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.

 

Explosive New Book Documents Ties Between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Man wouldnt you love to see the sources of this guy?
He might be full of it but, i would like to at least read it.

Explosive New Book Documents Ties Between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden

Dr. Hugh Cort’s new book, Saddam’s Attacks on America: 1993; September 11, 2001; and the Anthrax Attacks shows the following:

Saddam Hussein instigated and funded Osama bin Laden’s attacks on America in the bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the destruction of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks of September and October 2001.



Saddam did import uranium from Africa (British intelligence has proven Ambassador Joe Wilson wrong) and he wanted to get a nuclear weapon to give to al-Qaida as soon as he could get U.N. sanctions lifted.

Bush was right to take out Saddam because Saddam would eventually have given nuclear bombs to al-Qaida that would have blown up New York City and Washington D.C.

newsmax.com...


EDIT: I know this is an ad and I am not advertiseing the book, just the message of the book...what IF it is true?

OLD POST SAME TOPIC

I do not want this to be a flame war, i would like to seriously discuss the issues of wether or not Saddam had extensive ties to Al Qaeda and Osama Bin Ladin.

I am not saying that Saddam had anything to do nor that he knew of 911, just that his support of international terrorism is well known. What are your comments? Please take the time to review the information and then we can discuss it and see what the opinions of the importance of these docuements are.


As a another note, if you do read them and find the possibility of them being true, then I would wonder why the Bush adminisration is not saying a word about them? It would basically justify the war and would cause the political heat to lessen tremendously.

The only thiing I can think of is that, there is information that is more important that it doesnt get out, then to possibly save Bush's Presidency.



Please lets keep this calm.





The Iraq -- Al Qaeda Connections

That is why is important to remember why we fight in Iraq -- and who we fight. Indeed, many of those sniping at U.S. troops are al Qaeda terrorists operating inside Iraq. And many of bin Laden's men were in Iraq prior to the liberation. A wealth of evidence on the public record -- from government reports and congressional testimony to news accounts from major newspapers -- attests to longstanding ties between bin Laden and Saddam going back to 1994.

Those who try to whitewash Saddam's record don't dispute this evidence; they just ignore it. So let's review the evidence, all of it on the public record for months or years:

That record is listed here:
www.techcentralstation.com...







No Diversion: The Case Against the War in Iraq Has Weakened




You can argue that the conflict in Iraq is a distraction from the "War on Terrorism". But that argument is weaker than it was a few days ago -- before Abu Musab Zarqawi, the leader of the foreign jihadis in Iraq, formally declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. You can argue that Zarqawi wouldn't be in Iraq now if the U.S. hadn't toppled Saddam Hussein. But that doesn't make sense: Zarqawi moved from Afghanistan to Iraq while Saddam was still in power. From his Iraqi base, Zarqawi orchestrated terrorist operations against Americans and others.


But from the recently released Iraq Survey Group's Duelfer report we learn that at Salman Pak, not far from Baghdad, Saddam's M14 unit trained not just Iraqi but also Syrian, Palestinian, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian and Sudanese terrorists in such skills as assassinations and suicide bombings. And – one may infer from the fact that among the facilities at Salman Pak was an airplane fuselage – hijacking, too.

All Salman Pak graduates may not have gone on to careers with al Qaeda, but it is doubtful they joined any organizations that hold picnics on the 4th of July.



www.defenddemocracy.org...







Report Bolsters Credibility of Iraqi Intelligence Documents
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 13, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A report issued on Oct. 6 by the CIA's chief inspector in Iraq provides details that corroborate information contained in 42 pages of Iraqi intelligence documents obtained by CNSNews.com.

The so-called Duelfer report, named for its author, Charles Duelfer, is widely recognized for declaring that no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq. Other details of the report, however, provide a glimpse of what some Iraq experts say is Saddam's attempt to continue to wage war against the U.S. after the first Gulf War ended.

"M14 ... was responsible for training and conducting special operations missions. It trained Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Yemeni, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Sudanese operatives in counterterrorism, explosives, marksmanship, and foreign operations at its facilities at Salman Pak," the Duelfer report states

www.cnsnews.com...\\SpecialReports\\archive\\200410\\SPE20041013a.html



There is also a good PDF that outlays this reasoning, no one has yet commented on it so I take it no one read it. It is only 12 pages and it should at least open your eyes to the possibilities.

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 fight 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 to refuse 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 the Iraqi dictator.

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

[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]

[edit on 24-10-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 01:00 AM
link   
One of your sources is Tech Central Station About them:


Tech Central Station is published by DCI Group, L.L.C.

Who's the DCI Group?
DCI Group Leadership

And you would never believe who runs The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies

And as for CNSNEWS, any news organization that asks for PayPal donations, is a little suspect.

I just think you need the full story before you form an opinion. Something that this post isn't offering.


EDIT: To answer your question: No.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by curme]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   
That is why I want to discuss the possibilites? I mean no it is not ABC or the BBC but what if it is real? I mean the paper that broke Iran-Contra was not credible until......


This story has some merit, and since you posted so fast, I have to ask, did you actaully read it or just skim it?



I will discuss this later, it is time to sleep, please just humor me on this and look into it, if you find other sources, please post them. If you find ones that debunk it post those also.




[edit on 22-10-2004 by edsinger]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
This story has some merit, and since you posted so fast, I have to ask, did you actaully read it or just skim it?


No, I did not read it. I just saw the ridiculous links and had to comment.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 01:14 AM
link   
Seeing as Saddam was always openly against extremist islamic groups, i doubt he had any freindly links with Al-Qaeda. In fact Osama and Saddam met and didnt like each other at all...

I think the Bush administration was looking to Blame Saddam from day one. I remember sitting up watching CNN and Fox News (it was late at night in AUS when it happened) and reports saying the US gov were pointing the finger at Saddam (then Osama came into the picture and Saddam was forgotten about). It seems they have been looking to lay blame on Saddam from day 1 and decided to attack him.

The only terrorists in Iraq are the ones who have come in since the Invasion. Even then most of the insurgency are locals who dont want the US to interfere with their country (which is the biggest gripe against the west within the Muslim world.)



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 02:15 AM
link   
I think the big three reports: the Butler Report, the 9/11 Commission Report, and the Senate Committee on Pre-War Intel Report all make virtually the same conclusion, which is that Iraq had no substantial links with Al-Qaeda, just the occasional contact. No significant cooperation.

As others have mentioned, it makes perfect sense. People like AQ are the last people Saddam would have wanted in his secular regime. Osama would have found much more solace in a place like Iran, but while they're busy flipping the nuclear finger at us, we're still all tied up looking for those WMD's in Iraq.

-koji K.

[edit on 22-10-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 22-10-2004 by koji_K]

[edit on 22-10-2004 by koji_K]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 02:27 AM
link   
Iraq had heaps of connections to Al Quaeda.

Al quaeda is another word for C.I.A

C.I.A. is another word for the "Bush family"

When people realise who the REAL terrorists are, maybe they'll realise what's really going on.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 02:30 AM
link   
Saddam and Osama has nothing in common..
Another is saudi arabic extremelist from a family that finances major part of us economy..
Other was leader of iraq and had nothing to do after first gulf except to try to make boycots disappear and trade oil for customer goods/food. I bet saddam would have been glad if he would have any kind of way hurting usa but that was nearly impossible from iraq, and osama was on the case already.
.ap



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:12 AM
link   
Terrorist locations in Afaganistan, Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Philippines, Turkey,
Some Russian States.

Heck Some even make a deal about terrorist cells in the US, and the UK..

But SOMEHOW, there are NONE in IRAQ...? A country that we were, and still are at war with? OH, RIGHT...None until AFTER the Second war.

I'm not going to link anything, just using deductive reasoning here..

Thats the story though right? No terrorist links to IRAQ...uh, HAHAH...right.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Terrorist locations in Afaganistan, Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Philippines, Turkey,
Some Russian States.

Heck Some even make a deal about terrorist cells in the US, and the UK..

But SOMEHOW, there are NONE in IRAQ...? A country that we were, and still are at war with? OH, RIGHT...None until AFTER the Second war.


The question was whether there is evidence to suggest any ties between Al Qaida and Saddam (i.e. Iraq). The vast preponderance of evidence doesn't support the claim of such ties.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Same old same old from the same guy I see


Your own righteous never wrong bush people said it themselves over and over that they don't think there was a connection. These same terrorists didn't think highly of Saddam for the simple fact that he treated his own people like dogs. Why even ask the question? It's like an attempt to rack up points right?

Answer=NO CONNECTION TO OSAMA/SADDAM/AL-QUAEDA



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:35 AM
link   
There are terrorist cells worldwide..it´s nation´s own problem to get rid of them..It doesn´t help if someone conquers the land to "purify" it from cells.
Let´s presume iraq would have been home of all al qaida in the whole world..They wouldn´t just buy an airline ticket and fly to bomb the states would they?
I think it would have been rather hard..so they would have to take course through egypt or some other country. And only way to stop them coming to states is patrol the boarders, not to attack everywhere.
-ap



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 03:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Durden
The question was whether there is evidence to suggest any ties between Al Qaida and Saddam (i.e. Iraq). The vast preponderance of evidence doesn't support the claim of such ties.


How can you say that when it is an established FACT that they have met before?

To simply say there were no ties is short sighted and frankly wrong.

The question is what the extent of their ties were.

Did they simply have informal and occasional contact, or did they have more then that?

The FACT that Saddam payed the family members of suicide bombers in Isreal clearly shows he has ties with terrorism, and since OBL is more or less the "main" terrorist leader - would it not make sense that they had some sort of mutual plan/agenda?



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 04:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
How can you say that when it is an established FACT that they have met before?

To simply say there were no ties is short sighted and frankly wrong.

Oh, is it wrong to say the vast preponderance of evidence doesn't support such ties? Well, tell me. Do you have some deeper knowledge in this than the US intel and the rest of the world? By all means; share it with us.


The question is what the extent of their ties were.

See above.


The FACT that Saddam payed the family members of suicide bombers in Isreal clearly shows he has ties with terrorism, and since OBL is more or less the "main" terrorist leader - would it not make sense that they had some sort of mutual plan/agenda?

Oh so OBL is the "main" terrorist leader???
Seriously now, who came up with that description; you? Evidence of such claims please...


[edit on 22-10-2004 by Durden]



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 04:11 AM
link   
Just because they met, does not mean they have "ties". Otherwise that would implicate many leading figures from all over the world, including the US and the UK.

Do you believe that the US and UK have these so called "ties"?

Maybe the words "links" and "ties" need to be described better within this context before the discussion can continue in a productive way.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 04:12 AM
link   
Is it our duty to act like Israel's big brother and come running to their aid everytime someone gives them a bloody nose. The whole Fact of the matter was is there a connection between osama/saddam/al-quaeda. That has been stated as not being the case by several officials. That being said by members within bush's group and outside his group why take our eyes off the ball and launch a war on another terrorrist sponsoring country when we didn't even finish the first job of hunting down "osama" who I never recall stating "he" masterminded and carried out the 9/11 attacks. That big of a blow to your arch enemy would have justafied a statement proclaiming a victorious blow correct? Wasn't Saddam labeled an "infadel" just like our country for his treatment of his own people?
Bush and his boys would have said anything to go into iraq, everyone knows this so why deny it or even believe it for one second?



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:09 AM
link   
The US had more significant ties withe Al Queda and Saddam than the 2 had with each other. Maybe George should attack his own country.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Edsinger perhaps your thread should say,

Ties between the Saud Royal family, Arabs nationals in the 9/11 attacks and Al-queda, that will be something juicy to talk about, and don't forget to add the Bush family affiliation to the Royal family too and business deals.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by sensfan
Maybe George should attack his own country.

Using the logic applied to this issue by the current Administration; I'd say you're absolutely right.



posted on Oct, 22 2004 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Well since no one actually read the information I provided,........

And I bet only 10% of the poeple who replied have actually READ the 911 report....

...I can see at least 4 sniped at the Bushies, even after I asked to keep it to topic..


Oh well, spin away leftists', it is a FACT that Saddam had ties to AL Qaeda, his intelligence service had multiple levels of contact. Did you even notice the Sudan conncections? I guess not, just tag away at Bush like good robots. If had gotten a little bit further in the readings, the explanation of why Saddam the "Infadel" and Osama "the Infadel hater" had mutual goals and why they got along, it was for the sake of thier common enemy.

I might suggest , well I will attempt to post the information from the said 911 report since no one seems to believe it. It just could find no ties to saddam and 911.....




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join