It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Evidence of Saddam's Ties With Al-Queda

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
So we were trying to help Iraq, with loans to support their country during wartime, and to help with Agriculture and we are the bad guy. We attempted to be civil with a nation led by a dictator, and it did not help.

Loans and providing agriculutural goods is not an arms sale. I put the link to that article to show i am trying to look at this from an unbiased point of view, i have nothing to hide and am not reworking the words or such.

thanks for the link on OBL and Bush, but there is much more to it than that. The Bush administration did not allow the terrorists to be trained in our country, they simply did not know. OBL is a black sheep within his own family, read a litle of his history it is quite interesting, and it shows why so many are faithful to him in the middle east.




posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I'll develop more interest in this story when a.) the 11 government officials develop names, and b.) the Weekly Standard changes its format to aspire to something besides partisan hackery. They're the modern American equivalent of Pravda back in the day.

The 11 government officials are probably 10 PNACers and a cleaning lady bribed with a ho-ho.

No sale...


There are other links provided as to the veracity of the claims. Also, it was a story in Italy.... hardly biased in one way or another.

If you don't like the news, 'ya don't shoot the messenger.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
Loans and providing agriculutural goods is not an arms sale.


I am also searching for the truth.


There is a ton of data (supported with documents and references) on the US arms support of Iraq during that war.

Arming Iraq



December, 1982. Hughes Aircraft ships 60 Defender helicopters to Iraq. [9]

1982-1988. Defense Intelligence Agency provides detailed information for Iraq on Iranian deployments, tactical planning for battles, plans for air strikes and bomb damage assessments. [4]
...
December 20, 1983. Donald Rumsfeld , then a civilian and now Defense Secretary, meets with Saddam Hussein to assure him of US friendship and materials support. [1] & [15]




thanks for the link on OBL and Bush, but there is much more to it than that.


I do agree with that. There's so much we don't even know.



The Bush administration did not allow the terrorists to be trained in our country, they simply did not know.


Perhaps. And I'm not saying this is all the Bush administration, much of this went on behind the scenes before people even considered Bush Jr. becoming president. Cheney and Rummy have been at it for decades now. They just managed to get into the White House in 2000.



OBL is a black sheep within his own family, read a litle of his history it is quite interesting, and it shows why so many are faithful to him in the middle east.


I have and you're right. My whole point in showing 'ties' is that it may mean something, it may not. On both sides. On all sides.

In the world political stage, everyone is in bed with everyone. To try to portray Saddam as THE bad guy (because he had ties with Al Qaeda) and Bush as some sort of knight in shining armor come to save the country and the world (not saying you're doing that) is just naïve, if not downright ignorant.

They're all criminally and corruptly connected.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
There obviously are those in the various intelligence agencies that didn't like it when the Bush Admin. changed their fifedom... way they were organized (hence a lot of the leaks and such). These are the same people who have been in their positions for many years, un-elected, and have their own views and ideals. It is these people who are currently preventing anything like this from being made public, because it would validate things that Bush, and others, have said for years.

Right now it is Rumsfeld that is trying to get an information dump, so the public can see these documents and decide for themselves.

Of the 2 1/2 Tons of documents secured in the war, only about 3% have been translated..... it's going to take a while, but it will be interesting to see what else comes to light.....

PS: America gave Saddam intelligence and satellite recon... nothing else.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:21 AM
link   

from Benevolent Heretic In fact, the 9/11 hijackers were trained in the USA and the Bush and Bin Laden families' ties are well known, as I'm sure you are well aware.

I am well aware of it, but for the benefit of those who may misinterpret what you wrote as proof of US support for Osama bin Laden, here is the rest of the story:


1991
Bin Laden is expelled from Saudi Arabia due to his anti-government activities. He takes refuge in Sudan.Eventually, Saudi Arabia revokes his citizenship, and his family disowns him as well.

www.cnn.com...

Emphasis added by me.

This is from a timeline and profile of Osama bin Laden, from CNN news.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
PS: America gave Saddam intelligence and satellite recon... nothing else.


Is that just because you said so? Do you have any links? Do you think if you say it enough, it becomes true? Are you saying that all the information provided about the US arming Iraq is BS? Just because you said so?

jsobecky
I am not trying to mislead or deceive anyone. I would hope people would read the links provided.

Also, please see my point in my last post:



My whole point in showing 'ties' is that it may mean something, it may not. On both sides. On all sides.


I'm not trying to say that Bush is the only bad guy here. Or that he's supporting Al Qaeda or anything like that. I'm saying that they're all tied in together.

[edit on 11-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Taking in consideration that "Al-qaida" recruit were from almost every country in the middle east but mostly Saudi nationals, I will said that every single country in the world had Al-qaida ties including US too.

So what is the big deal, Saddam killed many and US knew about it, and now many are Dying in Iraq and Saddam has nothing to do with it.

Saddam had ties to Al-qaida well findings by US experts said he had none.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   
Saddam had at least three working terrorist training camps in Iraq.
Saddam financially suppored the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.
Saddam and his Baath party were terrorists of the Iraqi people.
Saddam paid off UN officials with billions of $$, so they would look the other way at his terror sprees in Iraq, which in my mind makes those
UN officials as bad as the terrorists themselves.
And then there are Saddam's terrorist "Arab Fedayeen" - remember them?

Considering this man's affiliations and his other terror ties ... I have no
doubt that it entirely possible that Al-Qaeda may indeed be just one
more to add to his demonic resume.

Interesting article with much more information on Saddam and his
terrorist ties -

www.imra.org.il...


[edit on 1/11/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
FlyersFan

Funny that everything was all peachy while Saddam was US friend after US tag him an enemy he became the devil incarnated.

It kind of make you wonder how the propaganda machine can turn around and convince the population of who is a friend and who is the enemy just because they said so.

I wonder where the heads of the state in the US were while shaking hands with Saddam and knowing that he was a "Tyrant, mass murderer and the devil incarnated"

It's just hypocrisy.

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and many other countries do the same but they are the friends at least for now.

And to tell you the true they had more to do with 9/11 that Saddam did.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
It's just hypocrisy.

It may be hypocrisy. But that doesn't change the fact
that Saddam was indeed up to his eyeballs in other
forms of terrorism. It isn't a stretch to think he'd include
Al-quada to his list.



to tell you the true they had more to do with 9/11 that Saddam did.


They may have had more to do with 9/11 than Saddam. But the
amount of involvement isn't important to this discussion. The
question is ... did he have Al-Qaeda ties? The answer is most
likely that he did.

Remember the first World Trade Center bombing? Did you know
the bomber had been taken care of financially by Saddam for
many years prior to the bombing?

There are too many 'coincidences' and considering Saddam's
background .... that makes an Al-Qaeda connection entirely
possible, if not likely.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It doesn't bother you that our government knew about all this but did anything to stop him?

Still Saddam was not the enemy but I bet my money that Saudi, Pakistan and Iran are just in that order more money has come out of saudi to finance terrorist than any other country in the world.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
It doesn't bother you that our government knew about
all this but did anything to stop him?


We just did stop him. And now you are complaining that we did.


Bush 41 wanted to go into Bagdad and stop him back in Gulf War I.
That was 15 years ago. But the UN told him not to, that he could
only take the coalition into Kuwait and as far into Iraq as it took to
liberate Kuwait. Bush 41 listened to the UN and did as they
directed. Major mistake. If Bush 41 had ignored the UN and gone
to Bagdad, then none of this would be happening now and there
would be hundreds of thousands of IRaqis who would have been
spared the next 15 years of Saddam's evil.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   
After the 1991 Gulf War, Saddam was allowed to stay in power because fears that removing him will bring Iraq into a long civil war and would turn the nation into an Iran like republic.

Taking in consideration what is going now in Iraq the US is taking all their time to ensure that is not civil war brewing in Iraq, but reports from Sunnis and Shiites alike about the struggles, assassinations and attacks on the population of either group is a very real sign that is just happening.

It’s clear that the US will keep insisting that is “Foreign Terrorist and Insurgents at fault”

Iraq was created after the British divided the provinces, US support for Saddam was mostly due because they needed somebody to hold that country together even if it was trough tyranny and scare tactics against the population that is composed of several ethnic groups that are divided into tribes ruled by Islamic clerics with different views of Islamic law.

Saddam was able to do just that keeping the clerics on house arrest and away from their groups.

US claiming that the struggles are cause by “Foreigners” is easy to support than telling the truth that the populations are fighting each others.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Yes but the more interesting question is how many nations have ties with Al Qaeda?


How about the USA? Since we are the ones who trained Bin Laden as a CIA operative? Does that not link us to AQ? I know, people will say that "you don't have the doccuments, so how do you know we trained him?" Yeah, give me a break, it's well known we sold weapons to Iraq AND trained Bin Laden.



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 02:06 PM
link   
We did not train Bin Laden, we offered support to the fighters in Afghanistan (taliban) who were fighting the Russians. He was a young man fighting there are the time, and this is where he cut his teeth, and made a name for himself, somewhat of a war hero for pushing back the Russain war machine. He is a soldier first and foremost, not a puppet. During the first gulf war, he asked his country of SA to allow his fighters to wage the conflict against Iraq, and he was denied. SA allowed US troops to enter their soil and OBL made it a point at this juncture to seek what could only be called revenge for his own selfish reasons of bieng pushed aside by his homeland. Soon comes the creation of Al-Qeada or the base.


Al-Qeada, or, the base, was a operation that was created with the sole intention of training and providing militant fighters for operations worldwide

www.fas.org...

That is another good link too that gives an idea of some links and how the media has worked the wording of the finding of the 9/11 commission. Remember, just becasue Hussien did not order 9/11, this does not mean that he did not support Al-qeada or provide any financing

www.csmonitor.com...



posted on Jan, 11 2006 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Thanks, esdad. You just saved me a lot of typing, trying to set the record straight.



SA allowed US troops to enter their soil and OBL made it a point at this juncture to seek what could only be called revenge for his own selfish reasons of bieng pushed aside by his homeland. Soon comes the creation of Al-Qeada or the base.

Supposedly, the mere presence of American troops on SA soil tightened OBL's jaw so much that this was the impetus behind all the terror acts to follow.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 08:43 AM
link   
".... Taking in consideration what is going now in Iraq the US is taking all their time to ensure that is not civil war brewing in Iraq, but reports from Sunnis and Shiites alike about the struggles, assassinations and attacks on the population of either group is a very real sign that is just happening.

It’s clear that the US will keep insisting that is “Foreign Terrorist and Insurgents at fault”

US claiming that the struggles are cause by “Foreigners” is easy to support than telling the truth that the populations are fighting each others.


REPLY: There are satellite films of people coming across the border as insurgents, and also intelligence from other countries confirming this... and communication intercepts, too. True, there are some of the old Baath Party members that are helping, but many gave up once Saddam was captured.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I dont want to start a firefight but...
Does anyone have any reliable statistics showing the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq in comparison to the actual Iraqi citizens fighting to keep the occupation out?
It just seems to me that all of the Pro-war supporters tout that MOST of the insurgents are Iranians, Syrians, etc...
It would seem to me that a lot of these people are simply fighting for Iraq, as a nation, not any terror groups. We instantly chalk any resistance up as terrorist, suicide bombing, ideologs, but maybe...just maybe...they are fighting to keep foreign influence out. I know if another country invaded my 'hood tonight you would have some freakin warfare. We wouldnt be fighting for Bush, or God, or any other aspect of the establishment. We would be fighting to keep a foreign occupation out.
As I have said numerous times on these boards, you cannot force a way of life on a group of people that dont want it, no matter how much better that way of life may be. I wish the Iraqis could enjoy the things we enjoy in the states, but they have to want it. You cant force-feed Freedom.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by DaFunk13]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
True, there are some of the old Baath Party members that are helping, but many gave up once Saddam was captured.


Saddam's supporters 'gave up'? I haven't read or heard that anywhere. Do you have any source on that? I mean, they seem a mighty strong-minded bunch to 'give up'. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'd just like to see a source on it.


Originally posted by zappafan1
REPLY: There are satellite


zappafan, please learn about proper quoting of other members here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

and quoting of external sources here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It's important.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Does anyone have any reliable statistics showing the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraq in comparison to the actual Iraqi citizens fighting to keep the occupation out?


Reliable? Probably not. But here's a thread on ATS that has sources that claim that foreign insurgency is about 5 %, with 95% being Iraqis that want the occupying forces out.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unfortunately, most of the links presented point to the same page and further searching is necessary to get to the old articles, but several links in the thread are still active (Souljah's). And it's a good thread.



I wish the Iraqis could enjoy the things we enjoy in the states, but they have to want it. You cant force-feed Freedom.


I'm not religious, but "Amen"! Truer words were never spoken!







 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join