Link between Al Qaeda and Saddam

Chris OConnor · Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:31 pm Post subject: Link between Al Qaeda and Saddam

The below is taken from Stephen F. Hayes's book, The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2004). The first paragraph of the last chapter (pp. 177-7

sums up some of the evidence:

Quote:
Iraqi intelligence documents from 1992 list Osama bin Laden as an Iraqi intelligence asset. Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997. An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999. An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000. Satellite photographs showed al Qaeda members in 2001 traveling en masse to a compound in northern Iraq financed, in part, by the Iraqi regime. Abu Musab al Zarqawi, senior al Qaeda associate, operated openly in Baghdad and received medical attention at a regime-supported hospital in 2002. Documents discovered in postwar Iraq in 2003 reveal that Saddam's regime harbored and supported Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi who mixed the chemicals for the 1993 World Trade Center attack...

Dissident, do you have any specific comments about the above words? Again, I'm looking for specific and related comments, not generalized statements about the USA.

Anyone?

Chris

"For Every Winner, There Are Dozens Of Losers. Odds Are You're One Of Them"

costas v · Eligible to vote! Joined: 24 Jun 2004 Posts: 13 Gender:

The problem is how you ensure that all this information is reliable. I presume it comes directly or indirectly from US intelligence. Based on the history of the last couple of years intelligence can be flawed. The Bush administration claimed that Iraq had chemical weapons and that they knew exactly where to find them but that proved to be incorrect. There was the claim that Iraq has purchased uranium from Niger that was later discredited. At the time a snippet about it looked just as convincing as the information presented in the Hays book. A lot of the information the Iraqi exiles provided was considered accurate originally but then proved to be incorrect. There are indications that the CIA gave in to political pressure and was not particularly objective when assessing some intelligence on Iraq. So I have doubts about the information you presented because I no longer trust the process that generated it. But, without access to the sources themselves, it is practically impossible for me to dispute it.

Chris OConnor

Costa

Quote:
The problem is how you ensure that all this information is reliable.

Isn't it reasonable to just assume something to be true when it agrees with ones existing belief system? Why would the author of the book lie or be deceptive? What possible motive might he have?

Chris

"For Every Winner, There Are Dozens Of Losers. Odds Are You're One Of Them"

Mr. Pessimistic

Quote:
Isn't it reasonable to just assume something to be true when it agrees with ones existing belief system?

Chris, I do not know if I am understanding you correctly here. I think it is NOT reasonable to assume anything is true...especially if it agrees with an existing belief system. I think that is where most go wrong.

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

Chris OConnor

Hmm...

Does anyone else agree with Mr. P?

Chris

"For Every Winner, There Are Dozens Of Losers. Odds Are You're One Of Them"

Chris OConnor

Mr. P

I was being facetious. Of course we should be skeptical of all claims, and especially extraordinary ones. The problem is...most people don't apply reason across the board. They only become skeptical when they're facing claims that challenge their existing belief system.

Costas is exactly right in that we should look at the claims I copied and pasted with extreme scrutiny. Do I know them to be factual? Nope, so I'm not going to argue them as such.

Here is what I see. When I hear someone making a detailed critique of a political viewpoint I can almost always be assured this person is of the opposite political party. I find this hypocritical and intellectually bankrupt. Rush Limbaugh, whom is of the same political party as myself, is one of the biggest offenders. The guy tunes out every infraction conservatives make, and illuminates those the liberals make.

Now to make this personal...I think Dissident does this is every single one of his posts. Dissident is a flaming liberal that comes across, to me, as someone that absolutely detests the United States and everything we represent and/or do. I don't see him using skepticism with regards to the claims the left makes against the right, but then I see a complete tuning out of all claims the right makes of the left. Dissidents posts are simply bashing the US, capitalism, and conservatism. There is no attempt to understand the position of the conservatives. They're wrong by default and deserve to be attacked at all cost.

So...my first post in this thread was not verifiable. At least I have made no such attempt to verify what I posted. So Costas impressed the hell out of me with his response. It's exactly what I hope for out of freethinkers.

In conclusion…I have been trying to bait Dissident into a discussion and am failing miserably. I could have waited a few more days, but I can’t bear to have my silly statements left up for readers to see and conclude that I’m an irrational fool. They were there for a purpose.

My post was...

Quote:
Isn't it reasonable to just assume something to be true when it agrees with ones existing belief system? Why would the author of the book lie or be deceptive? What possible motive might he have?

I'm glad you challenged this! It shows you're not someone to just go with the flow either. Of course it isn't reasonable to just assume something to be true just because it agrees with ones existing belief system. LOL And all authors have an agenda. They might not all employ unethical techniques to sway their readers, the way Michael Moore does, but they do commit logical fallacies and lapses in reasoning by default - just because they'e humans subjectively experiencing things. What motive might they have? Oh, I don't know...sell books? ...influence an election? ...inflate their ego? ...impress people with how bright they are?

Chris

"For Every Winner, There Are Dozens Of Losers. Odds Are You're One Of Them"

Edited by: Chris OConnor at: 7/7/04 12:05 pm

RickU · Junior Joined: 30 Jun 2004 Posts: 316 Gender:

I'll respond to the points that I have problems with.

1.Numerous sources have reported a 1993 nonaggression pact between Iraq and al Qaeda.

A nonaggression pact does not come close to implying cooperation. We may soon have a nonaggression pact with North Korea, but we certainly still won't be collaberating w/ them.

2. The former deputy director of Iraqi intelligence now in U.S. custody says that bin Laden asked the Iraqi regime for arms and training in a face-to-face meeting in 1994. Senior al Qaeda leader Abu Hajer al Iraqi met with Iraqi intelligence officials in 1995. The National Security Agency intercepted telephone conversations between al Qaeda-supported Sudanese military officials and the head of Iraq's chemical weapons program in 1996. Al Qaeda sent Abu Abdallah al Iraqi to Iraq for help with weapons of mass destruction in 1997.

These comments fall under the panels comments of "no evidence of cooperation" statement. While these things likely happened, they hold no bearing if assistance was not rendered.

3.An indictment from the Clinton-era Justice Department cited Iraqi assistance on al Qaeda "weapons development" in 1998.

An indictment does not count as proof...an indictment is a charge. If it wasn't followed up it's not really viable.

4. A senior Clinton administration counterterrorism official told the Washington Post that the U.S. government was "sure" Iraq had supported al Qaeda chemical weapons programs in 1999.

And the Bush team was sure that Iraq had stockpiles of WMD ready to deploy...Not Bush bashing here for the sake of Bush bashing...just pointing out that it's very possible that the intel services were simply wrong.

5.An Iraqi working closely with the Iraqi embassy in Kuala Lumpur was photographed with September 11 hijacker Khalid al Mihdhar en route to a planning meeting for the bombing of the USS Cole and the September 11 attacks in 2000.

How is this a valid point? The hijackers were Saudi...we didn't blame the Saudi gov't for 911...

Any specific points I didn't go over, I don't really have a response to mainly because I can't challenge their veracity one way or the other.

Mr. Pessimistic

Good. I was hoping you were testing and not serious. I seemed very strange to read that and accept it was your true thoughts after reading some of your posts.

Quote:
Rush Limbaugh, whom is of the same political party as myself, is one of the biggest offenders.

The antithesis of Moore? YaHUH!

Quote:
Dissidents posts are simply bashing the US, capitalism, and conservatism. There is no attempt to understand the position of the conservatives. They're wrong by default and deserve to be attacked at all cost.

But does that make Dissidents statements invalid? I think there is PLENTY wrong with the attitude that America is right no matter what. There is plenty we do that cause our problems. We are no angels!

I will preface this by stating that I voted for Bush I.

I have attempted to understand the positions of the conservatives, I work in a place infested with them. I get along with them fine outside of politics, but some of the things they say are outright stupid and not thought out. This is also my opinion of most conservatives I know. Of most PEOPLE I know, no matter the side of the fence.

This two party crap we have here limits thought. People mostly just buy into a side and accept whatever that side says. This is wrong.

However, I will say that Bush, from what I have seen, read and heard is nothing more than an opportunistic, below average person. He has an agenda that is more detrimental to our future than any blow job Clinton got.

What pisses me off even more than anything is that the Conservatives put Clinton through the wringer for basically nothing, yet even the most slight criticism of Bush is stigmatized similar to the way atheists are by the theists. No, I do not believe in this toy king. His ideology threatens equal rights, science, unity and the separation of Church and State.

Ugh...I was trying to stay off politics for a while! I was getting very agitated over these things...so I switched to the Evolution/Creation debate to cool down.

Sorry if I ranted all over you Chris! I gotta go have some ice cream now and relax!

Mr. P.

The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.

MichaelangeloGlossolalia

I'm glad getting rid of Saddam has cleaned up that Al Qaeda problem. If Saddam and Al Qaeda had continued working together, people would be getting beheaded and blown up in the streets.


	HOME	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT