Iraq-Al Qaeda Bombshell: Mag Documents New Links

NewsMax.com ^ | March 17, 2002 | Carl Limbacher

[Uncle Miltie]

Can you say: "Smoking Gun"?

Let's Roll!

[spanky_mcfarland]

Perspective is everything...

Q-When is it appropriate to spit in an Iraqi womans face?

A-When her moustache is on fire.

[Cvengr]

I always wondered why they wore veils over their faces.

[fire and forget]

Indeed. And anyone who assumes Bin Laden's motivations are purely religious in nature is assuming to much. He's a pretty bright guy and very ambitious. The man intended to bring the economies of the West to their knees and then unite all of Islam under himself. The fact that he operates under the mantle of Islam and those he uses are die-hard Muslim extremists does not mean that the perceived good of Islam is what drives him. Saddam, likewise, can be expected to cozy up with Muslim fundamentalists willing to do anything to harm America even though he's a secularist.

[happygrl]

Say what you want to say, but don't be rude about it. Your language doesn't reflect "the belief systems of Christianity."

[survivalforum.com]

A few things that I find amazing, puzzling and disturbing:

1.) why didn't we take out "Saddam" in 1991?
2.) why have we beat the war drums since Sept 11th, thus giving Sadam Hussein and rogue nations (Russia, China) time to help him get prepared and possible prepare for a pre-emptive terrorist strike on the US?

There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam and Iraq pose a SIGNIFANT threat to us. There have been some reports of Iraqi woman smuggling biological agents into this country since 1992 and terrorist cells planted throughout the country. There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam HAS or WILL HAVE nuclear weapons that he would use against the US.

I also have no doubts that Iraq / Saddam are tied to muslim terrorist organizations both financially and training. In fact maybe you don't recall, but there have been reports out of Iraq that terrorist cells were trainging for taking over airplanes in Iraq. There was a connection between Iraq and the first bombing of the World Trade Center.

All I can say, is at this point...IT APPEARS (I openly admit that I don't have ALL of the facts) that we are DAMNED if we do attack and DAMNED if we don't.

The root of the problem is that the American People have been asleep at the wheel for YEARS.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #126

In Western democracy, you have to mobilize public opinions on your side before you take grave action such as war against Iraq. In an autocratic regime such as Iraq, they do not have to. In U.S.'s situation, it is better to engage debates without giving any details rather than totally silent about it. U.S. is an open society. Things can be hidden but when it comes out in the open, you will have a lengthy coverage.

Iraqi/Al-Qaeda activity, I suspect, is know to some people in intelligence agency for a while. Some must have thought of them as useful assets to do dirty works abroad and inside U.S.. The perceived usefulness of these people blinded those in CIA or governments. Even after Eastern Africa embassy bombings, USS cole and whatever might have transpired here, they were ignored or covered up. They were not about to pull the rug out of these guys. Balkans, Chechenya and perhaps OKC bombing may have served useful purpose for many in the governments and their clients. They knew a lot of these people and where they were. That is why many of these guys were rounded up so fast after 9/11. Many escaped for sure. But the point is that some in governments knew these guys for a long time and worried about them. They could not do anything because somebody higher up kept blocking their efforts. 9/11 changed everything. Now it was all green light for rounding up these guys. They went out and got everybody who belonged to particular groups. Dave Shipper's radio interview a while back makes sense in this context.

In short, my view is that, before 9/11, those who see these Mid-East groups as assets prevailed, but after 9/11, the other guys who view them as grave security risks finally prevailed. But the former one has more powerful connections, I think.

[Kermit]

"Liberate the people" the way you are "liberating" the Palestinian people ? There are no A-bombs or facilities in Iraq this was recently verified by UN Inspectors ! So to make the mid-east a "nuclear free" area shouldn't we require Israel to give-up its nuclear bombs and facilities before it becomes too powerful to use them on the USA ?

Remember the attack on the USS Liberty in 1967- when Pres.Johnson and McNamara called back fighter planes sent by a Naval Admiral to stop the attack and it continued for 4 hours- including torpedoe boats and sinking of life rafts. So Israel has shown it will attack the US. An attack on a US Naval vessel is an attack upon the USA itself. President Johnson and McNamara names should live in infamy for what they did to my beloved USA."

Does your spouse know, you've stopped your medication?

Who is the "you" in your first sentence? I believe in peace through victory and Israel is not going for victory and is not getting peace. Removal of Arafat and the PA is necessary for the liberation of the Palestinian people.

There haven't been UN Inspectors in Iraq for 3 years and they didn't get everywhere they needed to go. Israel isn't going to attack the US with nukes and the same can't be said for Saddam. D'oh!

Yes, I remember the Liberty and condemn the cover up. One of the cable tv channels had a program on the Liberty and basically came to the conclusion that the Israelis attacked it, because they were hearing evidence of Israelis killing Egyptian POW's. Islamic terrorism is a threat to American, not Israel or are you among the believers that the Mossad was behind 9/11?

[DallasDeb]

Saddam leads a secular regime, the mullas hate him. In the eyes of the mullas Saddam is a bigger Infidel than George Dubya

I think it's a case of "the enemy of my enemy" at play. Al-Qaida will use anyone and anything to further their cause. And once they get a foothold inside the country, they will then turn it into a Taliban-type government. Keeping that in mind, I'm not so sure attacking Iraq is such a good idea IF Al-Qaida is strong in Iraq. Destabilizing Iraq could allow for the entrance of a cleric leader who would be friendly with Al-Qaida, and, therefore, produce a Taliban-like state. It's just a thought.

[powderhorn]

Saddam is alot of things, but I am really not convinced he is a supporter of Islamic terrorists.

He probably likes Islamic fundamentalists as much as he likes anthrax: both useful weapons, if they can be properly controlled.

[powderhorn]

Saddam is a Stalinist, not an islamic fanatic.

Close, but not quite. Saddam is not a Stalinist, Saddam is a Saddamist. Communism suggests a philosophy driven by economic theory. Saddam's philosophy encompasses no more than the autocratic rule of Saddam. He will use any tool available to stay in power, including Islamic fundies.

[japaneseghost]

Why is this so stunning?

I think the fact that Larry Klayman is saying he has PROOF
that Iraq was involved in with the OKC bombing is far more stunning.

[mewzilla]

FYI, counterterrorism expert Larry Johnson is going to be on FOX's The Big Story with John Gibson tomorrow (Tues.) at 5 pm EST. Gibson said that Johnson will be discussing the OKC-Iraqi connection.

[Stultis]

I think it comes from the fact Saddam sends as many rag heads to meet their virgins as the Israeli's do

Irrelevant. Does it matter to Al Qaeda and other Jihadis and Islamofascists that both Jordan and Syria, for instance, have slaughtered more Palestinians that Israel has ever come close to doing? No, of course it doesn't.

Saddam hates Israel and desires to figure personally in its destruction. The Jihadis don't care how many Muslims Saddam might kill as long as he hates Israel and brings WMD's to the table. Saddam sends the Jihadis in Northern Iraq arms and money to slaughter Kurds, and supplies financial and intelligence assistance to other terrorists.

The fact that the Ba'th (sp?) party is secular is secondary to the fact that it continues to live up to its fascist and antisemtic origins, and to the fact that Saddam (however hypocritically) supports Islamism outside of Iraq. That's all that matters to the Islamofascists, for the time being at least. They can wait to establish an Islamic state in Iraq after they have done with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and etc. Turning against a secular despot like Saddam, with whom they share many common interests and enemies, would happen (should the Islamofascists succeed in their aims) but is way down the line.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!

[B4Ranch]

Can we afford to liberate the Iraqi people. Everytime we liberate someone, they stay on the American tit for centuries. With Bush giving so much money to the UN, our taxes will surely go up another 10%. Wean the world to become self reliant!

[KirkandBurke]

For the benefit of those who don't believe that the CIA was involved in Kurdistan, here's a cached article from TIME Magazine (1996) on the CIA's failure to succeed in organizing the Kurds.

[Rebelbase]

This "revelation" of cooperation between the Iraqi and Alqaeda intelligence services will be used in our justification of attacking Iraq, IMHO.

[mafree]

bump