision on this issues is frustrating.

Agreed!!

I will accept you statement about the autonomous area as fact - no time to research myself.

Question though, how autonomous were the Kurds? I would wager it was limited and that they had little power to do much of anything (but I could be wrong).

To your original question - why not bomb the kurds - if the kurdich autonomous government was supporting terrorists, they should have been just as much a target as any other country / group supporting terrorists. The US though, has chosen (wisely or not remains to be seen), to "support" some of these countries (Pakistan comes to mind) is as much as they support the US effort. Maybe the Kurds changed, I don't know - but if you have some info on this, I'd be very interested.

[Dr. Frank fan]

This only proves the relationship in the physical sense. It does not prove "beyond any doubt," however, a working relationship between the Iraqi Governement under SH and al-Qaeda.

Let's say you're right, here. What this means is that AQ was operating in Iraq either (1) with Saddam's knowledge/blessing, or (2) under Saddam's nose, and he was powerless/unable/unwilling to stop them.

That is precisely the rationale according to which we invaded Afghanistan to oust the Taliban government there, you know. Best,

[cake_crumb]

"The northern Kurdish area was under a "no-fly" interdict for Saddam's air power, but to think that severly limited his ground force movement, or even his operation of AA batteries in the north of Iraq is silly"

Agreed. People are comveniently ignoring two things.

A: Saddam could, and obviously did, avail himself of the intelligence capabilities of other countries, particularly Russia and France.

B: Saddam was no stranger to the concept of espionage as defined by his then allies, the Soviet Union during the cold war. Spies are easier to use than risking US/UK air power retaliation if interdicted in the no-fly zone, and Saddam had PLENTY of them.

[AFPhys]

Why did it take us over three weeks to secure the northeast?

200-300 AlQ? That segment tried to melt away to Iran.

It was SHs forces who were fighting us there against the Kurds.

Sorry, but you are wrong here.

Ask someone who was there.


...

Sorry... I gotta run for the day...

[LexBaird]

If you can point to any evidence that Saddam's forces held territory anywhere near the Ansar enclave, I'd love to see it.

Forces holding the territory is not the same as "indisputably not under the control of Saddam's government". The first implies that the Kurds were in complete control of their "autonomous area". They were manifestly not. Saddam's forces, and those friendly to him, were able to move within the area.

Besides, the area surrounding the camps was not in the control of the Kurds, else our forces would not have had to assault the area during the invasion. The area was held by pro-Saddam loyalists. Here is a quote from an article from the Weekly Standarddetailing some of the connections.

"14. According to a sensitive reporting [from] a "regular and reliable source," [Ayman al] Zawahiri, a senior al Qaeda operative, visited Baghdad and met with the Iraqi Vice President on 3 February 1998. The goal of the visit was to arrange for coordination between Iraq and bin Laden and establish camps in an-Nasiriyah and Iraqi Kurdistan under the leadership of Abdul Aziz."

"37. Sensitive reporting indicates senior terrorist planner and close al Qaeda associate al Zarqawi has had an operational alliance with Iraqi officials. As of Oct. 2002, al Zarqawi maintained contacts with the IIS to procure weapons and explosives, including surface-to-air missiles from an IIS officer in Baghdad. According to sensitive reporting, al Zarqawi was setting up sleeper cells in Baghdad to be activated in case of a U.S. occupation of the city, suggesting his operational cooperation with the Iraqis may have deepened in recent months. Such cooperation could include IIS provision of a secure operating bases [sic] and steady access to arms and explosives in preparation for a possible U.S. invasion. Al Zarqawi's procurements from the Iraqis also could support al Qaeda operations against the U.S. or its allies elsewhere.

38. According to sensitive reporting, a contact with good access who does not have an established reporting record: An Iraqi intelligence service officer said that as of mid-March the IIS was providing weapons to al Qaeda members located in northern Iraq, including rocket propelled grenade (RPG)-18 launchers. According to IIS information, northern Iraq-based al Qaeda members believed that the U.S. intended to strike al Qaeda targets during an anticipated assault against Ansar al-Islam positions.

The memo further reported pre-war intelligence which "claimed that an Iraqi intelligence official, praising Ansar al-Islam, provided it with $100,000 and agreed to continue to give assistance."

[Dr. Frank fan]

I think some people will not be satisfied unless we somehow produce a fully-armed and ready to go nuclear warhead in the possession of a certified, authentic, card-carrying AlQaeda terrorist.

But of course there is no such thing. They do not carry "cards" or anything of the sort. And if we produced actionable evidence that an (ALLEGED) AQ person was armed by Saddam, the new talking-point would be "but he wasn't REALLY an Al Qaeda member". Or, it would be "but he could have gotten the warhead from someone else".

Anything to argue against an invasion of Iraq. For some reason.