Know War
- Started
- Last post
- 96 Responses
- KuzII0
the exageration of the intelligence services is well documented, and the political pressure they were put under to declare war was also well documented.
I am writing this in a hurry, bvt some people out there believe that the unleashing of a civil war in Iraq, the massacres that are carrying on out there, the strengthening of Iran, and the hole that region is being plunged into was not worth the price of this democratisaton process. But of course your resolve is so unshakable, thatyou think this war was simply a spledid idea.
I dont even know if it was Saddam who let Zarqawi in, I dont even know who let him in. But the fact that he was smuggled over the border from Afghanistan by a group that was never controlled by Hussein tells me his support network was rooted somewhere else.
To keep labouring the point, no member of Saddam's regime had any direct contact with the Al-Qaeda group. The Ba'ath party gave them neither material nor logistical support. This was contrary to how Bush sold the war to his people - insinuating that Saddam was somehow directly linked to 9/11. I didn't say there was "no terrorists" in Iraq. There are terrorists everywhere, There fucking terrorists in Sweden at this minute, given visas by the Swedish government., I said Iraq has become a hotbed of global Jihadism after the invasion, you fuckin idiot - it wasn't so before. You could sight countries from Indonesia to Ireland to South America in which terrorist cells operate. I am trying to stressing, the way the war was sold. It was insinuated that Al Qaeda were linked to Saddam, as intimately as they were linked to the Taliban. That is bullshit. Your pointing out tendentious links between various terrorist groups across the world. The IRA were also linked to the FARC in colombia - this is what these groups with disparate aims do. I'm pointing out, that the war was sold by Bush implying that Saddam was intending to send WMDs to the United States, by an Al Qaeda courier. They've been struggling to provide EVIDENCE for that. If an independent Islamist group, in a region Saddam had no control over, had contacts (and i'm taking your word for this) with whatever personality who was also linked to Al Qaeda - then i dont see how this implies that the Ba'ath party was preparing another 9/11.
Why was there such clear pressure for the intelligence services to provide evidence for WMDs? Why weren't they just allowed to do their job and the adminsitration judge the evidence on its own merits - like they should? Perhaps they wanted war for other reasons than WMDs.
- Cactus0
I thought you were going home. Always got to get the last word in...eh.
The so-called, Neo Conservatives in the US made no secret about wanting to overturn Saddam Hussein's regime whether he possessed WMD or not. They felt he was a permenant menace to the region. His refusal or inablilty to declare or destroy the WMD that the UN had already documented he had, was used as casus belli to bring a reluctant international community to actually enforce the UN resolutions and the 1993 Seize Fire Agreement.
The showdown with Saddam was inevitable. It was only a question when. It was probably better to confront him while he was weak rather than when he had regained military strength and resumed or progressed his WMD program. The confrontation with Iran is less fraught with danger, I would think, while Saddam is sitting jail rather than waiting exploit oppotunities while the US is preoccupied tackling his next door enemy.
You are completely uninformed about Al Qaeda/Zarqawi history in Iraq. A few references to bring you up to speed:
1. The connection was brokered by Sudanese Islamist leader Hassan al-Turabi during the first Gulf War.
Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) records recovered last year reveal that, by 1992, bin Laden was already regarded as an IIS asset, while Saddam was hosting Ayman al-Zawahiri of Egyptian Islamic Jihad — who would later become bin Laden's second-in-command. By 1994, the two sides came to an understanding: Al-Qaeda would not work against Iraq, but would cooperate with it on some projects, including weapons development. IIS provided al-Qaeda with phony passports; Iraq also set up secret training camps for terrorists, where the IIS special-operations division provided schooling in assassination and hijacking.2. In early February 1998, Zawahiri was in Iraq, negotiating training arrangements and collecting $300,000 from the IIS. Saddam, meanwhile, was making a mockery of weapons inspections, prompting a warning from President Clinton on February 17 against a "rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists." Two days later, the IIS was finalizing arrangements for a visit to Baghdad by a trusted envoy of bin Laden. The envoy arrived in early March, about two weeks after bin Laden issued his infamous fatwa calling on Muslims to murder Americans, including civilians, worldwide.
3. Military records uncovered since Saddam's fall appear to indicate that Shakir was a lieutenant colonel in Saddam's elite Fedayeen. In 1999, he was assigned by IIS to Malaysian Airlines as a "greeter" — a functionary who assists VIPs through the airport customs process. The VIP Shakir was dispatched to help on January 5, 2000, was Khalid al-Midhar, one of the eventual 9/11 hijackers.
There's more if you want it.
But you will probably dismiss all this as fabrication. I don't expect you to change your ideas one iota.
- mrdobolina0
Then why does the CIA and even Bush say that there was no connection between al Quaeda and Saddam?
- mrdobolina0
I still don't know how to spell al Quesadilla.
- Cactus0
No connection of a direct tie to 9/11 itself. That operation and logistical support seems to have run from within Al Qaeda from Afghanistan.
- mrdobolina0
Is that not a connection?
- Cactus0
Do you mean did Iraq have any involvement in 9/11? No, there is no proof of that.
Does it mean that throughout the 90's and up until the invasion Iraq and Al Qaeda were doing business together? The answer seems to be yes.
- mrdobolina0
why doesn't bush play that up anymore? I think it is because a lot of it was debunked.
- rtl30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ope…
read it. know it. deny it. belevie it. whatever. It's there. It's history. what it means is up t you.
- Cactus0
No, I believe it's a combiniton of three things:
One, the fact that he has been at war with the CIA since 2003 and, coorespondingly, intelligence like this is very difficult to lay out before the public. It usually must be taken on trust that the CIA did it's job correctly. For example, testimony from a source needs to coaborated by other sources to be considered valid enough to be taken seriously. And at this point, the CIA is rather lacking in the credibility department so Bush is probably afraid of getting burned by them.
Two, is thewell-known fact the the massive amounts of intelligence taken in Iraq since Saddams overthrow is taking a long, long time to be processed.
Three, the Bush administration is abolutely pisspoor at communication. Arrogance or incompetence--take your pick.
- Cactus0
ead it. know it. deny it. belevie it. whatever. It's there. It's history. what it means is up t you.
rtl3
(May 5 06, 14:04)Operation Mongoose!
- mrdobolina0
While there may have been meetings between al qaeda and iraq, hasnt it been proven that there was no substance brought out of those meetings? There were no training camps etc.
- mrdobolina0
I mean rumsfeld sold chemicals to saddam in the 80's and met with him numerous times.
Was he giving material support to nations that sponsor terrorism?
Get him to Guantanamo Bay immediately.
- Cactus0
In Iraq, the base of operations for Al Qaeda was near Halabja, with Ansar al-Islam. And earlier in Sudan.
- mrdobolina0
From what I have read, there was between 300 and 500 members of Ansar al-Islam. Hardly a reason to send 180,000 troops to a country and it didnt form in iraq until after 9/11.
- mrdobolina0
No sense in going back and forth on it though, cactus. we disagree on this and nothing is going to change that. I respect the fact that you do your homework on it rather than speaking strictly through emotion, like most of the people who still support the military action.