Proof that Iraq is legitimate part of WOT

Status
Not open for further replies.

hillbilly

Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
3,165
Location
Iowa
Often times, I hear people make the argument that the invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with the War on Terror, that Bush was looking for any excuse to invade Iraq for all sorts of reasons, but that Iraq is not, was not, will not ever be connected with what should be the sole and only focus of the war, Al Qaeda.

Well, that's not what Osama Bin Laden thinks.........

In case anyone has forgotten, even Bin Laden listed the sanctions on Iraq after its Invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent Gulf War as a prime reason for his declaration of war on the US and the West in general.

Here's the link and excerpt for his fatwah of 1998. He declared war on us then, only we were too distracted to notice it:

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/fatwah.htm


If some people have formerly debated the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it.

The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, still they are helpless. Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, in excess of 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So now they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there.

The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on God, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al- Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said "As for the militant struggle, it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."
 
Your logic is flawed. That Bin Laden listed Iraq as a grievance against the US does not mean Iraq supported Bin Laden.

It's more like the US, by going after Iraq, fell into a trap Bin Laden set and turned a country that was not a supporter of Islamic terrorism into a focus of terrorist energy. Our troops, and whoever gets in the way, have been hung out to dry.
 
It's more like the US, by going after Iraq, fell into a trap Bin Laden set and turned a country that was not a supporter of Islamic terrorism into a focus of terrorist energy.

Iraq NOT a supporter of Islamic terrorism??? You've got to be kidding.

Saddam Hussein was paying $25,000 to the families of Palistinian suicide bombers that killed Israelis. Saddam Hussein gave shelter to Abu Nidal, the world's most wanted terrorist before UBL came on the scene. The al Qaeda terrorist that just murdered the American citizen in Iraq, has been in Iraq for many years according to most intel sources.

All of these terrorists are/were ISLAMIC, not secular. They carried out their murderous deeds in the name of Allah.

As for Iraq now becoming the focal point for Islamic terror; GREAT! It's much easier to kill a bunch of vermin when they are concentrated in one place than if they were spread around the world. I would much rather see our military fighting them in Iraq than in American cities. (I could make an exception for San Francisco though;) )
 
Well, actually, OBL listed the mere sullying presence of US troops on Holy Saudi soil as a reason to launch the attacks.

So those who said the US should let sanctions work are the same who would cause OBL to attack, and continue to attack with little in the way of counter-measure from the US.

Saddam, who harbored two known terrorists. Saddam who offered an award for every suicide bomber's family. Saddam who had the Boeing jet in the desert for the purpose of hijack training. Saddam who launched missiles and fired anti-aircraft artillery against US aircraft over the No Fly Zone.

Rick
 
Well, you're right about the support of suicide bombers in Israel. I was thinking more in terms of al Qaeda and the jihad against the US.
So those who said the US should let sanctions work are the same who would cause OBL to attack, and continue to attack with little in the way of counter-measure from the US.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. The sanctions had reduced Iraq to an utterly powerless country. What does that have to do with who OBL decides to attack?
 
It's more like the US, by going after Iraq, fell into a trap Bin Laden set and turned a country that was not a supporter of Islamic terrorism into a focus of terrorist energy.

What a fantastic trap. Let's see...

He has limited resources. Ours are pretty much unlimited.

He's losing (I haven't seen real estimates) I'd guess at least 100 to 1 in kill ratios.

I can see why you admire bin Laden's brilliance, Malone. :D

Line 'em up...
 
Lucy, lemme 'splain.

The UN sanctions, as well as protecting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from attack, required that the US have a long-term presence in Saudi Arabia. OBL and the 15 hijackers with Saudi citizenship took umbrage with that and said they attacked the WTC for that reason.

So, if we were to continue waiting out Saddam, we wouldn't be mollifying OBL and al-Queda. We would be giving them cause for another attack. "Thank you, Sir. May I have another?"

It is like that confusing portion of a chess game where your bishop is protecting a pawn which is protecting the King from the opponent's knight. At some point ya wonder if it wouldn't be better to take the knight.

We took the knight.

Rick
 
Here is an ABC News piece with some interesting bits in it...

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20040426_1198.html


MMAN, Jordan April 26 — Al-Qaida plotted bombings and poison gas attacks against the U.S. Embassy and other targets in Jordan, two conspirators said in a confession aired Monday on Jordanian state television.

Azmi al-Jayousi, identified as the head of the Jordanian cell of al-Qaida, appeared Monday in a 20-minute taped program and described meeting Jordanian militant Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi in neighboring Iraq to plan the foiled plot.

...............

I have pledged loyalty to Abu-Musab to fully be obedient and listen to him without discussion," al-Jayousi said in the Jordanian television segment. He said he first met al-Zarqawi in Afghanistan, where al-Jayousi said he studied explosives, "before Afghanistan fell." He said he later met al-Zarqawi in Iraq, but was not specific about when.
 
One problem I have with all this backing and forthing is this notion that Al Qaida is somehow totally separate from such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al, ad nauseum. All of them, at one time or another, have castigated the U.S. for its support of Israel.

Again, the Arab saying: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Now, these groups have different specific priorities, but to for even a moment think there is a total absence of information flow or support is ludicrous. Aside from just hating the U.S., there seems to be a notable number of mullahs in a large number of madrassahs which are preaching holy war against the western world as a whole. Some in Afghanistan; some in Pakistan, some in Syria and Lebanon. Some are more oriented toward creating a Palestine and an absence of Jews in the mideast; others seem to not care about specifics.

One way or another, I cannot avoid seeing a common tie among all these. And, frankly, I don't see that my ignorance of specifics is relevant. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has feathers like a duck...

While it's true that most of the overt action has us killing idiots in Iraq, that does not in any way mean that we're all safe and snuggly back here. If we totally pulled out of Iraq and just let whatever happens go ahead and happen, it wouldn't help us one iota. Therefore, to me, it matters not at all whether we were or were not justified in having concern about WMDs. The errors in judgement about WMDs are insignificant when compared to the problems and goals of the overall long-term chess game that has been and will be going on in the middle east...

Art
 
And an article that has some quotes from the Clinton administration linking Iraq and Al Qaeda in 1998......



The al Shifa plant in Sudan was largely destroyed after being hit by six Tomahawk missiles. John McWethy, national security correspondent for ABC News, reported the story on August 25, 1998:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/527uwabl.asp?pg=1



Before the pharmaceutical plant was reduced to rubble by American cruise missiles, the CIA was secretly gathering evidence that ended up putting the facility on America's target list. Intelligence sources say their agents clandestinely gathered soil samples outside the plant and found, quote, "strong evidence" of a chemical compound called EMPTA, a compound that has only one known purpose, to make VX nerve gas.


Then, the connection:


The U.S. had been suspicious for months, partly because of Osama bin Laden's financial ties, but also because of strong connections to Iraq. Sources say the U.S. had intercepted phone calls from the plant to a man in Iraq who runs that country's chemical weapons program.



And, from later in the same article:


The Clinton administration heavily emphasized the Iraq link to justify its 1998 strikes against al Qaeda. Just four days before the embassy bombings, Saddam Hussein had once again stepped up his defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, causing what Senator Richard Lugar called another Iraqi "crisis." Undersecretary of State Thomas Pickering, one of those in the small circle of Clinton advisers involved in planning the strikes, briefed foreign reporters on August 25, 1998. He was asked about the connection directly and answered carefully.


Q: Ambassador Pickering, do you know of any connection between the so-called pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum and the Iraqi government in regard to production of precursors of VX?



PICKERING: Yeah, I would like to consult my notes just to be sure that what I have to say is stated clearly and correctly. We see evidence that we think is quite clear on contacts between Sudan and Iraq. In fact, al Shifa officials, early in the company's history, we believe were in touch with Iraqi individuals associated with Iraq's VX program.


Ambassador Bill Richardson, at the time U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, echoed those sentiments in an appearance on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," on August 30, 1998. He called the targeting "one of the finest hours of our intelligence people."

"We know for a fact, physical evidence, soil samples of VX precursor--chemical precursor at the site," said Richardson. "Secondly, Wolf, direct evidence of ties between Osama bin Laden and the Military Industrial Corporation--the al Shifa factory was part of that. This is an operation--a collection of buildings that does a lot of this dirty munitions stuff. And, thirdly, there is no evidence that this precursor has a commercial application. So, you combine that with Sudan support for terrorism, their connections with Iraq on VX, and you combine that, also, with the chemical precursor issue, and Sudan's leadership support for Osama bin Laden, and you've got a pretty clear cut case."

If the case appeared "clear cut" to top Clinton administration officials, it was not as open-and-shut to the news media. Press reports brimmed with speculation about bad intelligence or even the misuse of intelligence. In an October 27, 1999, article, New York Times reporter James Risen went back and reexamined the intelligence. He wrote: "At the pivotal meeting reviewing the targets, the Director of Central Intelligence, George J. Tenet, was said to have cautioned Mr. Clinton's top advisers that while he believed that the evidence connecting Mr. Bin Laden to the factory was strong, it was less than ironclad." Risen also reported that Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had shut down an investigation into the targeting after questions were raised by the department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (the same intelligence team that raised questions about prewar intelligence relating to the war in Iraq).

Other questions persisted as well. Clinton administration officials initially scoffed at the notion that al Shifa produced any pharmaceutical products. But reporters searching through the rubble found empty aspirin bottles, as well as other indications that the plant was not used exclusively to produce chemical weapons. The strikes came in the middle of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, leaving some analysts to wonder whether President Clinton was following the conspiratorial news-management scenario laid out in "Wag the Dog," then a hit movie.

But the media failed to understand the case, according to Daniel Benjamin, who was a reporter himself before joining the Clinton National Security Council. "Intelligence is always incomplete, typically composed of pieces that refuse to fit neatly together and are subject to competing interpretations," writes Benjamin with coauthor Steven Simon in the 2002 book "The Age of Sacred Terror." "By disclosing the intelligence, the administration was asking journalists to connect the dots--assemble bits of evidence and construct a picture that would account for all the disparate information. In response, reporters cast doubt on the validity of each piece of the information provided and thus on the case for attacking al Shifa."

Now, however, there's a new wrinkle. Bush administration officials largely agree with their predecessors. "There's pretty good intelligence linking al Shifa to Iraq and also good information linking al Shifa to al Qaeda," says one administration official familiar with the intelligence. "I don't think there's much dispute that [Sudan's Military Industrial Corporation] was al Qaeda supported. The link from al Shifa to Iraq is what there is more dispute about."

According to this official, U.S. intelligence has obtained Iraqi documents showing that the head of al Shifa had been granted permission by the Iraqi government to travel to Baghdad to meet with Emad al-Ani, often described as "the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program." Said the official: "The reports can confirm that the trip was authorized, but the travel part hasn't been confirmed yet."

So why hasn't the Bush administration mentioned the al Shifa connection in its public case for war in Iraq? Even if one accepts Benjamin's proposition that Iraq may not have known that it was arming al Qaeda and that al Qaeda may not have known its chemicals came from Iraq, doesn't al Shifa demonstrate convincingly the dangers of attempting to "contain" a maniacal leader with WMD?

According to Bush officials, two factors contributed to their reluctance to discuss the Iraq-al Qaeda connection suggested by al Shifa. First, the level of proof never rose above the threshold of "highly suggestive circumstantial evidence"--indicating that on this question, Bush administration policymakers were somewhat more cautious about the public use of intelligence on the Iraq-al Qaeda connection than were their counterparts in the Clinton administration. Second, according to one Bush administration source, "there is a massive sensitivity at the Agency to bringing up this issue again because of the controversy in 1998."

But there is bound to be more discussion of al Shifa and Iraq-al Qaeda connections in the coming weeks. The Senate Intelligence Committee is nearing completion of its review of prewar intelligence. And although there is still no CIA team assigned to look at the links between Iraq and al Qaeda, investigators looking at documents from the fallen regime continue to uncover new information about those connections on a regular basis.

Democrats who before the war discounted the possibility of any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda have largely fallen silent. And in recent days, two prowar Democrats have spoken openly about the relationship. Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana who sits on the Intelligence Committee, told THE WEEKLY STANDARD, "the relationship seemed to have its roots in mutual exploitation. Saddam Hussein used terrorism for his own ends, and Osama bin Laden used a nation-state for the things that only a nation-state can provide."

And Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut Democrat and presidential candidate, discussed the connections in an appearance last week on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews." Said Lieberman: "I want to be real clear about the connection with terrorists. I've seen a lot of evidence on this. There are extensive contacts between Saddam Hussein's government and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. I never could reach the conclusion that [Saddam] was part of September 11. Don't get me wrong about that. But there was so much smoke there that it made me worry. And you know, some people say with a great facility, al Qaeda and Saddam could never get together. He is secular and they're theological. But there's something that tied them together. It's their hatred of us."
 
Not sure how the ABC news piece on the foiled Jordan attacks with links to Iraq mentioned got duplicated, but it did.

hillbilly
 
Was there a strong enough link between AQ and Iraq to warrant attacking Iraq for that reason alone? I don't know.

Are they there now? Yes. Do they consider Iraq an important enough prize to fight for? Yes. Are there other radical islamists there with the means and desire to harm Americans? Yes.

Everything else is moot. The fight is here...not really a time to begin to shrink from it.
 
Everyone that has horse sense knows Hussein supported terrorism. Denying it now is just...fatuous.

True. Just like everyone knows Hussein has WMDs. We know exactly where they are. Wait, we were wrong, sorry about that. Not that we lied, mind you, it was those dumb CIA guys.

Just like everyone knows Saddam was getting yellow cake uranium from Nigeria. Well maybe not, nevermind.

Just like everyone knows Saddam can attack the United States with UAVs...well, we thought he could.

Just like everyone knows that Hussein has this woodchipper machine. We just can't find it. Its not propaganda, we promise.

Just like everyone knows Saddam took the Kuwaiti babies off of the respirators. Oops, sorry about that. You caught us on that one, but it won't happen again.

Just like Hussein commited enviro-terrorism by releasing crude oil into the ocean. Oops, we did that by accident ourselves. Sorry.

But Hussein did have ties with Al-Quaeda. This time, we're telling the truth. Everyone with horse sense knows that.

Horses are stupid.


(edited for spelling)
 
SkunkApe-are you telling us you believe Saddam NEVER supported terrorism?

Delmar,

My government has been feeding me lies (or false information, if you're optimistic) about Iraq since way back when Hussein was our allie and they said Iran, not Iraq, gassed the Kurds.

Can you blame me for being skeptical?
 
Fair enough, Skunkape-don't know a whole lot of them I'd have over for Sunday dinner myself, but the question still stands-do you believe that Saddam NEVER supported terrorism?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top