First of all, to call it "Kurdish territory" is taking it a bit far. Nobody (afaik) is claiming that the Kurd military had troops garrisoned on and holding that territory. (If they had they presumably would have wiped out the camp themselves, like I said.)
That being said, the answer to your point is, I agree, "Not necessarily". (Even if I think "behind" is something of a straw-man. "behind"? Even *I* would never say Saddam was "behind" A-a-I, and I *do* believe the links. How about just "supporting"!!)
So to be fair I think your skepticism is appropriate and would be quite warranted if this article were viewed in isolation. However, keep in mind that this article (about the Jordanian training with Zarqawi) is not an isolated data point, but is rather part of a larger pattern of data which is, to be sure, informing my inferences. That pattern includes:
-reports of Zarqawi getting medical treatment in Baghdad
-pre-war reports of Saddam's clandestine support for A-a-I as a means of fighting the Kurds/destabilizing the north (I guess such reports were considered "safe" and PC because, at that time the AQ ties to A-a-I were still considered unproven. they are not now.)
I don't know exactly how lefty anti-war types (which I'm not accusing you of being) talk away those earlier data points but I suppose they just look at them and shrug. However, while one can shrug at each individual report and say "not conclusive", after some point the weight of the pattern which they form taken together, may become undeniable. Best,