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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   
Come on people, the "Weekly standard" is as biased in its reporting as the "Völkischer Beobachter" was.


If there are so "reliable" documents that "proof" all the talk about "8000 terrorist fighters" why does the Bush- Junta, pressed over Iraq as hard as never before, doesn`t show them to the public? Do you really think it would be a prob for Scotty in the White House to make a stand and show up in all headlines with such "hot" informations?

And if there were those training camps, big enough to educate some 8000 terrorists in just a few years, why are there no satellite images of them? And btw- why should Saddam train his bitter enemies?




"We need your intention to be to fight for the sake of God, not for nationalism or any infidel regime, including Iraq. ... "

(...)

"And it doesn't harm in these conditions the interest of Muslims to agree with those of the socialists in fighting against the crusaders, even though we believe the socialists are infidels. For the socialists and the rulers have lost their legitimacy a long time ago, and the socialists are infidels regardless of where they are, whether in Baghdad or in Aden. ... "


bin Laden message, February 2003

Bin Laden and his cronies hated Saddam and even called him an infidel- in their view a form of death- sentence. If they were ever allied, wouldn`t Osama have used some more diplomatic words?


Conclusion: The "Weekly Standard" reports BS without any proof and anybody using this as an argument for the ongoing, brutal imperial war is a warmonger or helpless naive.

Bilderberger




posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
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.


OR ... the UN insisted that he stay in power, despite his massive
human rights violations, because they didn't want to interrupt the
ILLEGAL flow of oil into Syria (a nation on the UN Security Council),
Jordan, and other countries and they were set to make BILLIONS in
illegal $$$ from Saddam being in power.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by marg6043
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.


OR ... the UN insisted that he stay in power, despite his massive
human rights violations, because they didn't want to interrupt the
ILLEGAL flow of oil into Syria (a nation on the UN Security Council),
Jordan, and other countries and they were set to make BILLIONS in
illegal $$$ from Saddam being in power.


Yeah, that was the only reason, sure...



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   
2 Ways of looking at this issue. FIRST - the govt., mainly BUSH & STAFF, want SWEEP UNDER THE CARPET, the fact that he totally screwed up during the first few hours, days, weeks, months, and years following the WTC 'Attacks' . Even, AFTER he was informed that a plane had hit the WTC bldg, he remained in that classroom, reading a book to children. He stayed there for (what was it) 7 minutes!
Finally, he came out. In the beginning, when he got his sh#t together, he portrayed it to be Saddam. Then,al Qaeda. AND SO ON. AND ON AND ON.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
FACT: Bush used the WTC attacks EVERY chance he got. ONCE, the WH got their business together they began to WORK that angle every chance they got.
Terror and Terrorism is WHY HE WAS REELECTED and WHY 'we' attacked and 'why' a President, that's approval ratings were SO LOW, who had not made the economy better, but worse, who had not created any REAL new jobs for US Citizens, was so popular.
BUSH used our hear ache to his advantage, and continues to do so.
We went from NO NUCLEAR ARMS I IRAQ to "THE MOST LETHAL WEAPONS EVER DEVISED', as stated by BUSH. Aug. 6, 2001.

CHECK IT OUT.

"You can't distinguish between Saddam & al Qaeda" ~BUSH
The fact is, that al Qaeda, Bin Laden, DID meet with Saddam, but their religious, political, and military differences kept them from REALLY working together. The media and other WH sources NEVER actually came out and said they were working together, they JUST ELUDED TO IT.
Coincidences lead us to the fact that CONSERVATIVE POLITICIANS & MONEY MONGERS in Washington, had been wanting a REASON to attack Iraq for YEARS. THEY GOT THE CHANCE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Polls taken in 2005, reveal that MORE people in the USA are AGAINST THE WAR & THAT THEY BELIEVE THE CONGRESS< WHITE HOUSE > POLITICIANS DO NOT HAVE THEIR BEST INTERESTS AR HEART. People are waking up to the fact that the US GOVT( POLITICIANS MOST OF THEM) has their OWN agendas at heart and will 'market' any chance they get( Terry Shivago, Indian Gaming, ETCETC) TO FURTHER THEIR PLANS, MOTIVES, & INTERESTS.....
It's slowly coming out, but NO ONE IS LISTENING.....they are too busy watching SURVIVOR & the Biggest Loser, to REALLY CARE ...

*NOTE* If this offends anyone, SORRY. These are FACTS LACED WITH A BIT OF MY OPINION, here adn there.
CHECK IT OUT:
www . fas . org / irag / 1999 / a19990303bush . htm
indian . senate . gov
www. govtrack. us /congress/record.xpd?id=109-s20050317-7&bill=s109-653
factcheck. org
news.findlaw.com / hdocs/terrorism/80601pdb. html
.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Flyers US knew that Saddam was giving oil to Syria it was not secret, but it was allowed to do it anyway.

Is nothing in the middle east that US didn't know about it.

So is no excuses here but what US allowed other countries to do until it feels that is time to do something about it.

Usually when is to late.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   


Since when is the weekly standard a bias source?


The Weekly Standard is the publication most closely tied with the "neocon" philosophy. Bill Kristol, a prominent neocon writer, is it's founder and editor, and it still exists as a business entity because it's funded to the tune of $3M/yr from Rupert Murdoch. Kristol is one of the primary founders of the infamous PNAC as well.

They were also pushing for the Iraq War immediately after 9/11, to the point of calling for the US to ignore Afghanistan and OBL in favor of attacking Iraq (from American Conservative):


In the first issue the magazine published after 9/11, Gary Schmitt and Tom Donnelly, two employees of Kristol’s PNAC, clarified what ought to be the country’s war aims. Their rhetoric—which laid down a line from which the magazine would not waver over the next 18 months—was to link Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden in virtually every paragraph, to join them at the hip in the minds of readers, and then to lay out a strategy that actually gave attacking Saddam priority over eliminating al-Qaeda. The first piece was illustrated with a caricature of Saddam, not bin Laden, and the proposed operational plan against bin Laden was astonishingly soft. “While it is probably not necessary to go to war with Afghanistan, a broad approach will be required, ” they wrote. Taliban failure to help root out bin Laden ought to be “rewarded by aid to its Afghan opposition.” Presumably Ramsey Clark was tendering advice more dovish than this, but it could not have been by much.

Against Saddam, by contrast, no such caution was contemplated. “To be sure,” the PNAC duo intoned, “Usama bin Laden and his organization should be a prime target in this campaign. ... But the larger campaign must also go after Saddam Hussein. He might well be implicated in this week’s attacks … or he might not. But as with bin Laden, we have long known that Saddam is our enemy, and that he would strike us as hard as he could. ...The only reasonable course when faced with such foes is to preempt and to strike first.” “Eliminating Saddam,” they concluded, “is the key to restoring our regional dominance.


The Weekly Standard has been pushing the Saddam = Public Enemy #1 line for quite a while now, the newest article is not some shocking revelation, but the continuation of a political campaign that has been going on for years. They were one of the primary intellectual instigators of the push to war in Iraq, and they're still pulling out all the stops to justify it. Read the American Conservative article I liked above, it's some eye-opening reportage from a source that can hardly be accused of "left-wing bias."


[edit on 1/12/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

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.

A previous quote from you FF

Saddam had at least three working terrorist training camps in Iraq.

brings something to mind. I remember back in '03, when the Iraq-Al Qaeda link was first being discussed, that there was mention of an al Qaeda training camp somewhere in northeast Iraq; they were teaching recruits how to handle ricin, if I recall. Supposedly, even Saddam's supporters in the west admitted to the existence of the camp. But they tried to defend it by saying that it didn't prove that Saddam collaborated with al Qaeda; he only let it operate because he didn't want to ruffle al Qaeda's feathers by kicking them out. He feared retaliation.

Also, as far as collaboration, Zarqawi got treatment for his leg in a Baghdad military hospital. The leg had been injured in Afghanistan.



posted on Jan, 12 2006 @ 01:16 PM
link   



Originally posted by Souljah

Who's that Man Shaking Hands with Saddam?

Arrest that Man!

He has Sold Weapons to Terrorists!

Arrest that Man!


What does this have to do with anything?


Surley That Has Everything to do with it, pot calling the kettle back me finks!



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by DaFunk13
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]


REPLY: While I was there, 90% of the folks I talked to... and I made it a point to talk to as many as possible, the Iraqis want us there for as long as it takes for Iraq to defend itself. They don't want freedom??? The huge number of voters would tend to validate that they want to control their government and have a say as to how they are governed.... it is THEIR thoughts on the matter that count most, and no-one else's.

You just don't get the concept: We don't force our ideals on the people in any country... we force freedom and liberty down the throats of tyrants and dictators, so the people can decide for themselves. A secular form of government in Iraq would be the best thing as to the freedom of everyone in Iraq, and that's especially true for the women there. However, whatever they vote for, in the end it will still be better than the oppressive government they had under Saddam and his two sons.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilderberger
Come on people, the "Weekly standard" is as biased in its reporting as the "Völkischer Beobachter" was.


REPLY: You haven't done much reading there, have you? No, because most of what they say is in opposition to some of your mis-guided beliefs..... or what you were taught to believe. Many times they have had articles that cast a negative light on some of the things the current administration has done.

"....If there are so "reliable" documents that "proof" all the talk about "8000 terrorist fighters" why does the Bush- Junta, pressed over Iraq as hard as never before, doesn`t show them to the public? Do you really think it would be a prob for Scotty in the White House to make a stand and show up in all headlines with such "hot" informations?"

REPLY: There ARE a few people.... Rumsfeld is one, who is trying to get those documents released. The documents being discussed were Iraqi documents. Bush has no control over whether they get released or not, and some may not be released as they might compromise current or future operations and put soldiers, or Iraqi citizens, at risk.

".... And if there were those training camps, big enough to educate some 8000 terrorists in just a few years, why are there no satellite images of them? And btw- why should Saddam train his bitter enemies?


REPLY: Why would Saddam train his enemies? Then you haven't read... or you didn't understand, what was presented in the documents. Ever hear "... the enemy of my enemy is my friend" ? It's happened many, many times in history.
As to the training camps, no-one said it was one big camp. Remember, Iraq is as large as California.

"....Al-Shamari also told me that the links between Saddam's regime and the al-Qaeda network went beyond Ansar al Islam. He explained in considerable detail that Saddam actually ordered Abu Wael to organize foreign fighters from outside Iraq to join Ansar. Al-Shamari estimated that some 150 foreign fighters were imported from al Qaeda clusters in Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Egypt, and Lebanon to fight with Ansar al Islam's Kurdish fighters.

Links: www.frontpagemag.com...
www.frontpagemag.com...
www.nationalreview.com...
You should also google "mother of all connections".

As to the satellite images:
www.edwardjayepstein.com...
www.asjewelers.com/FRstuff/salman_pac_small.jpg
finewhyfine.typepad.com... (showing plane used to train highjackers)
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.spiceisle.com...

"...Conclusion: The "Weekly Standard" reports BS without any proof and anybody using this as an argument for the ongoing, brutal imperial war is a warmonger or helpless naive."

REPLY: The same info as presented by the WS is available from many sources. You are only shooting the messenger because you don't like the message. So sad. As to proof.... you won't investigate or acknowledge any proof that contadicts you views.

You quote Karl Marx? 'Nuff said..... Ignore!!!

(edit for structure)


[edit on 13-1-2006 by zappafan1]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1
...we force freedom and liberty down the throats of tyrants and dictators...


I'm sorry, but that's just funny!



However, whatever they vote for, in the end it will still be better than the oppressive government they had under Saddam and his two sons.


Are you sure about that? You do know that the people of Iraq voted for Saddam to be their president, right?

[edit on 13-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm sorry, but that's just funny!



However, whatever they vote for, in the end it will still be better than the oppressive government they had under Saddam and his two sons.


Are you sure about that? You do know that the people of Iraq voted for Saddam to be their president, right?

[edit on 13-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

No, the "election" you speak about is what's funny, BH. This the one you're talking about?

The Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, topped his personal best election performance by securing 100% of the vote in yesterday's referendum, election officials said today.
Voters awarded the 65-year-old president another seven year term of office, some marking their yes-or-no ballots with bloody fingerprints as a sign of loyalty.
Vote

Yeah, that was an fair election.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
What's the problem? They elected him, didnt' they? What are you saying? They showed their loyalty to him by marking their ballots with blood. What's unfair about it?

Please, instead of being sarcastic, can you tell me the problem you have with Iraq's pre-war elections?

From your link:



Iraqis in Baghdad could be heard firing in the air in celebration after Mr Ibrahim's announcement of the results in parliament.
...
Clusters of men took to the streets, dancing, at the news. One of them, Nabir Khaled Yusef, a van driver, said: "My feeling is of happiness. This referendum and the 100% shows that all Iraqis are ready to defend their country and leader."

Mahmoud Amin, a retired civil servant, said: "This is a great day to celebrate. We are not surprised with the 100% vote for the president, because all Iraqis are steadfast to their president, who has been known to them for 30 years."


Just because it's not like the USA doesn't mean it's wrong. Saddam was elected president by the people of his country. And zappafan1 seemed to think they're going to do something wildly different and 'better' next time...

I'm just saying the people elected Saddam. Did they not?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:59 PM
link   
BH,

The penalty for not voting for Saddam is death by touture. You didn't find the 100% vote to be a little odd?

-- Boat



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   


Originally posted by DaFunk13
I dont want to start a firefight but...
Does anyone have any reliable statistics showing the percentage of foreign fighters in Iraqin comparison to the actual Iraqi citizens fighting to keep the occupation out?




Brookings Institute PDF

ESTIMATED STRENGTH OF (IRAQ) INSURGENCY NATIONWIDE
October 2005: 15,000 – 20,000

ESTIMATED NUMBER OF FOREIGN FIGHTERS IN THE INSURGENCY (IRAQ)
October 2005: 700 – 2,000



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boatphone
BH,

The penalty for not voting for Saddam is death by touture. You didn't find the 100% vote to be a little odd?

-- Boat


While I'd love to just take your word for that... Got a link?



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:07 PM
link   


Salam Jihad, a secular-minded fellow journalist, is less certain if he will vote. Under Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Jihad supported Iraq's communist party because it seemed all-inclusive of ethnic groups, religious sects and women. He has regularly received death threats against himself and his family, who live in a neighborhood filled with Islamists and former Baathists.


www.pittsburghlive.com...


There is a link from an Iraqi about Saddams death threats, generally enforced by his son and his secret police.


www.msnbc.msn.com...



The Iraqi people have this great hunger to participate," said Maggy Zanger, who directed the Institute for the War and Peace Reporting journalism-training program in Iraq. "For them, it is extremely important because they really do want to have a say in the national government."



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
While I'd love to just take your word for that... Got a link?


Yes. I can't believe you don't know this.




Link.

"You can't have free elections when the electorate goes to the polls in the knowledge that they have only one candidate, that candidate routinely murders and tortures opponents of the regime and the penalty for slandering that sole candidate is to have one's tongue cut out."


arabnews.com...
-- Boat



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
But you take the results of the recent elections in Iraq as valid, don't you? These people voted under threat of death, but they still voted.

Why are the recent elections valid and the ones for Saddam were not?

I'd sure like to hear about this from someone other than you two (Boatphone and esdad71). No offense, really, but I don't know about this and I'd like to hear both sides of this issue and I'm not convinced I"m getting an objective viewpoint from you guys.


I know it's not like a US election or anything that looks like democracy to us, but I'm pretty much convinced that a majority of Saddam's people wanted him in power, even if it wasn't 100%.

Even if it was 51%...


[edit on 13-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Man, I get beat down whereever I go.

www.google.com...

Follow that link and it will give you objective views.


thinkprogress.org...

This is about recent evidence discovered linking the 2



new topics




 
0
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join