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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
I think certain people are missing the point of what Benevolent Heretic is saying.

Unless I am greatly mistaken she is saying that despite his evil image in the west he did have a base of support among Iraqis a rather significant base I might add. Like Benevolent heretic said we don't really know what kind of support Saddam had we only know what we've been told.


Have you seen the newsreel in which Saddam, in one of his first initial acts as "president", stood at the podium and named names of members of the audience whom he considered traitors. One by one, the "traitors" were escorted from the room as their names were called out.

This is what his "base of support" was built upon.

As far as support from businessmen, that is highly debatable. Saddam would take inside knowledge of the Iraq stock market and rob it blind.

To attempt to paint this fear for one's life as "support" is naivete at it's best. Or propaganda, whichever way you look at it.





posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by zappafan1

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.


Yes, they mutate to critics if their neocon- agenda isn`t fitted by Bushs politics.


Originally posted by zappafan1
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.


Come on, thats totaly stupid BS- why should they stop the release of documents that proof their standpoints? One can black out everything that could "Compromise current or future operations" and it would improve the justification for the war- why shouldn*t they do it?! It`s also BS that Bush has "no control" over the release- he is the president, remember? There is no law that could hinder him to use those "documents" if they would exist.


Originally posted by zappafan1
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.


Yeah, sure thats a historical constant- but why should Saddam train bitter enemies of him in his own country? The Islamists of Ansar al Islam (who had a camp in iraqi Kurdistan, out of Saddams control) fought him to the knife- and they had close ties to AQ. It would be more than stupid to train those guys to overthrow his regime while it also gave a justification for the US to invade.


Originally posted by zappafan1
As to the training camps, no-one said it was one big camp. Remember, Iraq is as large as California.


Yeah, one can train 8000 terrorists in some mud- huts...



Originally posted by zappafan1
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.


And those "sources" are not biased? I`ve not seen anything about those documents in NYT, WP, CNN, even foxnews- why ist hat?


Originally posted by zappafan1
You quote Karl Marx? 'Nuff said..... Ignore!!!


Yeah, I quote Marx. If you would think a moment about the quote, you would see the importance of his words in your own case. But I guess you are just to ´wide of the line of ratonal thought to only consider it.

Bilderberger



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   


Damn!

How Could I not See that before!




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 07:29 AM
link   
Poor Souljah


The proven links between Saddam and terrorism have
already been posted. Obviously you didn't read any
of them. Either that, or you did and you dismissed them
because they don't fit into your agenda.

Go back and reread the links posted ... the links about
the terrorist training camps ... the links about his financial
support for the first World Trade Center bomber ... the
links about his financial support for the families of
Palestinian Homicide Terrorist bombers ... the links about
Saddams own WMD terrorism against the Kurds ... the
links about Saddams terrorism against the Iraqis....
the links about Saddams Fadayeen ... etc etc etc

www.imra.org.il...

The truth is all there. Like it or not.
Which obviously you don't like...




[edit on 1/16/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The proven links between Saddam and terrorism have
already been posted.

But Ofcourse.

Sadly the Facts of this Matter are Completly Against You.

There are MORE links connecting US Goverment to Al-Qaeda then with Saddam.


BBC - Power of Nightmares

"International Terrorism - Al-Qaeda is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media."

There is NO DOUBT, that International Terrorism can quickly mean NOTHING without the International Corporate Media.

Answer yourself next Questions:


Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?

  • If Osama bin Laden does, in fact, head a vast international terrorist organization with trained operatives in more than 40 countries, as claimed by Bush, why, despite torture of prisoners, has this administration failed to produce hard evidence of it?

  • How can it be that in Britain since 9/11, 664 people have been detained on suspicion of terrorism but only 17 have been found guilty, most of them with no connection to Islamist groups and none who were proven members of Al Qaeda?

  • Why have we heard so much frightening talk about "dirty bombs" when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people?

  • Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on "Meet the Press" in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing?

There are TOO MANY Questions - and not Enough Answers.

Once you get to Understand, that Al-Qaeda is a Phantom Enemy, a Fascade created for sole Purpose - to DIVERT the Attention from the Real Dangerous Enemy of the Free World.



Consider, for example, that neither the 9/11 commission nor any court of law has been able to directly take evidence from the key post-9/11 terror detainees held by the United States. Everything we know comes from two sides that both have a great stake in exaggerating the threat posed by Al Qaeda: the terrorists themselves and the military and intelligence agencies that have a vested interest in maintaining the facade of an overwhelmingly dangerous enemy.

And all the Showdown on the Trial and the entire Saddam-AlQaeda Connection is also a Fascade to prevent us from seeing the BIGGER Picture.

[edit on 16/1/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Sadly the Facts of this Matter are Completly Against You.

No. They are not. The facts are that Saddam absolutely
did have al-qaeda links and links to other terrorisms.
THAT is the subject line of this thread. It has been proven
time and time again.


There are MORE links connecting US Goverment
to Al-Qaeda then with Saddam.


Different subject. Even if there are more links by the
US government to terrorism (there aren't, but even if
there was) that wouldn't change the FACT that Saddam
absolutely was tied to Al-Qaeda and many other terrorisms.
That is what the title and purpose of this thread are -
Saddam's terrorist ties. It has been proven. Case closed.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 08:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
No. They are not. The facts are that Saddam absolutely
did have al-qaeda links

NEWSFLASH:
There is No Al-Qaeda!
It's an Illusion!
They lied to all of Us - Again!



and links to other terrorisms.

And I remember I presented Saddam's Links to Other Terrorisms on Page ONE of this silly Thread - Post Number: 1913588 (post id: 1935481):


Originally posted by Souljah
Members of American Goverment Ties to Saddam Regimes of Terror!!!


U.S.-Iraqi arms transfers



Evidence-A

Donald Rumsfeld meeting Saddam on 19 December–20, 1983. Rumsfeld visited again on 24 March 1984; the same day the UN released a report that Iraq had used mustard and Tabun nerve gas against Iranian troops. The NY Times reported from Baghdad on 29 March 1984, that "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with Iraq and the U.S., and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been established in all but name."

Who's that Man Shaking Hands with Saddam?

Arrest that Man!

He has Sold Weapons to Terrorists!

Arrest that Man!


How can you Comment Saddam's Links to Reagan Administration and how well the United States SUPPORTED Saddam's Dictatorship.

Still - do you think the Court will Present that part of EVIDENCE?



That is what the title and purpose of this thread are -
Saddam's terrorist ties.

You know whats even more Scarier?

That US Goverment was Connected to Saddam AND to Al-Qaeda and Funded and Supported BOTH Terrorisms for a Number of Years.

Still, that does not Matter, right?

Show Must go On.

[edit on 16/1/06 by Souljah]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Rumsfeld was not there during that handshake to SELL them weapons. He was sent there by Reagan as an envoy to re-establsih diplomatic relations with Iraq. During this negotiatiing time, they used Mustard gas on Iranian soldiers.We had nothing to do with that and condemned the act. we did not sell them the weapons. Do a little research and find out what he was really doing because a picture is worth a thousand words, but only if it is
the truth.

We did however sell them helicopters in the mid 80's that some say were used in some checnical attacks, so that may be where the link came from.

www.whitehouse.gov...

Please give the above a reasd about what Saddam did after he was readded to the list of 7 known terror supporting nations.



[edit on 16-1-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by FlyersFan
The proven links between Saddam and terrorism have
already been posted.


Sadly the Facts of this Matter are Completly Against You.

There are MORE links connecting US Goverment to Al-Qaeda then with Saddam.

No there aren't. But even if there were, what does that have to do what FF has stated:

... the links about
the terrorist training camps ... the links about his financial
support for the first World Trade Center bomber ... the
links about his financial support for the families of
Palestinian Homicide Terrorist bombers ... the links about
Saddams own WMD terrorism against the Kurds ... the
links about Saddams terrorism against the Iraqis....
the links about Saddams Fadayeen ... etc etc etc

Absolutely nuthin'!


from Souljah
NEWSFLASH:
There is No Al-Qaeda!
It's an Illusion!
They lied to all of Us - Again!

They lied to all of us? Including Slovenia?

And why would we care about Slovenia, anyway?


[edit on 16-1-2006 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Souljah,

The United States was friendly with Iraq when we needed Iraq's help to fight the Soviet Union. It was in our best interest to work with Saddam at that point. There is nothing wrong with that...

...then we find that Saddam started making trouble in the middle-east and helping terrorists, and spewing anti-American hate. Saddam was known to have WMD's, and we could not take the risk of him really having any (I mean we all know he had used them in the past). So, then we had to bring Saddam down.

The world is not as simple as you may what to think...

-- Boat



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Poor Souljah


The proven links between Saddam and terrorism have
already been posted. Obviously you didn't read any
of them. Either that, or you did and you dismissed them
because they don't fit into your agenda.

Go back and reread the links posted ... the links about
the terrorist training camps ... the links about his financial
support for the first World Trade Center bomber ... the
links about his financial support for the families of
Palestinian Homicide Terrorist bombers ... the links about
Saddams own WMD terrorism against the Kurds ... the
links about Saddams terrorism against the Iraqis....
the links about Saddams Fadayeen ... etc etc etc

www.imra.org.il...

The truth is all there. Like it or not.
Which obviously you don't like...


[edit on 1/16/2006 by FlyersFan]


Souljah is anti-everything. I've tried to get him to ask questions about his thoughts on different things, or his ideas as to how peace could be won without wars, but he consistantly ignores them. Most of the time his posts are nothing more than one-shot personal opinions, with no reputable sources or facts. For a while it was humorous.... but after seeing a couple of his posts in this thread, I chose the "ignore" button. I hate to do that, but I'm also glad the option is there.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
NEWSFLASH:
There is No Al-Qaeda!
It's an Illusion!
They lied to all of Us - Again!

Define truth....
There aint no truth souljah, its just a horrible mess of gray.
Al-Qaeda is what you think it is....or not as the case seems with you...

One question I have to ask you though souljah, if indeed the US is making the Al-Qaeda threat up...then care to explain how its lasted over several governments or are they ALL working together?



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
"Quotes"by Bilderberger
REPLIES by zappafan1

".... Yes, they mutate to critics if their neocon- agenda isn`t fitted by Bushs politics."

REPLY: "Neocon" is a made up word, like "hispanic", that means absolutely nothing, but it IS indicative of the mindset of those that use them.


".... Come on, thats totaly stupid BS- why should they stop the release of documents that proof their standpoints? One can black out everything that could "Compromise current or future operations" and it would improve the justification for the war- why shouldn*t they do it?! It`s also BS that Bush has "no control" over the release- he is the president, remember? There is no law that could hinder him to use those "documents" if they would exist."

REPLY: No, it is YOU who know nothing about these things, obviously. Bush cannot order the documents to be released, and there ARE laws pertaining to the release of anything which would relate to, or be indicative of, possible intelligence sources or information.


".... Yeah, sure thats a historical constant- but why should Saddam train bitter enemies of him in his own country? The Islamists of Ansar al Islam (who had a camp in iraqi Kurdistan, out of Saddams control) fought him to the knife- and they had close ties to AQ. It would be more than stupid to train those guys to overthrow his regime while it also gave a justification for the US to invade."

REPLY: If you can't answer that question after reading the info in all of the links provided, then there's no hope of you understanding the concept.

".... Yeah, one can train 8000 terrorists in some mud- huts."

REPLY: You obviously didn't look at the photos on the links..... no mud huts there. By the way, one can leanr many things in a mud hut. However, the 8000 number was spread out over a 3 year time period.

".... And those "sources" are not biased? I`ve not seen anything about those documents in NYT, WP, CNN, even foxnews- why ist hat?"

REPLY: Then you didn't see the articles of shows that I did. Oh... like CNN of the NYT isn't biased? HA HA HA HA


".... Yeah, I quote Marx. If you would think a moment about the quote, you would see the importance of his words in your own case."

REPLY: Nothing of what Marx said is of any importance, except for showing his ignorance. A guy who was a know-it-all concerning economics.. who ran through his inheritance (he never worked for a living) like it was water, and couldn't even balance his own check book. Yeah.... smart guy!




top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join