Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War! Updated Info

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Some new information has come to me in my searchs, so instead of starting a new thread, I will continue this one as they are related very closely.

Breaking up terrorists networks requires getting rid of their sanctuaries

Before the Iraq war, the US intelligence community reported that from 1996 to 2003, the Iraqi Intelligence Service [IIS] had focused its terrorist activity on Western interests, including the United States; "throughout 2002, the IIS was becoming increasingly aggressive in planning attacks against US interests;" Saddam Hussein was open "to enhancing bin Laden's operational capability" and may have provided training to al Qaeda; bin Laden had made direst and specific requests for Iraqi assistance; al Qaeda had demonstrated an "enduring interest" in WMD expertise from Iraq; the Iraqi regime "certainly" knew that al Qaeda agents were operating in Baghdad and northern Iraq; and Saddam Hussein had made a "standing offer" to Osama bin Laden for safe haven in Iraq.

Iraq - Alqaeda Links

The Terror Ties That Bind Us to War

NRO: Your new book is on connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. Isn't that all a neocon myth? Isn't bin Laden on record dissing Saddam? Secular Saddam, meanwhile, was no Islamic fundamentalist or extremist? Did anti-American hatred trump all?



Stephen F. Hayes: If the Iraq-al Qaeda connection is a neocon myth, those neocons are even more resourceful than the conspiracy theorists suggest and they sure have got a lot of unlikely people making their arguments. Evan Bayh, Democrat from Indiana, has described the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as a relationship of "mutual exploitation." Joe Lieberman said, "There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda." George Tenet, too, has spoken of those contacts and goes further, claiming Iraqi "training" of al Qaeda terrorists on WMDs and provision of "safe haven" for al Qaeda in Baghdad. Richard Clarke once said the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had provided a chemical-weapons precursor to an al Qaeda-linked pharmaceutical plant in Sudan. Even Hillary Clinton cited the Iraq-al Qaeda connection as one reason she voted for the Iraq War.


NRO: How much of what is in The Connection are al Qaeda-Iraq connections the Bush administration could/should be using publicly to connect the dots for people?
Hayes: I think they could be doing a lot more on this. On the one hand, I understand why the Bush administration is reluctant. After all, the CIA director says privately that he believes the Atta-Prague meeting probably took place but the conventional wisdom today dismisses that possibility. But I don't think the administration can get away with simply avoiding the discussion.
One thing the White House could do is insist that the intelligence community put together a team to explore the connections. The 1,400-person Iraq Survey Group has been looking for WMDs for more than a year; there is no equivalent on Iraq-al Qaeda connections.



Osama and Saddam — two peas in a terror pod?










I have added some new links at the bottom that support the reasons for war in Iraq. Most in here think we are there for oil, and just to have fun killing, lets take a serious look at WHY we are in IRAQ and WHY it was a JUST war. Keep in mind that the sooner we win it, the sooner we leave, and folks at home pulling a Jane Fonda only delay that homecoming.

PLEASE NOTE GO TO THE BOTTOM FOR A LINK to:
The Link Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda - Posted Sept. 29, 2003




(MODS) Please dont erase this as no one seems to follow a link and ACTUALLY read it. I am not posting the whole thing.

Iraq: The Failure of Containment and the Strategic Necessity of War - Part I

Executive Summary
Far from being a war of choice or a strategic distraction, military action against Iraq was an American and international strategic imperative. The U.S., in particular, could not fi ght the war against terrorism while allowing Saddam Hussein’s regime—in the heart of the Middle East—to break out from containment as was happening on the eve of the war. The Iraq campaign was not a preventive war. U.N. resolutions foresaw the restoration of stability in the Middle East through the use of force against Saddam’s outlaw regime—if that regime continued torefuse to account for the Weapons of Mass Destruction it was known to have possessed, and would not verifi ably disarm. Other mechanisms for restraining Saddam—economic sanctions and arms inspections—had already been successfully subverted by theIraqi dictator.

WMD: The U.N.’s Failure
The U.N. failed because of a combination of two factors, Iraqi deception and a lack of genuine U.N. will to unravel the Iraqi programs. Unknown to the U.N., Saddam had constructed a WMD system designed to beat the inspection system. There was also an extent to which the U.N. simply did not look, at least according to U.S. monitoring of the U.N. inspectors. According to Bob Woodward, “The intelligence indicated that Blix was not
reporting everything and not doing all the things he maintained he was doing.”

The U.N. missed the Iraqi “strategic intention,” a vital part of the threat.
Although Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was largely dormant after 1991, Iraqi nuclear scientist Mahdi Obeidi has written that “our nuclear program could have been reinstituted at the snap of Saddam Hussein’s fingers… Iraqi scientists had the knowledge and the designs needed to jumpstart the program if necessary.” Yet the U.N. wanted to give Saddam a clean bill of health. Mohammed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N.’s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), had told the U.N. Security Council on January 27, 2003 that “we should be able within the next few
months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program.”


Enforcing the Suspended Sentence after 9/11

The Iraq position in 2001 was not stable. The crumbling sanctions regime
and the lack of inspections meant that the strategic tide had turned in Saddam’s favor. The international community could not “let sleeping dogs lie.” It was the terrorist attacks of 9/11 that made tackling Iraqi defiance of
the U.N. all the more urgent. The reason was not that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 atrocities. There is noevidence that Iraq was directly involved in
9/11. Indeed, such a direct provocation of the U.S. would not have served Saddam’s interests at a time when he was defeating economic sanctions and was free from arms inspections. Just weeks before 9/11, in August 2001, the Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri had told the Arab satellite channel Al Jazeera that sanctions had crumbled.69 What would, however, have served Saddam well was for the international community, and in particular the U.S. and Britain, to be so thoroughly distracted by al Qaeda and the war against terrorism that they ignored, or were unable to prevent, his emergence from containment.


Conclusion
The war of 2003 was not a U.S. war of choice, nor a U.S. war of prevention, but a war of Saddam’s choosing. Conflict was not inevitable. Iraq was offered repeated concessions, whether through serial “last chances” or relaxation of sanctions and the inspections regime. Justice for the Iraqis
was certainly delayed by the decision not to topple Saddam in 1991, whether with U.S. force or by assisting the Iraqis then rebelling against him. The legal right to enforce the sentence passed upon his regime had never lapsed. After 1991, the reasons to do so accumulated rather than diminished. War was the option that Saddam chose. The Iraqi regime was afforded the opportunity to comply with its U.N. obligations, a genuine “last chance” that it chose not to take.




Some quotes:

The alternative is to carry on with the sanctions regime, which has resulted, because of how Saddam implements it, in thousands of people dying needlessly in Iraq every year. In addition, of course, many thousands of people are political detainees or are executed as a result of their political views.—Tony Blair

After spending 1995 to 2000 criticizing Iraq sanctions, the Germans and French fell in love with containment. —Jamie Rubin

It is not enough to open doors. Inspection is not a game of “catch as catch can.”—Hans Blix

Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly.—Bill Clinton



Link for the entire article that you can download and save and READ.

www.defenddemocracy.org...(4).pdf




Iraq War 'Lawful and Necessary'

By Jamie Lyons, Political Correspondent, PA News

The Government today insisted the war in Iraq was “not only lawful but necessary” after the UN Secretary General said it was illegal.

Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said Britain and the US acted to uphold the will of the United Nations, expressed in the first resolution.

Kofi Annan has said the war was “not in conformity” with the UN Security Council or with the UN Charter, and warned there could not be credible elections in Iraq next January if the current unrest continued.

Asked if there was legal authority for the war on Iraq, Mr Annan told the BBC World Service: “I have stated clearly that it was not in conformity with the Security Council, with the UN Charter.”

The Secretary General added there should have been a second UN resolution before the war on Iraq.

He said the Security Council had warned Iraq there would be “consequences” if it did not comply with its demands.

news.scotsman.com...





Failed Containment Made Iraq War Necessary

For over ten years, the U.S. played a game with Saddam Hussein. The U.S. strategy was to keep the Middle East dictator in a "box." The so-called box included U.N sanctions, and round-the-clock air cover patrolling the northern and southern areas of Iraq.

For the entire decade of the 1990s the U.S. spent billions of dollars keeping nearly one-third its entire military strength around Baghdad

FAILED POLICY MADE WAR NECESSARY Up to five nuclear carrier battle groups, with over 100 warships, patrolled the Gulf region. Carriers, cruisers, destroyers, frigates, submarines and a wide variety of support vessels stayed within striking distance of Iraq.
Nearly 500 combat aircraft flew from bases in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. The aircraft included both U.S. and U.K. fighters, bombers, tankers and support aircraft.

F-15s, F-16s, F-14s, F-18s, B-1s, B-52s, B-2s, A-10s, and F-117 stealth fighters dropped tons of bombs on Iraq.

www.newsmax.com...







Iraq war necessary, despite intelligence errors
By Tony Parkinson
January 31, 2004


The intelligence may have been unsound on weapons of mass destruction, but that does not mean it was wrong to go to war in Iraq.

The governments of the United States, Britain and Australia are routinely accused of selective use of intelligence material to over-dramatise the case for war in Iraq. But imagine, for a moment, the contrary: what if it emerges that they under-played some aspects of the intelligence about the dangers of Saddam Hussein's degenerate rule?

In an increasingly corrupt and chaotic Iraq, for example, how great were the risks that the knowhow arising from two decades of chemical and biological weapons research would sooner rather than later find its way onto the black market ... if it hasn't happened already.

The Iraq weapons debate has been turbo-charged in recent days by the disclosures of US weapons inspector David Kay, particularly his assessment that Saddam's regime had no large stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons at the time the US-led coalition invaded.

This has confirmed a serious intelligence failure in the lead-up to war. Kay is calling for an independent inquiry to investigate and make recommendations that would reduce the risk of similar failures in the future. Rightly so. These are crucial issues of reliability and trust.

But does this intelligence debacle invalidate the decisions taken by George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard? Not if you listen to the extended views of David Kay.

www.theage.com.au...





The Link Between Iraq and Al-Qaeda Posted Sept. 29, 2003

Senior investigators and analysts in the U.S. government have concluded that Iraq acted as a state sponsor of terrorism against Americans and logistically supported the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States - confirming news reports that until now have emerged only in bits and pieces. A senior government official responsible for investigating terrorism tells Insight that while Saddam Hussein may not have had details of the Sept. 11 attacks in advance, he "gave assistance for whatever al-Qaeda came up with." That assistance, confirmed independently, came in a variety of ways, including financial support spun out through a complex web of financial institutions in Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Italy and elsewhere. Long suspected of having terrorist ties to al-Qaeda, they now have been linked to Iraq as well.

www.insightmag.com...


I do not know if this has been debunked or not , but the info is good reading nonetheless.......Go ahead Druden complain again...




[edit on 8-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 9-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 17-11-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 17-11-2004 by edsinger]




posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:38 PM
link   
I already support it entirely, one up for freedom and one down for tyranny





by the way ed... you know most of the people are gonna reply without even reading your entire post right?


[edit on 8-11-2004 by LostSailor]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Acutally, it doesn't matter if Americans support the war or not. We were going into Iraq even if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population said no. Americans don't control the nation, the president does.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
by the way ed... you know most of the people are gonna reply without even reading your entire post right?

[edit on 8-11-2004 by LostSailor]


I am counting on it!



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Acutally, it doesn't matter if Americans support the war or not. We were going into Iraq even if 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the population said no. Americans don't control the nation, the president does.


Hmmmm, and you dont for one minute believe that maybe, just MAYBE.... Our government with all its secret intelligence and military information might know more than you about whats going on in Iraq? You don't think our government has our nations best interest in mind?

ed, i think this is the first one not to read your entire thread



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   
There is alot I could say, but I'll say this, in short: Bullsh*t.
Bush has said the WMD thing was a mistake, that the intelligence was wrong. When was it up yo us to police Iraq? If the Mossad wasn't concerned about Iraq, why were we? This hasn't been answered as yet.
If this was an action in any way to respond to 9/11 then we criminally attacked the wrong country while still in bed with the money and ties to the culprets of the 9/11 attack. Don't spout about liberal media bias. There isn't any. It's all sucking up to Bush and his corpirate (intentional misspelling)agenda. Otherwise ours soldiers would be fighting in Saudi Arabia. I could get behind that. This mess is wrong we need to get out but, thanks to Bush, that ain't happening any time soon enough for me and just under HALF the country.

I don't have to read all of it. It's the same CRAP that's been said for years. It still stinks.

May God bless and protect our soldiers- May Bush rot in hell.

[edit on 8-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 10:55 PM
link   
Edsinger, from what planet you come from, you support an injust war and you want to nuke iraq.

Hummmm sometimes I wonder if I should laugh at your post or I should just ignore you.

Whent Mr. bush delcared the entire population insane with his mandatory "mental screening" I wonder how you will measure to it.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Edsinger, from what planet you come from, you support an injust war and you want to nuke iraq.

Hummmm sometimes I wonder if I should laugh at your post or I should just ignore you.

Whent Mr. bush delcared the entire population insane with his mandatory "mental screening" I wonder how you will measure to it.


I never said I wanted to Nuke Iraq?


Anyhow it is a just war, why? Saddam WAS a threat, PERIOD.

As for the Saudi's, the government in general has been supportive, not as much as I would like, but their entire existance is at stake and they also do not want a successful democracy in Iraq as it puts the nail in their own coffin.

YOu can keep believing we are there for the oil, but as I ahve already shown, we have spent more money there already than we could get back in 10 years of oil production. There is another reason and you know it.

We are there to attempt to set the arab peoples free from the authortarian governments, some of which we have supported over the years. Iran will be the first to implode but they are not arabs.

As I have said before, we make our stand now, and not later.

Believe what you wish, but that is why we are there.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:26 PM
link   


Lemmings.....



Sheep....

You guys ever see these? When I look around I see lots of these intermingled with independant thinking people in our cities and towns. Apparently these creatures have earned the right to vote. Apparently they can also type.


Seriously, though... It was Saudi money and Saudi doctrine that founded and supports Al Qaeda. Not Iraq-never was. Bin Laden is Saudi and hates Saddam as an infidel. The gov't of Saudi Arabia has been on shakey ground for befriending the U.S. If I were sitting on the throne I wouldn't count on any back up from the people of Saudi if a coup takes hold.







[edit on 8-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Edsinger. Back with yet another thread on this subject - despite all your previous efforts appropriately being denied and refuted with the actual evidence at hand? Love beating dead horses, do you?

When the 'evidence' and 'arguments' you're presenting are constantly shown to not bare serious scrutiny; don't you think it's time you start questioning the credibility of your sources?

Deny ignorance, edsinger. Deny it.



[edit on 8-11-2004 by Durden]



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
Edsinger. Back with yet another thread on this subject - despite all your previous efforts appropriately being denied and refuted with the actual evidence at hand? Love beating dead horses, do you?

When the 'evidence' and 'arguments' you're presenting are constantly shown to not bare serious scrutiny; don't you think it's time you start questioning the credibility of your sources?

Deny ignorance, edsinger. Deny it.



[edit on 8-11-2004 by Durden]


Not at all m8, you keep believing what you will, you have proven nothing to me. You have just spewed out the antiwar agenda time and again.

The Saudi's have suspended Bin Ladin's citizenship as they were scared of him also. He wants an Islamic Theocracy and that has no room for monarchs. As I ahve already stated, and it was in the 911 report, Bin Ladin chose the use of main Saudi pilots for 911 for various reasons.

1, just what you would think, all the Saudis hate the US and thats why!
2, That Iran did not mark the passports of Saudis, so they had no record of trips to afghanistan. Hell We had our own AL Qaeda in the US!
3, Saudi;s could get visa's more easy than any other middle eastern country.

That is just a few and Bin Ladin is not stupid.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Not at all m8, you keep believing what you will, you have proven nothing to me. You have just spewed out the antiwar agenda time and again.

Now you're actually starting to piss me off, edsinger. Go back and read my replies to your previous bs. And read the 9/11 report; the whole thing. I know you have yet to do so, which is shown by the content of your posts.



posted on Nov, 8 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by LostSailor
Hmmmm, and you dont for one minute believe that maybe, just MAYBE.... Our government with all its secret intelligence and military information might know more than you about whats going on in Iraq? You don't think our government has our nations best interest in mind?
What's that statement about fool me once? The intelligence community was already proven to be inept once, and their job is to obtain intelligence. So why should anyone take them seriously again, and besides, what intelligence exactly are they supposed to have now, that it is not a finally freed people expending energy? We already said that in April of 2003. That it is not 100,000 loosed criminal causing the problem? We already said that in April 2003. That it is not just Hussein's devoted? We said that too back in April 2003. That it is not just AQ operatives and foreigners, but also Iraqis with no ties to Hussein? We await the word of the intelligence community to catch up.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
It was still their money and effort that started Al Qaeda. That means alot of money for worldwide schools and support. Their religion is directly tied to their gov't. That is the most fudamental and restrictive of all the middle eastern versions of Islam. They had the will, ability, and motive for the 9/11 attack. But, yet Bush picks on Iraq, run by a thug for sure, but by far, not our biggest threat.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden

Originally posted by edsinger
Not at all m8, you keep believing what you will, you have proven nothing to me. You have just spewed out the antiwar agenda time and again.

Now you're actually starting to piss me off, edsinger. Go back and read my replies to your previous bs. And read the 9/11 report; the whole thing. I know you have yet to do so, which is shown by the content of your posts.



Well I ahve read it! Have you read the part that was NOT released? Have you read the CIA's whole assesment of the threat?

How come you do not even give anyone else's ideas any credibility excpet the one the liberal media proclaims. SADDAM HAD TIES TO AL QAEDA . PERIOD. Right there in the 911 report. Read it.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:01 AM
link   
I did read the entire post and my opinion remains unchanged although
I do have to say that it was nice to see someone put links to evidence
or at least information (propaganda, had to say it someone will not that i think it is propaganda).
It was a good read but I still don't agree with the colonialist approach that we
have taken with the War in Iraq, if Saddam and Iraq were such a threat why then did the rest of the world not agree to join the coalition until after we had already secured most of the country and why are the other forces just there on peacekeeping oriented orders to this day.

I think they will have the elections in January but I think the Iraqi people will
pay for our actions for a long time to come.

Additionally I think that we supported Saddam when we could keep him on a leash and once we lost control of Saddam all of the sudden he was a huge threat...

Regardless Support the troops they are just doing there job.

geo


[edit on 11/9/2004 by geocom]

[edit on 11/9/2004 by geocom]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Edsinger,

Why don't you try some of the other forums besides War on Terruh and politics. It might broaden your interests.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:06 AM
link   


Why don't you try some of the other forums besides War on Terruh and politics. It might broaden your interests.




Because he can always amass the points this way.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Der Kapitan


Why don't you try some of the other forums besides War on Terruh and politics. It might broaden your interests.


Because he can always amass the points this way.


[edit on 9-11-2004 by Der Kapitan]


And that gains me what? I have all that I need and have had them a long time now, can it by me food, beer, pay my rent?

I am not here for points, I am here so that the folks who come in here to learn get BOTH sides to the story.



posted on Nov, 9 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
Well I ahve read it!

You know what? It doesn't show. So here's an idea; read it again, why don't you?



How come you do not even give anyone else's ideas any credibility excpet the one the liberal media proclaims.

What I have stopped giving credence to are the sources of your ideas. You wonder why? Well, here's a clue, edsiner: they don't bare scrutiny.


SADDAM HAD TIES TO AL QAEDA . PERIOD. Right there in the 911 report. Read it.

The same can be said for the Bush family. The 911 report concluded that there was no evidence whatsoever of a collaboration between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida; period. This didn't merely concern the 9/11-attacks.

Again. Read the report.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join