Case Closed: Saddam and Osama Connection

Levels of involvement with or between Hussien and Bin-Hiden or any other body aiding him are irrellevant. An old law man once said when you raid a cathouse, you take the piano player too.

The US spent most of the decade of the 90s trying tolerance for people who were intolerant of anything different than they practiced. This time is over and if you are one of the many who wish return the US to a state of blindness to what is being plotted in the middle east by endless message board posts, I fear you are wasting time that might be better spent on self-improvement. Oh sure, here come the witty little replies one after another but at the end of the day, your goal is no closer because even though you take great pains to word and re-word the propaghanda, militant Islam is no closer to world domination than it was this morning and probably farther behind. You all deal in "what ifs" but I, like most of people of the US enjoy the reality that the once brewing viper's nest in the middle east has come to know just how weak in the face of justice they are.

Saddam is gone. Bin-Hiden isn't far behind. The world of terror has taken a major blow and is running scared. Words will not change it but I enjoy reading your efforts so lets get right to it shall we?

First off, Osama and Saddam would be like Jerry Falwell as Clinton's vice-President.

Astro: Remember, the biggest supporter of Taliban and, indirectly, Al-Qaeda was the US. So, in this invasion of the cathouse, are we really going to snatch the piano player too?

Originally posted by Jakomo
........Seeker: There was NO connection between Osama and Saddam before the US-led invasion. Osama called Saddam an infidel for his secularism (women are able to walk around in Iraq without a burqa, they can drive, hold jobs, etc.).

Really Jak....
"In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq, the indictment said."
Page 4; Post Number: 260021

Also Jak:
"Your hypothosis that Al-Qaeda would not and will not work with Iraq is half "fact" at best:
Again:
Really Jak?!?
Try this :
"Taken from an Osama bin Laden audiotape" February 12, 2003:

"Under these circumstances, there will be no harm if the interests of Muslims converge with the interests of the socialists in the fight against the crusaders, despite our belief in the infidelity of socialists.
The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.

Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden.

The fighting, which is waging and which will be waged these days, is very much like the fighting of Muslims against the Byzantine in the past.

And the convergence of interests is not detrimental. The Muslims' fighting against the Byzantine converged with the interests of the Persians.

And this was not detrimental to the Companions of The Prophet."

Al-Qaeda training chief Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj to Saudi magazineal-Majallah, May 25, 2003:

"Allah has turned to him [Saddam Hussein] with forgiveness. He declared jihad and did not recognize Israel. There is nothing to bar cooperation with a Muslim who has made jihad his course and way for liberating the holy lands."

I will also refer to to Post Number:264341"
From post number: 260082, this same thread.

You then spout off, as if with factual relevence, that Al-Qaeda had NO connections with Saddam prior to US "warmongering".....again Jak, really?
""Arab diplomatic sources said al-Qaida began sending top operatives to Iraq in October 2002 as part of an agreement with then-President Saddam Hussein."
From Post Number: 260467, this same thread.

Originally posted by Jakomo
BUT, if you give him a choice between fighting Saddam or the US which would he choose? He may even ask Saddam for help and vice versa.

So if there's any collusion between Al Qaeeda and Hussein it came about because of American aggressiveness. AFTER 9-11. Maybe just after Afghanistan, who knows.

But they were opposed in many many ways before that. The US just gave them a common enemy to unite against. For self-preservation in Saddam's case.

Your contradicting yourself Jak and using the word "collusion" in place of "connection"....and "AFTER" in place of "BEFORE"......sweet, knock yourself out.

Your reply does not cover what I mentioned in regards to this:
"Amazing how those Arab nations and "secular" groups do business, eh? Imagine, Saddam and Osama/Al-Qaeda cannot fundementally or secularly work together and yet, Saddam can turn around and be perfectly content to protect his best aircraft from coalition destruction, by sending them to his most hated neighbor, Iran! You know, the same Iran that today is the home of some of the most fundamentalist forms of Islam?!

Even more about this supposed "secular" theory, is that is fails when compared to history: Example: Germany considered and thought that Japan was an "inferior" race, had geo and political idelogical differences, and despite these and more differences, they had no problem signing an alliance or allying with each other."




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 25-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Seekerof..................

Youre gonna need more than "Bin Laden Audio Tapes" and dubious articles about prisoners interrogated.

What we need is opposition or neutral party proof that the connection exists. Otherwise, were just taking the word of american and allied forces. And we know how reliable THAT is.

I still say youre chasing spider farts on this. I have seen nothing to convince me otherwise. I am 95% sure no such connection exists. It defies the logic of religous fanatiscism and political intrigue.

Perhaps Skadi, and then again perhaps not.
Lets hope, for the sake of discussion on this, that Bin Laden isn't caught or caught alive? Because if he is, how much will be revealed or drawn out of him concerning this issue?

Will Bin Laden's own disclosing of information on "his connections" also go unheeded or dismissed as "skeptical source" and such? Then again, he would simply deny all and any such connections, as any man caught and captured would, correct?




regards
seekerof

[Edited on 28-2-2004 by Seekerof]

One question:

Why are all the connections being made between the two (mostly from statements and tapes) all coming from the year 2003? Well after we started our invasion of Iraq...

I believe that after we starting attacking a muslim country UBL's group did in fact begin supporting Iraq but what I want to see is some evidence from 9/10/01 or earlier.

Try some of the information provided native, has come from a variety of dates and years....1998+/-


regards
seekerof

Captured, Seekerof? Dont you mean......extracted from the CIA safehouse hes probably in?

Thats just one possibility. Of course, if the US captures him you KNOW for a fact thaT HE WILL CONFIRM everything we have said about him. Do you really think they will publicize otherwise?

I think not. Not unless it slips out, in which case, they will correct it.

I have seen this story played out 1000 times and so on. Its a very predictable scenario.

There still is no realy believable evidence the two were in cahoots, only very hard facts and logic to show the two were diamterically opposed, and Al Qaedas support for Iraqi insurrgents was not support for Hussein, but a case of protecting a Muslim nation from invasion.

Well, as we all now, the world continues to turn and the with such, news continues to be given by various media sources throughout the world.
I find it amazing that when this topic/thread was first presented, it was vehemently met with denial of "evidences and proofs", despite what was given. This will likely continue.

As such, with the recent findings and admission of the 9/11 commission hearings, the most recent "headliner" to entertain an interview with the 9/11 commission was the ex-terrorism czar, Mr Clarke. Mr Clarke has also released a book, which he details and admits many things, but before we indulge his book, lets look at what Mr. Clarke has said on "60 Minutes" and then to the 9/11 commission, while under oath:

"There�s absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda," said former White House counterrorism official Richard Clarke...

The National Interest: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Interesting that Mr Clarke would profess such when in his upcoming book, Against All Enemies, he states with utmost certainty that Iraq and Al-Qaeda were linked, were working together, and there was a 'connection':

....reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq.
In his book, Clarke describes how the Clinton CIA determined in 1996 that Sudan's Shifa chemical plant, which was allegedly bankrolled by bin Laden, was producing the chemical EMPTA.

Clarke: Iraq Teamed Up With bin Laden to Produce WMDs

Very interesting, indeed.
CIA Director George Tenet, in 2002, testifying before the Senate Intelligence Committee made this statement:

"We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

The National Interest: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Further clarification on this:

The CIA has had �solid reporting� of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda over the past 10 years, Tenet wrote in the letter. The contacts have discussed safe haven arrangements and reciprocal nonaggresssion, he wrote. Since the war on terrorism began last year, there has been evidence that al-Qaeda members have been in Iraq, including Baghdad, he wrote.

�We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities,� Tenet wrote. �The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs� (New York Times, Oct. 8).

Iraq: Baghdad Unlikely to Attack Without Provocation, Tenet Says

Note that the CIA Director said the above in 2002. Also note that he mentions that the CIA has had such intelligence confirming or detailing such an interaction between Al-Qaeda and Saddam/Iraq for 10 years. That would mean since 1992!

Powells Proofs:
Powell's Proof of Al-Qaeda and Iraqi Ties

Mr Clarke further says on "60 Minutes":

...he never saw a single intelligence report linking al Qaeda to Baghdad.

And yet military sources within his sphere of control have stated:

...the statement is ridiculous. There are lists of intelligence reports linking al Qaeda operatives to Saddam Hussein's regime.

Then you have the ex-Secretary of State, William Cohen saying things like this before the 9/11 commission, under oath:

"You had a plant that was built under the following circumstances," Mr. Cohen testified. "You had a manager that went to Baghdad. You had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least, the corporation; and you had traces of EMPTA [a precursor to VX gas]. And you did what? You did nothing? Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense? And the answer is pretty clear."

Inside the Ring

Then these:
Clinton-Era Reports Cited Saddam-bin Laden Ties: Variety of articles pre-2000

From GlobalSecurity.org:
OSAMA BIN LADIN AND IRAQ: 1999

Other related articles:
Bin Laden and Iraq: Pre-2000
Saddam link to Bin Laden: 1999
Document links Saddam, bin Laden
The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden

Iraqi intelligence documents discovered in Baghdad by The Telegraph have provided the first evidence of a direct link between Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'eda terrorist network and Saddam Hussein's regime.

Saddam's Terror Ties: Iraq-war critics ignore ample evidence.


seekerof

I think by now its fairly well established that we have a lot of liars inside our government whether they are elected officials or employees.

With the assertions made of WMD before the war and the true lack of physical evidence for them, we can conclude either our government is full of liars or really stupid people. Lying seems to be a more apt description.

Since the WMD issue was a complete washout, the Al Qaeda ties assertions must be assumed to be bogus as well. Of course, this thread has already shown that even Colin Powell admitted there were no ties.

Mr. Clarke falls well within the group of liars in our government and of course he along with the others will expose themselves when asked to take the stand on the issue of Iraq. The same thing happened with Chalabi and I'm sure others will follow suit.

Sorry to go off topic here but I just find it rather ammusing that this topic is called "case closed", and yet has gone on to become 9 pages long.

It's not looking as open and shut as first thought, maybe it should be renamed to "Case Re-opened".

Then why weren't all these "documents" refered to when the question of a Saddam/Usama link was questioned? And if all this is usable evidence, why did the CIA and FBI still proclaim that there was no Saddam/Usama connection in the run-up to the war?...

Originally posted by Seekerof
The U.S. government's secret memo detailing cooperation between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

Osama hates Sadam even more than the US, for misschievously embracing islamism after prosecuting and terrorizing islamist. Nuf said.
"Case Closed"

Simple as it may be for you MakodFilu, just as you think it is with the matter of terrorist acts in Spain that changed the voting, it is NOT that simple.
Ample 'evidences' given and testimonies to say that "they" did have an "understanding". You going to argue your case, present to the cause?
You, as well as others, can continue to chew and spit out that bit concerning they had idealogical difference or "secular" diferences, but it amounts to cud....keep regurgitating it up, it amounts to cud.

As to this going 9+ pages John, amounts to simple denial and then it comes down to who is denying, correct?

Seems that those who advocate a stance against the war-against Iraq have also been quoted as saying such?

As to those claims that Powell and so and so sayed that there wasn't a connection....links?
Might want to make sure what your refering to because the understanding is that the reference to no connection was in relation to "A" no connection between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, in regards to 9/11?


seekerof

[Edited on 27-3-2004 by Seekerof]

Back on page six of this thread I posted the link to where Colin Powell stated there was no links to the Al Qaeda terrorist organization with Saddam Hussein.

msnbc.msn.com...

I've made my opinion very clear in many of the threads here. There were absolutely no WMD, and absolutely no Al Qaeda ties with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Were Al Qaeda members living in Iraq? Most probably as they also live in the U.S., but not working in collusion with the Iraqi government.

When you have people who are our protectors against the threat of terrorism falsifying the threat, just how could anybody believe their word for anything regarding the threat of terrorism at all? All of their testimony is suspect and IMO, categorically false until proven otherwise. We've been led enough down this road to hell with trusting our figures of authority and to continue to believe their words is very foolhardy.

Look guys, I can work the copy and paste functions too!


msnbc.msn.com...

Case Decidedly Not Closed
The Defense Dept. memo allegedly proving a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam does nothing of the sortNewsweek Web ExclusiveNov. 19 - A leaked Defense Department memo claiming new evidence of an �operational relationship� between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein�s former regime is mostly based on unverified claims that were first advanced by some top Bush administration officials more than a year ago�and were largely discounted at the time by the U.S. intelligence community, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials.

CASE CLOSED blared the headline in a Weekly Standard cover story last Saturday that purported to have unearthed the U.S. government�s �secret evidence of cooperation� between Saddam and bin Laden. Fred Barnes, the magazine�s executive editor, touted the magazine�s scoop the next day in a roundtable chat on �Fox News Sunday.� (Both the Standard and Fox News Channel are owned by the conservative media baron Rupert Murdoch.) �These are hard facts, and I�d like to see you refute any one of them,� he told a skeptical Juan Williams of National Public Radio.

In fact, the tangled tale of the memo suggests that the case of whether there has been Iraqi-Al Qaeda complicity is far from closed. The Oct. 27, 2003, memo, prepared by Deputy Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith�s office, was written in response to detailed questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee about the basis for intelligence pushed by Feith and other senior Pentagon officials during the run-up to the Iraq war.

With a few, inconclusive exceptions, the memo doesn�t actually contain much �new� intelligence at all. Instead, it mostly recycles shards of old, raw data that were first assembled last year by a tiny team of floating Pentagon analysts (led by a Pennsylvania State University professor and U.S. Navy analyst Christopher Carney) whom Feith asked to find evidence of an Iraqi-Al Qaeda �connection� in order to better justify a U.S. invasion.


www.dod.mil...

DoD Statement on News Reports of Al Qaeda and Iraq Connections
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.


Bush in his Own Words

[Adam Boulton, Sky News (London):] One question for you both. Do you believe that there is a link between Saddam Hussein, a direct link, and the men who attacked on September the 11th?

THE PRESIDENT: I can't make that claim.



Bin Laden in his own Words
"Regardless of the removal or the survival of the socialist party or Saddam, Muslims in general and the Iraqis in particular must brace themselves for jihad against this unjust campaign and acquire ammunition and weapons."
...
"Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."


news.bbc.co.uk...

Iraq 'had no links to al-Qaeda'
A United Nations committee says it has found no evidence of a connection between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terror network.
The UN terrorism committee has released a draft report on al-Qaeda and remnants of the Taleban from Afghanistan.

Nowhere does the document mention that Baghdad may have served as a support or safe-haven for supporters of Osama bin Laden.

In the run-up to the United States invasion of Iraq, US leaders had said Saddam Hussein's government had had contacts with al-Qaeda.

"Nothing has come to our notice that would indicate links," said Michael Chandler, the committee's chief investigator.


[Edited on 27-3-2004 by Shoktek]

Seems to me then gentlemen, that you need to point these things out to Mr. Clarke and the previous administration who was under the watchful eyes of Mr. Bill Clinton?

Seems that your own anti-war proponents are spouting otherwise?!
Seems that the current administration also got the WMD intelligence from the previous administration also!?



seekerof

[Edited on 27-3-2004 by Seekerof]

Seems that instead of addressing the real issue at hand for what it is--Saddam(Iraq), Osama(Al Qaeda) links...you are just "spewing" crap that makes no sense, and continues to weaken your dying position. And once again, trying to defend Bush to the death, and blame everything on Clinton and the Democrats; How about you look at what is happening NOW and how it is being handled NOW by our current administration...if you want to play the "blame game", go ahead and scream "clinton" all you want, but when it comes to helping Iraq get the weapons necessary to possibly help any terrorists, look no further than Reagan and Bush Sr....

Originally posted by Seekerof
Simple as it may be for you MakodFilu, just as you think it is with the matter of terrorist acts in Spain that changed the voting, it is NOT that simple.

You seem to overlook my post. Certainly it changed the voting: the PP losed a lot less votes than deserved. The attack favoured them. They only losed 700.000, while the PSOE gained 3.000.000. That counting that Al-Qaeda has nothing to do with the attacks. Believing anything else is playing the game of politics, because not a single proof link the attack with Al Qaeda. Not any.

But if you want to believe Al Qaeda is omnipresent, omniscient and there is no evil in wich Al Qaeda is not involved, well, I can't change that childish way of thinking...

see regimeofterror.com..., this story is not over yet...