Saddam’s Ties to Al Queda Debunked?

1) Semantics…are the insurgents who kill Americans part of terrorist groups or partisans seeking political representation equal of others with the same nationality? If they’re seeking greater political representation, and/or fighting on behalf of other nations or and/or if they’re killing in the name of the religion of peace, then their not partisan freedom fighters or even partisan nationals-they’re terrorists seeking demands through the use of terror tactics. I submit that they’re not killing Americans in the name of a free Iraq or an Iraq where their political will is equally represented with the average peaceful Iraqi’s. Nope. They’re terrorists, and dismissing them as anything else is to sympathize with them.

2) There’s lots of smoking guns of direct and indirect ties, and those are easy to find despite the pure and simple FACT that no intelligence organization conducted a conclusive pre-war or post-war investigation into the depth of that relationship. Political groups have, and they’ve reached (shockingly) conclusions that were the same as their political objectives. But look around, re-read the article, and one will find that not a single INTELLIGENCE organization has made any conclusions regarding the depth of the relationship.

3) Why take Saddam’s word for it? The only conclusions made regarding regime ties were made by the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staffers, and rather than cite CIA interrogation debriefs of Saddam, or DIA debriefs, or Iraqi intelligence debriefs of him and other regime members, the SSCI staffer chose out of that long list of evidence…to use the FBI interrogation transcript and only portions. Of all the interrogations Saddam underwent, the FBI’s is the only one where he would have had to have had a lawyer, and since this was at a time when he was on trial for his life, hoping the insurgency would drive the US from Iraq, and thus bring about a path to his release…I find it suspect at best. It’s also completely out of pure denial that one would believe the claims of a man who was on trial for his life…where he claimed he was innocent of anything and everything. Now, if we’re to say he had nothing to gain by lying and might as well have told the truth, then why did he lie about all the crimes he committed by claiming he was innocent of those as well…unless, he was just another “innocent man on death row.” Nah, I don’t believe his word let alone his word in the context it was cherry picked.

4) Saddam always said he was still at war with the US, and that the so-called Gulf War I had never ended-it was just the start of the mother of all battles (to use his own words). Only Americans would be so arrogant as to pretend that there was no war waged by the US on Iraq from 91-03. Do people really believe he got bombed daily, had major air campaigns launched upon him every 6 months or less, and was squeezed in by a blockade, and in the face of all that this arrogant dictator just sorta took it with no hard feelings? Yeah, right.
“Saddam the forgiving”

5) One good reason: he was at war with us. Americans weren’t as a population, but the US military was, the UN was, he was, and as a result or side effect of this Ignored War (often described in PC terms as “containment”), Bin Laden decided to start killing Americans instead of just being another po’d Middle Easterner who was killing everyone and anyone BUT Americans.

Iraq wanted to use Al Queda
Al Queda wanted to use Iraq

That’s been well proven.

Reading through your drivel was bad enough until I got to this part:

I only recall defensive actions when US planes violated Iraqi airspace.

Really? You seem to have forgotten the cease fire Saddam agreed to in which no fly zones were established. If he didn’t want them he should not have agreed to the cease fire and then we would have taken him out in 1992 instead of 2003.

Your excuses for terrorists and murderers is quite pathetic but typical of a liberal moral-relativist.

Why don’t you make an argument, instead of reducing to ad hominem attacks?

Anyway you’re point about the “cease-fire” agreement and no-fly zones is easily refuted.

1.) The Safwan Accord was an informal cease-fire between the US and Iraqi military forces that arranged for such things as the exchange of prisoners, setting boundary lines etc. It was never written down and never codified.

2.) The subsequent UN Security Council Resolutions formed the formal, legally binding basis for a cease-fire, but did not include the enforcement of no-fly zones.

3.) The no-fly zones were conducted tri-laterally (and later bi-laterally after France pulled out) by the US, France, and Great Britain. It was never an issue taken up by the Security Council, and never one the Iraqi regime agreed to. The excuse given for the no-fly zones was to enforce a non-binding SC resolution against Iraq

4.) I am not a liberal and I don’t think I excuse murder or terrorism. You assume too much and your use of such personal attack are beneath you, and could betray your lack of a clear argument.

“Anyway you’re point about the “cease-fire” agreement and no-fly zones is easily refuted.

1.) The Safwan Accord was an informal cease-fire between the US and Iraqi military forces that arranged for such things as the exchange of prisoners, setting boundary lines etc. It was never written down and never codified.

2.) The subsequent UN Security Council Resolutions formed the formal, legally binding basis for a cease-fire, but did not include the enforcement of no-fly zones.

3.) The no-fly zones were conducted tri-laterally (and later bi-laterally after France pulled out) by the US, France, and Great Britain. It was never an issue taken up by the Security Council, and never one the Iraqi regime agreed to. The excuse given for the no-fly zones was to enforce a non-binding SC resolution against Iraq

4.) I am not a liberal and I don’t think I excuse murder or terrorism. You assume too much and your use of such personal attack are beneath you, and could betray your lack of a clear argument.”

Ok, I’ll seek to address these in order:

1) The Safwan accord was informal at the end of February 1991, BUT on March 2, 1991, the UN passed resolution 686 which ordered the cessation of hostilities, Iraq accepted UN686 the next day, and in April (I think the 4th) the UN passed 687/Iraq accepted 687 which detailed the terms of the ceasefire and specifically stated that earlier resolutions-including the authorization of force-were still in effect until the terms of 687 were met. That’s why President Bush and the Coalition invaded under 687 and 678 rather than 1441.

2) The no-fly-zones (and I’d enjoy debating those) were perfectly legal as every UN re Iraq resolution subsequent to 678 which authorized the use of force included the caveat that previous resolutions regarding Iraq were still recognized and in effect.

3) You’re correct on who carried out the no-fly-zones, but missing the point completely. I’ll reiterate it again later…

4) Liberal, Democrat, Independent, I don’t care. If one describes terrorists using terror as freedom fighters etc., then they are doing so incorrectly and either through a sense of denial, gross ignorance, or to further a political objective based on that incorrect description. They are not partisans seeking equal representation in a govt. They are terrorists by every standard of a terrorist.

“Obviously the Sunnis don’t agree with your assessment. An insurgency thrives off support of the local population. The Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffaq al-Rubaie, had stated several years ago the insurgency itself numbered several hundred thousand (including part-timers) with the nominal support of over 1.2 million Sunnis. There is no reason to believe this number has decreased either. Obviously a sizeable number of Sunnis believe that their voice is still not being heard through the political process.”

Most numbers have put the insurgency in the 10-30,000 range up until 2006 when it almost doubled. Support of community is important, but it doesn’t have to be happy support. It can be terrorized fear-based support. It’s not like the Taliban or NAZIs or Stalin held power because people loved them (particularly in conquered areas). People helped or were quiet because they feared them. I agree there’s large support for the insurgency, but 1/26th of the nation (the 1.2million Sunnis you describe) is hardly largescale cooperation. Nope. Ask yourself what a terrorist is, and you’ll see that the insurgents are terrorists.

“The CIA provided evidence of Soviet behavior but policy makers shaped it to fit their policies. Also I don’t really recall Saddam harboring terrorists that he denied being there…Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas both lived openly in Baghdad; and incidentally both were not wanted by the US government.”

Um, yes, both were wanted by the US. Both had killed Americans. Both were harbored by Saddam (as were thousands of others but Saddam denied that, and it was only when US forces entered that these terrorists and terrorist training camps were seen clearly). As for policy makers shifting the evidence, that’s not true either. HOWEVER, the facts and statements made by the administration have been grossly distorted by political opponents for their own political aims.

“Okay why would Tariq Aziz lie then? He is not on trial for anything, as far as I know, and his main patron and friend Saddam is now dead, so he has no reason to fear reprisals and every reason to please the US. So why does he stick by his story…a simple grant of immunity should have made him sing like a jaybird to all the evil deeds of Saddam.”

He’d lie because if he popped up and said, “Yeah, I know that Zawahiri guy. We paid him to drive the US from Somalia, to attack Americans, to bomb US embassies, and more” That’d be a confession to death-sentence crimes. Even Ted Bundy played innocent.

“It seems like you are still trying to have it both ways here. Either the sanctions were effective in keeping Saddam contained in his box or they were ineffective.”

I’m saying they had an effect, but-as the Duelfer Report makes abundantly clear-they were breaking, collapsing irrevocably, and the effect in 2003 was not what it was 12yrs previous. Ever read the Duelfer Report? The first few pages make it very clear, but the subsequent 1000 pages (and particularly the pictures) show that he was still successfully hiding stuff and that sanctions were broken and couldn’t be repaired.

“Well that was Osama bin Laden’s fatwa not Saddam Hussein’s. Osama may have disliked Saddam personally but he was still an Arab Moslem who saw it his duty to defend other Moslem Arabs when they were (perceived) to be under attack or occupation by non-Moslems. Osama’s support for the Iraqi people is not indicative, nor is it compelling evidence, of collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq.”

It’s absolute evidence that the “containment”/Ignored War caused Osama to start killing Americans rather than just ranting and raving about them.

“Well it seems just as likely that Osama came to this conclusion on his own, without help from Iraq. He may have seen it as a good recruiting tool as well; the people of Saudi Arabia weren’t really suffering under US “occupation” but the Iraqi people? Boy howdy Osama could sell that real easy. Saddam though cannot be held responsible for the actions of independent actors who initiate strikes against America on their own volition.”

I fully agree that Osama is just a killer seeking excuses and rallying cries, and that Iraq in the 1990’s was a great rallying cry. Glad you can see that as well. It means you can see that the US “containment” was an Ignored War that had consequences-like the rebirth of Al Queda and UBL’s decision to start killing Americans. Had Saddam been removed in 1991, there’d have been no need for US forces in Saudi etc.. An international force could have replaced Saddam, or the Kurds and Shia who rose up to the tune of 500,000 people could have replaced him. Either way, if the US had removed Saddam, there’d have been no US war with Al Queda which used the excuse of the US Ignored War/containment of Saddam.

“Please provide it, but keep in mind that violations of the no-fly zones or shooting at American aircraft in Iraqi airspace would not count as offensive actions seeing as they were defensive in nature and the Iraqi regime did not recognize the no-fly zones as legitimate.”

Here’s the catch 22 I was talking about earlier. You can say all you want about whether or not the no-fly-zones were illegal, or the 4 major air bombing campaigns, or the intrusive UN inspections, or the US-led blockade. You yourself claim Iraq’s response was defensive=these actions were offensive; the US was waging war on Iraq as perceived by yourself, Saddam, and Bin Laden.

Now:

you’re response is a peaceful discussion.
Saddam, he was being attacked and fought back.
Bin Laden, he used it as an excuse to turn the Muslim world against the US and start killing Americans

I’m trying to say it doesn’t matter if these air campaigns, blockade/sanctions, etc were legitimate or not (it’s irrelevant to this point), they had an effect. They made Saddam feel he was at war and being attacked, and what was it that all the intel assessments and political assessments, and your own assessment said?

“Iraq would use terrorism ONLY if the regime was threatened, but not otherwise. That is what the intelligence organizations said before the war and what they affirmed after the war. Given the evidence on hand I would say their assessment was correct.”

Thus, my point is that the assessments ignore that Saddam was threatened and attacked for over a decade, and didn’t just sit there and take it. He was not Saddam the forgiving, or Saddam the peaceful.

I am enjoying the conversation.

Now, earlier, and in the previous discussion I said I’d provide “a list of Iraqi offensive actions against the US from 1991-2003; the “containment”/Ignored War period? I’ll be MORE than happy to provide it.”” You added the condition that I only present actions that were not in defense of no-fly-zones, but the point I’m making is a demonstration of your own point (and that of the various assessments re Saddam): that if attacked or threatened, Saddam responded. To that end, the legality is irrelevant as the question is Saddam’s response: did he sit back and take it, or did he respond and attack? I say he attacked OFTEN.

http://www.scottmalensek.com/SAMPENDER/the%20ignored%20wartxtproof2.pdf

http://www.scottmalensek.com/prebushiraqtiestoaq.htm

Btw, I’ve a great list of the AQ guys who worked with Saddam and Saddam’s guys who worked with AQ as well….actually it’s just a partial list, but a good one at that.

Sorry for the delay, life sometimes gets in the way of responding to blogs.

>>) The Safwan accord was informal at the end of February 1991, BUT on March 2, 1991, the UN passed resolution 686 which ordered the cessation of hostilities, Iraq accepted UN686 the next day, and in April (I think the 4th) the UN passed 687/Iraq accepted 687 which detailed the terms of the ceasefire and specifically stated that earlier resolutions-including the authorization of force-were still in effect until the terms of 687 were met. That’s why President Bush and the Coalition invaded under 687 and 678 rather than 1441.http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/23/IMG/NR059623.pdf?OpenElement

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/22/IMG/NR059622.pdf?OpenElement

)>> The no-fly-zones (and I’d enjoy debating those) were perfectly legal as every UN re Iraq resolution subsequent to 678 which authorized the use of force included the caveat that previous resolutions regarding Iraq were still recognized and in effect.>>

This is incorrect, as nothing in any UN resolution says anything about no-fly zones. The no-fly zones were set up as a response to UNSCR 688 which asked member states to provide assistance to humanitarian relief efforts inside Iraq.

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/596/24/IMG/NR059624.pdf?OpenElement

>

Terrorism is a tactic it doesn’t describe people or their motivations. Insurgents have political motivations, as the insurgents in Iraq do. I did not say they were “freedom fighters”, you are putting political buzz words into my mouth.

>

Abu Nidal was never indicted (wanted) under US law:

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V118/N31/3dissident.31w.html

And neither was Abu Abbas:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/16/sprj.irq.us.abu.abbas/index.html

So I stand by my original statement.

As for thousands of other terrorists in Iraq at the time of invasion I would ask you to cite a source. The Salman Pak facility has already been discussed in detail and the consensus seems to be that it was a counter-terrorism facility for the IIS.

>It’s absolute evidence that the “containment”/Ignored War caused Osama to start killing Americans rather than just ranting and raving about them.

I fully agree that Osama is just a killer seeking excuses and rallying cries, and that Iraq in the 1990’s was a great rallying cry. Glad you can see that as well. It means you can see that the US “containment” was an Ignored War that had consequences-like the rebirth of Al Queda and UBL’s decision to start killing Americans. Had Saddam been removed in 1991, there’d have been no need for US forces in Saudi etc.. An international force could have replaced Saddam, or the Kurds and Shia who rose up to the tune of 500,000 people could have replaced him. Either way, if the US had removed Saddam, there’d have been no US war with Al Queda which used the excuse of the US Ignored War/containment of Saddam.>

Well Saddam responded to being attacked by defending himself, with defensive military actions. Using Soviet-era AAA guns over your own territory against high-flying F-16s with precision guided weapons isn’t exactly an offensive military action. In one year alone (Feb. 2000-Feb.2001) the US entered the no-fly zone 10,000 times, yet only 500 times did Iraqis either engage radar or use AAA. A majority of these times only radar was locked. So you are telling me that the 2.5% of the time that the Iraqis fired AAA at US fighters violating their airspace constituted a serious effort by Saddam to attack the US?

In addition we can see the number of times the US responded with “daily attacks” or whatever you are calling them. There were 207 US attacks in the combined four years that led up to the invasion of Iraq in the Southern zone, and 173 in the Northern zone; or .25 per day. Not exactly a serious threat to the regime.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/northern_watch.htm

Finally your links seem to be merely a rehashing of old history with little sourcing. Pender had a whopping total of 96 footnotes, mostly from the same sources. Your own link is full of insinuations that because Saddam said this and Osama did that they are linked, but short on actual evidence.

BTW—Curt I repeat I am not a leftist. Having a thoughtful opinion about Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda as justification for a prolonged guerrilla war shouldn’t make one a leftist. I am also not running from any knowledge; I do have a life beyond looking at this blog.

James: I hope you’ll forgive me if I spare myself the time it would take to sift through your voluminous replies.

Might I ask instead for a BRIEF and CONCISE statement regarding the following:

Do you believe we should not have deposed Saddam and instead left him in power. A simple yes or no with a qualifying SHORT paragraph will suffice.

Do you believe that Saddam was financing terrorists?

Do you believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Do you believe that Iraqis are capable of governing themselves in something like a representative government?

Again, a simple yes or no with a SHORT qualifying paragraph would be most helpful.

Mike’s America Response:

1.) Do you believe we should not have deposed Saddam and instead left him in power. A simple yes or no with a qualifying SHORT paragraph will suffice.

Yes: Keep him in power as a counter-balance to Iranian hegemony in the region, and to avoid the hornets’ nest that we stirred up in Iraq. In his absence, Iran has grown in strength and al Qaeda has a new playground.

2.) Do you believe that Saddam was financing terrorists?

After 1991 Iraq only financed the MeK which was directly opposed to the Iranian regime. Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were allowed to live in Baghdad but no longer participated in terrorist-related activities. Other than the MEK Saddam did not finance terrorism.

3.) Do you believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Prior to 1991 he did as he used them in the Iran-Iraq war, after 1991 production of WMD stopped , and the vast majority of old stockpiles were destroyed (500 missing chemical warheads were found in various places, and had been believed destroyed by the regime). So yes Iraq had WMD prior to 1991 no after 1991.

4.) Do you believe that Iraqis are capable of governing themselves in something like a representative government?

No, the true nature of Islam remains incompatible with democracy. Either Iraq will have to become more secular or the nature of Islam has to change.

A sincere and honest hats off to Mike for some great questions and to James with relatively good responses. Well done.

If I may….
Mike’s America question:

1.) Do you believe we should not have deposed Saddam and instead left him in power. A simple yes or no with a qualifying SHORT paragraph will suffice.

Yes: Keep him in power as a counter-balance to Iranian hegemony in the region, and to avoid the hornets’ nest that we stirred up in Iraq. In his absence, Iran has grown in strength and al Qaeda has a new playground.

This ignores the threat Saddam posed to his neighbors and to the US as an ally of Jihadis everywhere, as a martyr that set off Bin Laden’s war with the US (all 3 core reasons for UBL’s fatwa were regarding the US war with Iraq which had to be resolved, and there’s no way to just pay off and walk away from a blood hate that Saddam had), and it doesn’t address Saddam’s ties to Al Queda as a state sponsor of terror.

“2.) Do you believe that Saddam was financing terrorists?

After 1991 Iraq only financed the MeK which was directly opposed to the Iranian regime. Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were allowed to live in Baghdad but no longer participated in terrorist-related activities. Other than the MEK Saddam did not finance terrorism.”

The CIA disagrees with you. Per the Sen Intel Com phase II rpt and the Iraqi Perspectives Project Rpt (as well as others) we are told that CIA assessments were that Saddam’s regime was providing AQ with training, travel (including docs, passports, etc), and financing (there’s that little matter of the $300 grand given to Zawahiri on one of his many visits alone).

“3.) Do you believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction?

Prior to 1991 he did as he used them in the Iran-Iraq war, after 1991 production of WMD stopped , and the vast majority of old stockpiles were destroyed (500 missing chemical warheads were found in various places, and had been believed destroyed by the regime). So yes Iraq had WMD prior to 1991 no after 1991.

Duelfer Report confirms a lot of that, but says that he had WMD until 1998, and both the ISG Duelfer Report as well as the last UNMOVIC rpts leave a lot of WMD unaccounted for. Was there a plan to restart wmd? Absolutely. ISG report calls it “breakout capability” and it explains how it was deliberately maintained, enhanced, and the pics in the report alone prove that Saddam was working towards preserving and enhancing his wmd production capacity rather than turning it over. Stockpiles had proven vulnerable to the UN, political liabilities, and degraded, so after 1995 Saddam switched to the ability to make fresh WMD in weeks, days, or even hours.

“4.) Do you believe that Iraqis are capable of governing themselves in something like a representative government?

No, the true nature of Islam remains incompatible with democracy. Either Iraq will have to become more secular or the nature of Islam has to change.”

Thus we must ask, if the nature of Islam is not in the rights of all men, if it’s inconsistent with the belief that everyone is born equal and has the rights to live, to live under a govt of their choosing, and to pursue their own happiness, then is tyranny inherit to Islam, or can secular govts like Turkey exist?

1.) “Only operative clauses of UN Security Council Resolutions are enforceable; they can recall has many Resolutions that they want but they can only be enforced by a specific action of the Security Council detailing that force; hence 678 was needed because 660 was insufficient. 678 was specific to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait; as in if Iraq invaded Kuwait again force would be legitimate; but no-fly zones were never authorized under any cease fire agreement. They were designed to give humanitarian assistance to the Kurds and later Shiites, hence the reason that they started several months after the cease-fire agreement as the links I provided you show.”

Great! Then please read the operative clause of (for example) 686 which says it’s conditional upon the terms of 678 being met first. Ie, if those terms are not met, then 678 is still in effect. I’m gonna cut to the chase here and reiterate the question that seems most important: were the no-fly-zones and bi-annual bombing campaigns important enough for Saddam to see them as a threat, or were they effectively irrelevant? You’ve argued well for both sides of this question without determining WHICH one it is…whether this constant 12yrs of bombing was important or not. All other denials that 678 was still in effect (as stated in almost all subsequent Iraq resolutions) is just denial and finger pointing at the US for apparently actions that were no big deal…action Saddam supposedly saw as no threat and actions that had no effect on UBL’s decision to reform AQ and start killing Americans.

No-fly-zones: if they were threatening, the debate about legality is worthy, if they were no threat and irrelevant, then it’s just baseless finger pointing.

2.) “A new Resolution was needed because 678 was insufficient to re-kindle a war over any issue except for Iraqi violations of Kuwaiti sovereignty. A ?cease-fire? exists between North Korea and the UN (the only other time besides 1990 Iraq when the use of force was legitimized under international law), yet even with North Korea?s repeated violations of it (abducting South Korean citizens, USS Pueblo) a war between the UN and North Korea will not occur unless a Security Council Resolution authorizes it.”

If Iraq launched a SCUD at Saudi a year after the cease-fire was in effect, and Saudi hadn’t done anything (except allow non-threatening no-fly-zones to launch from Saudi), then would the war be back on, or would it be time to debate and haggle, and negotiate the terms of re-opening 678 which was already left open until the cease-fire terms were met (as quoted in earlier post-note, I’m not just talking about that “recalling blah blah blah stuff either”). Or if Saddam started firing missiles at neighbors, does that mean the cease-fire is off? No way do troops in the field have to sit and take hits while the UN debates whether or not a temporary cease-fire has been broken. There is a difference between a cease-fire and a peace agreement.

3.) “Except that the no-fly zones were not justified under 678 but under 688 as the links I provide show you. UNSCR 688 is a chapter VI and not a Chapter VII resolution; I don?t know where you are getting ?article? from.”

Some say pointed to 688 as the reason, but myself and others point to them as enforcement tools for 678. Under that resolution they were legal (though irrelevant if they were no threat to Saddam and meant nothing to AQ).

4.) “There is a difference between a domestic internal insurgency and terrorist organizations. There is also a problem with the definition of terrorism. Certainly there are some groups that employ terrorist tactics in Iraq but they are the minority (AQI). What I am referring to is the overall Sunni movement backlash against the US occupation (or liberation whatever you want to call it) and Shiite-led government.”

Not one American has been killed in Iraq since 5/1/03 in a legitimate attack from a legitimate enemy. The enemy has political motivations-sure, but if they’re political motivations are a return to tyranny (as is the case with Saddam loyalists, Iranian and Syrian intel, AQ, AQ affiliates, etc) then they are not legitimate enemies, and since they are using terrorist tactics, they are terrorists. For debate sake, let’s agree to call them the enemy and close #4 ?

5.) “Of course they?re a minority that?s why they are an insurgency. My point is that they are a very strong and viable insurgency. The IRA tied down 35,000 British troops for 30 years, and it only had 1,000 members 20, 30, 50,000, 250,000, 1.2 million?whatever the number it is significantly stronger than most 20th century insurgencies and thus has a significant amount of support among the population (Most polls show a majority of Iraqis approve of attacks against coalition forces). Sunni Arabs make up 20% of the population; not a majority but a sizable disaffected minority whose grievances haven?t been dealt with. “

Yet, those grievances have peaceful political means by which they can and are addressed. This is like saying that since Gore lost in 00, his supporters had the right to take up arms and start blowing up grocery stores because they had a political agenda. Let’s also be clear, AQ is only a small percentage of the insurgency, but its actions are the major cause of death among civilians in the insurgency (almost all suicide bombers are AQ, and most deaths come from suicide bombers). Thus, the disgruntled Sunni are a fraction of the insurgency that doesn’t compile even ¼ of the casualties.

6.) “You’re point was that they were “harbored”, harbored implies they were wanted for something by somebody. ANO was kicked out of Iraq prior to 1982. Between 1977 and 1981 (the time the group was based in Iraq) it did not engage in any terrorism that killed Americans. ANO ceased terrorist functions in the early 1990s (see the MIPT website for details http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=1) and its founder Sabri al-Bana (Abu Nidal) was dying of leukemia when he was allowed back into Iraq. “

Mmmm, yeah, that’s why he committed suicide with 9 bullets to the head.

“As for Abu Abbas, he actually renounced terrorism, and actively backed the Oslo Accords, his conviction (tried en absentia) was overturned in Italy due to lack of evidence. So neither man was wanted for terrorism by the US, the US never asked for their extradition, thus they weren’t really being “harbored” against US wishes.”

They were international terrorists, and they settled in Iraq just as Carlos the Jackal had, as UBL had been offered, and as thousands of others did. I can’t believe you’re marginalizing and legitimatizing these terrorists.

7.) “It depends on when these foreigners arrived, what their intent was, and their reasons for being there. None of them fought for Saddam while the regime was intact?.The Peoples Army that the Palestinians promised for Saddam failed to deliver. The only “terrorism” that Saddam engaged in to save his regime consisted of two IIS officers (one a pregnant woman) blowing themselves up near US Army checkpoints. If Saddam had these legions at his beck and call, and surely if they were trained in Iraq, and as you state living in Iraq, they would presumably owe some loyalty to Saddam, then why was the first suicide bombing by a foreigner six months after Saddam fled? Sure there were foreigners in Iraq prior to the war, but were they there at the behest of Saddam, or were they there in anticipation of an American invasion, and without the knowledge of the regime? If the regime knew they were there, why weren’t they used?”

There were attempts to use them, but most were foiled. I can list several examples from around the world. Moreover, most of the terrorists in Iraq fought as terrorists IN Iraq. The first suicide bombing was not weeks after the US was there, but within hours of the US Marines heading up the E bank of the Euphrates. Why were they there? The docs captured with Saddam said that they were there at his behest, and that his loyalists should work on their own and in parallel to the jihadis. Btw, Marines were stationed at various terrorist training camps in Iraq after the fall of the regime. Nasariya, Khifl, Fallujah, and several more. Re Salman Pak, the jury was left out per the Sen Intel Com report, but the claims from UN observers who visited it as late as 98 all said it was obvious and blatant terrorist training-even Scott Ritter’s book, Endgame cites this. Duelfer, Eukeus, Butler, Kay, and others describe it as well. So too do detainee interrogations. Given the dual phenomenology of the reporting (documents aside), we can ask the simple question: when the US invaded Iraq…did Marines who went to Salman Pak face anti-terrorist commandos or foreign fighter terrorists as the intel, eyewitnesses, and detainees had forecast? Answer: 1500-2500 foreign fighter terrorists in the area. No Iraqi anti-terrorism team has ever been encountered, and no documents ever uncovered suggesting one ever existed.

8.) “I did check; both the DOD website and several other sources. US troops are still in Saudi Arabia; several hundred, but several hundred too many.?A skeletal crew of a few hundred is to remain and U.S. military personnel will continue training with Saudi forces and holding joint exercises, officials said? http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-08-28-ustroops-saudiarabia_x.htm
Like I said the US will keep troops in Saudi Arabia for a while.”

Great find. Thanks for looking it up. By “a while”….does that mean 4 years? Are they still there today? And are there more embassy personnel and/or more American businessmen in the oil compounds or more troops? Nah, 300 people is nothin. Again, I don’t think they’re even there anymore.

9.) From your link :

FIRST “Americans’ continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post”

i.e. the continued US bombing and war on Iraq from 91-98+

SECOND “…despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million…”

i.e. the US led sanctions, bombing, and no-fly-zones (that were seen as no threat?)

THIRD “…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”

i.e. the US effort to contain and weaken Iraq so that it couldn’t attack its neighbors again.

10.) “Hey I was fine keeping him in power to balance Iran.”

By 2003, he was not just a threat to Iran though. He was a threat to Kuwait, Saudi, and had become a rallying cry for Jihad on the US.

11.) “Even psychotic dictators utilize realism in foreign policy decision-making.”

Oxymoron. Only true on occasion and not in pattern.

12.) “He didn’t take the threat seriously and his regime was not really threatened. What’s wrong with that argument; it isn’t a false dichotomy. He didn’t expect the US to overthrow him so he didn’t take the US threat seriously.”

Then we agree, the no-fly-zones were irrelevant?

13.) “Stop forcing me into a false dichotomy. I don’t have the data for all 12 years hence I used what I could find. I didn’t say the no-fly zones were an abhorrent act (I didn’t make a moral judgment on them) I stated they were not justified under UN Security Council Resolutions, nor were they a part of any cease-fire agreement, thus any Iraqi response to them was justified under international law; that the response was muted only confirms that the Iraqis saw the no-fly zones as both illegitimate and irrelevant. They would fire a missile or AAA every now and then as a show of force but no serious damage was ever done. Your basic premise is that because Iraq did all these things Saddam believed himself to be at war with the US. I am stating that despite all the things the US did to Iraq, Saddam didn’t see himself in a war with the US. “

I strongly suggest that to claim Saddam didn’t believe he was at war with the US is to ignore all the information including his own statements to the contrary. Which intelligence report would you reference to this claim that he felt he was no longer at war with the US after 1991? I agree he didn’t think the US had the balls to invade, but I strongly believe he felt he was at war with the US.

14.) “Again it is the only data I have. In the links provided to you (globalsecurity.org you?ve heard of this website?) it stated the reasons why the data was incomplete, as statistics were not kept PRIOR to 1999. You state Iraq shot at US planes daily and that there were a whole bunch of air campaigns; please provide the evidence.”

I gave a link in an earlier thread, and you dismissed Pender out of hand.

15.) ““Daniel Byman identified five types of support states can give to terrorist organizations (Deadly Connections by Daniel Byman

):

A.) Providing training and operations

B.) Weapons, money, and supplies

C.) Diplomatic cover

D.) Ideology

E.) Sanctuary”

A) Again, gonna have to ask the Marines why they claim they were stationed at terrorist training camps after the invasion.

B) Weapons (RDX), money ($300k to Zawahiri among others), supplies (passports, travel, etc).

C) Saddam’s embassies and his harboring of terrorists demonstrate the diplomatic cover aspect

D) Ideology, see question #9

E) Sanctuary, I listed the first hand accounts about thousands of terrorists being encountered in Iraq

“We know that al Qaeda?s ideology was formed during the 1980s without any help from Iraq. “

The Al Queda of the 1980’s was almost completely different from that of the Al Queda reformed in 1992, and extremely different from the AQ formed in 1996 when EIJ merged with it and took over 2/3 of the command structure.

“We also know that al Qaeda did not have any sanctuary (headquarters or training facilities) in Iraq (one can dispute the existence of Salman Pak as a “terrorist” training camp, but no evidence that al Qaeda used it). “

False

“As for diplomatic cover the only evidence that any al Qaeda operative used an Iraqi passport was Yousef when he entered the US prior to the 1993 WTC bombing (Though he wasn’t an Al Qaeda operative at the time). He claims it was a fake passport and there is evidence that fake Iraqi passports had become commonplace in the aftermath of the 1991 Iraq war and could be easily bought in Pakistan. Laurie Mylroie thinks otherwise. No other serious commentators or terrorism experts make such a claim. “

See also USS Cole and African Embassy Bombings

”So that leaves the first two options; providing training, operational direction, weapons, and money. Osama did request Chinese sea mines at one point but was rebuffed by Iraq (yes it is Saddam’s and Aziz’s and Hijaz’s and the other IIS guy?s word but if Iraq had given Al Qaeda sea mines they would have used them don?t you think?) Al Qaeda uses weapons it gets off the black market and its training camps have been well established in Afghanistan for several years. So if you can provide any evidence of money transfers or operational direction from Iraq (actual hands-on approach by IIS agents who had the power to choose and veto targets), that would be some evidence of state-sponsorship. Beyond that though I don’t think there would be anything to substantiate an operational link (state-sponsor) between the two.

Who provided the RDX for the USS Cole bomb, and how did the guys who couldn’t successfully build a boat manage to design and build the largest shaped charge ever built?

Again re money, Zawahiri $300k, and more.

Operational direction? That’s not how state-sponsorship works in my mind. It works where a state says, “we’d really like it if someone hit nation X hard, and we’d like to donate to your cause.” Then the terrorists turn around and hit nation X. Deniability is the core purpose behind a state sponsoring a terror group. As an example of that, I think we can look at the now infamous Black Hawk Down event recently authenticated docs show not only was AQ deeply involved in the event (as the Clinton Admin claimed) but they were there at the direct request and support of the IIS (see also Ray Robison’s article at American Thinker re Saddam’s Ties, and my own here at FW re 1992).

For me, there are two great links:

1) the pattern of Oil For Food (OFF) confrontation, followed by high level AQ/IIS meeting followed by fresh fatwa or AQ attack being set in motion. This happened several times, and I don’t believe in a pattern of coincidences-not when pre-Bush Admin reports, msm reports, open source intel, detainee, and captured docs verify this pattern.

2) the indirect and inexpensive using of each other. AQ used US war on Iraq as a good martyr like rally cry, Saddam’s regime tossed a little cash their way, maybe a few hundred pounds of RDX from time to time, and got a return on investment several fold larger than the initial effort down.

1.) “Obviously the no-fly zones were not threatening to Iraq. I am merely pointing out the rationale the Iraqis used to justify their actions against US planes. They had a legitimate concern over the legality of US and British warplanes flying overhead in sovereign Iraqi territory. That they chose to react violently doesn?t legitimize the no-fly zones, and doesn’t constitute a violation of any UN Resolution by Iraq.”

This “legitimate concern” seems to benign to me. I believe that if nations were shooting down my planes and conducting major bombing campaigns (btw, those campaigns were outside the no-fly-zone’s pretext), then it seems a lot more than “legitimate concern.” It would seem like acts of war-the same acts of war Saddam repeatedly reiterated and claimed. Again, the idea of Saddam the forgiving, or Saddam the peaceful, or Saddam the nonchalant just is out of character in every sense. The man believed he was at war with the US, stated so almost daily, and just didn’t think the US was actually gonna have the balls to invade until the last minute.

2.) “You would still need another resolution though Iraq?s intent would be clearer, since SCUDS were illegal under 687, also Saudi Arabia could invoke Article 52 the right of self-defense, etc. But the question was Iraq’s firing at US and UK planes a violation of the cease-fire; it wasn’t because the no-fly zones were not covered under any cease-fire agreement, and they were merely defensive actions, so Iraq could also invoke Article xxx.”

And yet, in January 1993…Iraq fired an illegal SCUD at Saudi Arabia. Perfectly legal to fire illegal weapons and to break the cease-fire agreement?

No. There is a difference between a cease-fire and a peace agreement. A cease-fire is temporary and conditional. Once those conditions are met, it’s a peace agreement, if the cease-fire is broken (as it was just 16 days after it was agreed to) it can be moot.

3.) “Well you can point to what you want, the US government stated they based the no-fly zones on 688 (Operation Provide Comfort), and they started in August 1991, not April when they would be expected to if they were a part of the cease-fire.

I disagree as to when the no-fly-zones were declared. I have OSW as August 92 per the US State Dept website, and ONW as April 6-again US State Dept. Now, what of the cease-fire violations from March to April? Those are ok? Legal? No consequence?

Is there a difference between cease-fire agreements and peace agreements?

5.A.) “I thought it was four, and where does this story come from anyway? The Iraqis had control of the morgues and would have never presented evidence
he shot himself with four bullets. The ANO organization is a bunch of terrorists so their word can never be trusted (unless it proves a Saddam link somewhere). Who else had intimate knowledge of Abu Nidal’sdeath?”

The Iraqis held a press conference, and showed pics of his body. First reports were suicide, then it was claimed he was shot 4 times trying to escape, but pics of the body showed far more than 4 wounds.

6.) “Well Carlos the Jackal actually never went to Iraq, he was refused entry by Saddam in 1985 and went to Syria instead. UBL was never offered sanctuary in Iraq; this story was put out by the Glasgow Herald in 1999 but never substantiated.”

Really? I had Sanchez aka “Carlos” down as having been allowed there until his wife was released, then they went to Syria. After which he bounced around until he was turned over to the French by Sudan in Sudan (Iraq’s ally).

The UBL offer was in a LOT of papers-not just the Glasgo Herald. Hijazi’s post-war debriefings have been a classic case of a man professing his innocence in the face of involvement in the greatest of crimes. There’s flaws in his testimony to the FBI, inconsistencies, and contradictions to authenticated intel docs. Two things are certain: he was at the center of the storm, and he’s lying (even intel officials admit that much-though…not the FBI) . In any event, this is another case of not having any possible way of knowing that before the invasion, and even the CIA (forget Feith) reported in their Iraqi Support for Terrorism reports that the offer had been made, but that it was of typically poor reliability due to the absolute and inexcusable complete lack of intelligence gathering on Iraq from 98-02 (almost 03) and very little on AQ from 98-01.

7.) “Not around the world (pre-1991 yes) but in Iraq. Here is the first suicide bombing of the war:

— Iraq’s vice president said an Iraqi military officer carried out Saturday’s deadly suicide bomb attack and promised more to come, warning Iraq could send a single “martyr” to kill thousands of Americans. Four U.S. soldiers with the 3rd Infantry Division were killed Saturday morning when a suicide bomber in a taxi attacked a military checkpoint in
the central Iraqi town of Najaf, a U.S. Central Command spokesman said.

The suicide bombing was the first against U.S. and British forces since the invasion of Iraq began.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/29/sprj.irq.car.bomb/index.html

This was one of two suicide bombings the regime carried out: by an Iraqi military officer and an IIS agent. Neither of them were foreigners. The Marines were stationed in Iraqi Army bases; whether they were used as terrorist training camps is an open question. Regarding Salman Pak the
detainees were not considered credible, nor were the “eyewitnesses”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salman_Pak_facility#Credibility_of_defectors”

ok, later on you comment on my sourcing myself (which I only sourced the matl and made no suggestion that I was someone special, just the sourced matl), and yet here you’re sourcing wikipedia? C’mon man. Not goin’ to buy wiki. Not when there’s so many other examples of IIS working with AQ affiliates and/or prepping for attacks themselves pre-war and during the ignored war period (see also FA post on 1992)

8.) “They are still there, 261 Special Forces soldiers are still stationed there, a small contingent but not a complete withdrawal as I inferred.”

Again, my bet is there’s thousands of westerners there for business. Perhaps tens of thousands, and hundreds or thousands-maybe tens of thousands there as diplomats etc. 261 special forces is hardly worthy of a fatwa. I can’t possibly see anyone making a case that 261 special forces are more offensive than the tens of thousands of others in the kingdom for business and political reasons. A 261 person occupation?

9.) “We are looking at bin Laden?s words in two different ways. I see him angry at the humiliation and mistreatment that Arabs (all Arabs) receive at the hands of “infidels”. It doesn’t matter if it’s a threat or not, it’s the principle of the matter.”

And I see that too, but I also see him specifically (his words) listing 3 reasons to start killing Americans, and all three were the US war on Iraq in the 1990’s (I use the term war, or ignored war, others use containment, earlier you used the words “legitimate concern”)

10.) “His main focus was Iran; he didn’t like Kuwait but there has always been an historical animosity between the two countries. Even before the Baathists took power Iraq threatened to invade Kuwait. In his absence
former terrorist organizations sponsored by Iran have come to power making Iraq practically a proxy for the Iranians.”

I agree, but he’d attacked Syria with Islamic extremist terrorists, he’d waged war with Iran, he’d bombed Jordan, invaded Kuwait, invaded Saudi, and threatened all the Gulf States during the Iran/Iraq War with naval and air attacks. He was a threat to the region.

11.) “All states are self-interested and this self-interest (survival) drives them; Read Waltz or Mearshimer for a clearer understanding.”

Yep. All states are self-interested. I agree. We can close 11

12.) “The Dulefer Report stated he wanted to be an ally of the US; his entire security and military apparatus regarded Iran, and Israel as more pressing
threats to Iraq than the US, along with domestic opponents. Even Kuwait and Syria were considered higher priorities for Saddam than the US. He didn’t like being sanctioned, and he used the US as the bully to rail against, but that doesn’t mean he invited or sought or wanted war or
thought he was in one. If so then it was Saddam against the world, or the UN , and not the US specifically.”

Where does it say in the Duelfer Report that Saddam was trying to be an ally of the US?

13.) “A) “Again, gonna have to ask the Marines why they claim they were stationed at terrorist training camps after the invasion.” They claimed they found one terrorist training camp, or what they assumed
was a training camp outside of Baghdad:

http://www.boston.com/news/daily/16/terrorist_camp.htm

Initial reports are usually wrong though and nothing indicated that foreigners were trained there. “

Sorry man, but pre-war reporting was that there were foreigners training at camps in Nasariah, Falluja, Khifl, Salman Pak, and several other places, then the US Marines went there, were fought by foreigners, and got to the “army” training camps where foreigners were coming from and had been stationed (per docex). What’s vague about that? Seems the disinformation is counter to the (for once) accurate intel.

“B) “It did in the 1980s. but both Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas were no longer engaged in terrorist activities when they returned to Baghdad, kind of like SCIRI and Dawa no longer engage in terrorist activities since the US
started supporting them.”

We’ll never know about Nidal, but Abbas supposedly was still coordinating from his safe haven/terrorist-legend-retirement-community.

C.) “How did they know they were terrorists? Did they speak a different dialect than Iraqi Arabic? Did they wear different clothes? The Saddam Fedayeen
were a paramilitary organization that utilized guerrilla tactics but they were not foreign terrorists”

Often (in the first hand accounts I listed earlier) its from documents found on bodies, some who were captured, and more. I have direct information from intelligence professionals who were there and served several tours confirming that there were foreign terrorists all over the place. They confirm the accounts listed in the first hand books I listed earlier.

D.) “No it had the same ideology (radical Islamism, pure Islamic state, return of the Caliphate) that it was founded on. It is diametrically opposed to Baathism. EIJ and al Qaeda formally merged in 2001, though a large part of the domestic branch of EIJ still retains autonomous capabilities.

http://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/agd/www/nationalsecurity.nsf/AllDocs/499
09081A2EE3715CA256FCD001B7D79?OpenDocument

Peter Bergen, the FBI, the CIA, and others disagree. They all point to 1996. Would you like a source list?

E.) Prove it.

F.) “According to your own post a few days ago they used Russian RDX:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/04/06/the-truth-on-the-iraqalqaeda-c/

which is quite common:

http://www.ordnance.org/rdx.htm”

Yep. It’s common, and it was Russian. Did these master engineers who couldn’t build a boat go to Moscow and buy Russian RDX and design and build the largest shaped charge ever? Or did the RDX come from a nation other than Russia? Recall if you will that it IS traceable.

G.) “I’ve heard this claim repeated on blogs and message boards but where is the source for this claim? Do you have bank account information, wire
transfer dates, or are you just re-hashing Stephen Hayes’s claim which is a re-hash of Doug Feith’s memo claim, which is unsubstantiated?”

In this case I am referring to Hayes, but not his Feith information. No. He references a US News & World Report from the 90’s. I’d reference a Newsweek article that talks about high level visits and money transfers. Hayes also references a captured Iraqi official. This has nothing to do with the Feith memo.

H.) “Interesting but how do you explain overt support of terrorism than? Clearly countries like Iran and Syria sponsor terrorism, and don’t hide that fact, so where is their deniability? States sponsor terrorism for specific reasons; to undermine neighboring states, to project power, etc. There was a state sponsor of al Qaeda: The Taliban, which allowed AQ to operate in its territory, provided security for AQ leadership and training camps. We also know that AQ was a self-financing entity, and the
terrorists in 9/11 were trained in the US. “

Ask Iran or Syria about their support for terrorist groups X, Y, and Z, and they are consistent in their responses. First they deny relationships (see also Ahmadinejad interview with Diane Sawyer where he denies supporting terrorists), then they sometimes claims a terrorist group is really a political group (albeit a political group where the uniform is a suicide vest, and the debates are final), and lastly they’ll change the subject. In general, they deny their support for terrorists even though it’s done in plain sight. What other purpose is there for state sponsorship of terrorism other than deniability first and foremost?

“Ray Robison talks about the CNS documents “discovered” in 2004, which do not delineate any plans by the IIS to engage in attacking Americans, only their stated “desire” to drive Americans from Arab lands. There is much dispute over the role Ai Qaeda played in “Black Hawk Down” in 1993; bin Laden claims an active hand though this may be mere boasting on his part. This link states that Al Qaeda only provided minimum weapons training; how to shoot down helicopters with RPGs something the Afghan
Arabs were very good at. Nothing in the battle then or since indicates any Iraqi involvement.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/profiles/black_hawk_down.htm”

Your link is previous to Ray’s and doesn’t take into account the recently authenticated docs that Ray cites.

“Sam Pender, Scott Malensek, whatever you want to call yourself:

http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=2915

/105-8106062-1004404?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179881802&sr=8-3

At first glance your voluminous amount of writing is impressive until one realizes that it is nearly all self-published:

http://www.virtualbookworm.com/

Citing yourself as a definitive source isn’t recommended unless your books have been peer-reviewed, or published by a reputable publisher, or any publisher for that matter.
Regardless of where your books were published I will still probably read them, if only to understand your arguments better. .”

As I said earlier, when I gave that link it was to the information that you said was ‘from 96 other sources.’ That seems like a lot of good sourcing to prove the point. I’d like to send even more information, but that pdf was the quickest, simplest, and shortest way of presenting it. My intent was not to present myself, Sam Pender, as the utmost authority, but rather to demonstrate that the information is backed by sources far more reputable than Sam Pender, myself. Sorry for the confusion. Btw, I use the pen name from time to time so people focus on the info-not on the name & pedigree. I don’t work for the State Department, and have not worked for the CIA etc. (though I admit many many many sources in the IC).

This is getting long (though I think fun). Can we close out a few more items? For example, the UN stuff. I’d love to start discussing how UN resolutions mandate the current US presence in Iraq, but this gets us way OT from regime ties.

1.) Yeah, Saddam fired a SCUD after the US bombed Iraq in the Jan 93 bombings “legitimate concerns”. Later, Iraq was found in “material breach” of UN resolutions at least 4 times, and clearly many more that were never addressed. He also fired illegal missiles into Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi before the US invaded in 03. FYI, not all the SCUDs were ever accounted for. 24 remain missing to this day, and the ISG (as well as UNMOVIC) still have not been able to answer why Iraq was making fuel that could only be used in SCUDs right up into 2003, and why they were making airframe components, engines (which UNMOVIC turned up in Europe in 2004 or 2005), and more. In fact, I think if you search Global Security hard enough, you might find an interesting pic of a SCUD facility that had airframes around the outside before Powell’s UN address, and then no airframes the next day. The remain unaccounted for. The ISG report lists MOST issues as unresolved.

2.)

“’92 or ‘91? The Iraq war ended in 1991. What cease-fire violations are you referring to in March and April? Remember Iraq had to accept the terms as well, and there may have been some delay in their acceptance.”

Tell ya what, got MS Excel? If so, lemme know in reply to this item, and I’ll post a timeline online where you can see things with a little more clarity 

3.)

Scott: “Is there a difference between cease-fire agreements and peace agreements?”

James:Not anymore, a cease-fire is effectively a peace agreement. This is a cease-fire agreement but it is treated as a peace agreement:
http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Hornet/irin_72299c.html

I disagree. Now earlier you cited Wikipedia. Let’s check what they say:

“A ceasefire is a temporary stoppage of a war or any armed conflict, where each side of the conflict agrees with the other to suspend aggressive actions.”

Dictionary.com is a lot more vague as it says it can be a temporary or a permanent thing.

I maintain, that a cease-fire is a temporary agreement upon which permanence depends on conditions being met and maintained. In contrast, a peace agreement is just that, peace. Once a CFV or Cease Fire Violation occurs, the cease fire is broken, null, and void. Besides, as I said earlier subsequent UN resolutions re Iraq constantly reiterated that the resolution which authorized force was still in effect, and the resolution that stipulated the terms of the cease-fire specifically said it was conditions based. Iraq had several CFVs, never met all or even half of the terms of the cease fire agreement, and thus that agreement was null (ie, the use of force still authorized). Further, Saddam clearly believed he was still at war. He said so, and he acted as such.

4.)

“Fine and dandy they killed a terrorist. It doesn’t take away from the fact that he did have leukemia, and hadn’t committed a terrorist act in ten years.”

Never heard the leukemia thing, and it’s completely irrelevant. The point here is that Saddam harbored a terrorists. And as to him being a retired terrorist, that’s not true at all as he still lead terrorists, and detainee as well as authenticated captured docs from the IIS say that he and his group were ready and willing to participate in continuing the Mother of all Battles (dated a decade past when you’ve claimed Saddam no longer believed he was at war with the US).

5.)

He was in nearly every country in the Middle East except for Iraq under Saddam Hussein:

http://www.crimelibrary.com/terrorists_spies/terrorists/jackal/14.html

He transited through Iraq in 1976 (for three weeks) but otherwise was denied entry to Iraq.

6.)

Regardless of how many papers it was in it still isn’t substantiated. It was part of a disinformation campaign by Iraqi regime opposition figures:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,314700,00.html

There are also inconsistencies in the story:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1229608/posts

The story also happened about the same time as this bogus story planted by the Taliban:

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/

The Guardian stories only adds the INC as one of the many sources confirming the story-others included the Clinton Admin. Richard Clarke, Madelline Albright, Tenet, the 911 Commission, and the House/Senate 911 Investigation all cite the meeting as having come from multiple sources, and all put credibility to it. The Free Republic post is great. I’ve got the video if you’d like to see it. I love to point to it when people suggest that the idea of Regime Ties is a Bush lie or a Feith fantasy. It too cites US (Clinton Admin) intel officials as well as other sources. So too do Newsweek, Time, US News, and the NYT in their reporting of the meeting. Clarke is perhaps the most specific because he’s the one who blew it in Feb 99. The US had an Afghan group with eyes on target in Feb 99 at UBL’s falcon hunting lodge. The ships and subs were in position to strike, and sat imagery showed a UAE C-130 transport there. Clarke (who was negotiating a multi-billion dollar scheme to sell special F-16 fighters to his friends in the UAE) called his friends, told them that they were looking at the C-130, and the next day, both the plane and UBL were gone. Did UBL go into hiding in Afghanistan, Pakistan or the tribal areas? Probably the tribal areas as it’s where he likes to hide the most (Tora Bora, NW of Wana, etc., Kunar Province in general, Milawa, you name it.).

7.)

“I have plenty of sources as my links show. All the defectors statements were sourced to their original source on wikipedia. It isn’t a perfect source I admit, and I can get more links for you if that satisfies you.”

Yeah, please if you don’t mind 

8.)

“Like I said before it’s perception. Those 261 military personnel wear uniforms and stand on sacred ground, and that’s what makes bin Laden mad. 5,000 troops isn’t an occupation either, but it was enough to kickstart Osama, among other issues he had. I don’t think it’s relevant but I’m not the one angry about it.”

And when was the last time UBL raved about the US occupying Saudi? Before or after the US left with all its personnel (I’m sorry, but let’s be clear and agree that 261 people is not a significant military presence, barely mentionable since the embassy staff is probably double that)

9.)

“So are you saying we had to get rid of Saddam Hussein in order to pacify Osama bin Laden? Al Qaeda fought insurgencies elsewhere; Chechnya, and Kashmir, places that had nothing to do with Iraq, and would have fought the US based on its support for Israel and the Saudi regime alone.”

In a way, yeah, I think that’s part of the reason. And I agree that UBL and AQ fought insurgencies all over, but it was the US war on Iraq (“containment” “legitimate concerns” Ignored War, etc) that started him killing Americans. Seems like AQ’s got a lotta enemies, with a lotta agendas, but the reason he-and Zawahiri-focused and justified killing Americans was because of the US war on Iraq and its effects.

10.)

“I don’t recall when he ever bombed Jordan (his only ally in the first Gulf War) or attacked Syria, nor did he really “invade” Saudi Arabia (unless you are referring to that feint during Desert Storm, which was meant to attack coalition troops in Saudi Arabia), also he received money from the Gulf States during the Iran/Iraq war.”

Yeah, he attacked Jordan with IIS attacks before during and after 91, and backed terror attacks there. Jordan was not his ally in 91 either. Only Turabi and Arafat were. Jordan voted for all the UN resolutions and supported them, and aided the US via logistics, intel, etc. Not major contributions, but they didn’t want to be major contributors. Yes, I do refer to Khafji in 91 btw, and 3-5 brigades isn’t a feint. It was an attempt. In later years (not long before Pres Bush took office) the DoD did studies on the matter as they prepared to make a computer sim of the various battles in 91 as a means for training tank crews. They hired a group to go around, get detailed info from every single person involved, and compile it into a scenario (later did the same thing with the battle of 73 Easting and others). In the process, they discovered that the Khafji bit was an attempt to get to the water de-salinization plants and force Saudi to negotiate. They had no idea the power of the US, and grossly overestimated their own forces’ abilities.

11.)

Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States, according to Tariq ‘Aziz and the presidential secretary.

 In a custodial debriefing, Saddam said he wanted to develop better relations with the US over the latter part of the 1990s. He said, however, that he was not given a chance because the US refused to listen to anything Iraq had to say.

 In 2004, Charles Duelfer of ISG said that between 1994 and 1998, both he and UNSCOM Executive Chairman Rolf Ekeus were approached multiple times by senior Iraqis with the message that Baghdad wanted a dialogue with the United States, and that Iraq was in a position to be Washington’s “best friend in the region bar none.”

 Saddam speculated that the United States would instead seek to avoid casualties and, if Iraq was attacked at all, the campaign would resemble Desert Fox.

 Some Iraqi leaders did not consider the United States to be a long-term enemy, but many knew little about the United States and less about its foreign policy formulation. Former advisors have also suggested that Saddam never concluded that the United States would attempt to overthrow him with an invasion.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rsi-05.htm

First, great job taking the time and effort to look that up. I’m very familiar with it, but thank you.

Again, I refuse to take Saddam’s claims of innocence as he sat on death row. The same (perhaps more) holds true for Aziz mainly because after reading the accounts of his dealing with UNSCOM Richard Butler, I am disgusted by the man, and convinced he’s an animal-certainly not a good source. Now, the third point is an interesting one. I’d seen a LOT on that before where there were claims of “this last minute offer” and “that”, but (again, multi-sourcing…in this case multi govt sourcing) shows that all of those last minute attempts were done by lower regime members seeking to stall for time. If Saddam wanted peace, he could have left Iraq and taken the offers of amnesty in other countries. If he wanted to work with the US and get in the good graces, he’d have stopped the rhetoric that was counter to that, and worked to build “confidence” during the inspection process instead of deliberately hiding things that removed or degraded confidence in his disarmament claims. To the last two points, I FULLY agree

12.)

“You assert that “thousands” of foreign terrorists were in Iraq. But considering that the observed and reported casualty rate of Iraqi combatants (as foreign terrorists would also be classified under) is 4,895-6,370, your claim that thousands of reported foreign terrorists were fighting Americans is specious since the only way to know if thousands of those fighting Americans were foreigners is either identifying bodies with foreign paperwork, or prisoner confessions. I don’t know that any prisoners were taken during the run to Baghdad as most Iraqis returned home, certainly not thousands were captured, thus it would have to be documents on bodies, etc. But as I have stated all Iraqi combatants were identified as Iraqi combatants:

http://www.comw.org/pda/0310rm8.html

So the claim of “thousands of foreign terrorists” in Iraq is spurious.

Furthermore I still stand by the number of suicide bombings in Iraq between the beginning of the war and August 2003:

http://www.e-prism.org/images/memo78.pdf

Ansar al Islam may have also had a suicide bombing during this time but it wasn’t at the direction or behest of the regime.”

So you’re saying that because you cite a report that is PACKED with vagueness and freely admits its assumptions based (and Baghdad focused), you’ll discount all the first hand accounts from soldiers and embedded media (even those who opposed the war and claim they were attacked by foreign suicide bombers)? Wow. Yes, LOTS of prisoners were taken too btw, and many were foreigners.

I’m stunned. Choosing to believe a single, vague, source that admits it’s almost entirely speculation rather than believe the words of a dozen first hand accounts. Man, History Channel, and Discovery Channels have documentary shows on every single day showing the assault on Iraq, and in every one you see troops talking about fighting suicide bombers, VBIEDs, and more. What about the suicide mosque bombings, or the Baghdad University bomb vest factory? None of that-even the pics-none of that is believed in lieu of a single, vague, source? In all sincerity, are you interested in facts or in debating because the facts, witnesses, video, prisoners, and more showing that thousands of terrorists (foreign fighters, etc) were in Iraq when the US invaded is grossly overwhelming to your single, vague, unreliable source.

13.)

Scott: “Peter Bergen, the FBI, the CIA, and others disagree. They all point to 1996. Would you like a source list?”

James: What do they disagree with, that AQ isn’t a radical Islamic organization? It issued its fatwa in 1996 but Azzam (founder of Al Qaeda) gave it its spiritual direction. Salafi-jihadism has at its core the removal of foreigners from Moslem lands. The Afghan Arabs fought non-Moslem foreign invaders in Afghanistan, and supported Moslem insurgencies in Chechnya, Tajikistan, and Kashmir, so there is nothing inconsistent with their ideology of driving foreigner “invaders” from Saudi Arabia.

They disagree that EIJ took over 2/3 of AQ leadership roles in 2001, and point to 1996. Azzam and all the rhetoric about driving invaders from foreign lands is irrelevant to the discussion about AQ’s war on the US because the US had far more than 261 people in Saudi in 1990, and I’m interested in AQ’s war with the US-not their war in Chechnya or against other non-US enemies. Their war against the US started in 12/92, and the 3 reasons for their war on the US were all based in the US war on Iraq at the time. They surely didn’t fly planes into the world trade center because the Haliburton invaded Iraq 2 years later. Specifically, they said that they would retaliate for the US Desert Fox strikes, and immediately after that statement, the only plot that was set in motion was the 911 attacks they had been campfire fantasies until then, but authorized and set in motion after the vow to retaliate for the US attack on Iraq in 1998.

14.)

Scott: ”Yep. It’s common, and it was Russian. Did these master engineers who couldn’t build a boat go to Moscow and buy Russian RDX and design and build the largest shaped charge ever? Or did the RDX come from a nation other than Russia? Recall if you will that it IS traceable”

James: How is RDX traceable it’s a powder?

http://www.howstuffworks.com/c-42.htm

How do you know its Russian made?

Well, aside from the fact that the head of the FBI says he called his counterpart in Russia who admitted it was Russian made (Louis Freeh’s book, MY FBI pg 282), you can trace any and all plastic explosives by a number of means. The one I’m directly familiar with is gas chromatography. Basically, most chemicals have a unique molecular structure by which impurities can be found. This is particularly true with compounds that include complex hydrocarbons (gasoline is the most commonly known, but there are millions of others). Now, anything with a “butane” or an “ethyl” or similar ending will tell you that it can be inserted into a GAC (gas chromatography machine) and the structure of the compounds can be viewed in a variety of different ways (in the movies you see this as a line with spikes, but it’s a lot more detailed and complex nowadays). So, you get a sample of something that came in contact with the bomb, something with residue on it, you put it in the GAC machine, and it tells you the composition of the residue. In RDX, the chemical compounds are usually very similar, but they do vary-even a percent here and there makes them unique. Then you can take the specific compounds out of the spectrum and see not only the percentage that each chemical component made up in the bomb, but you can also see the purity and the associated impurities to each chemical components molecular structure. In no time at all, you’ve got a GREAT fingerprint by which you can compare to a database of other bombs, etc. This is old technology. I first started using it as part of some environmental work I was doing back in 1990, and today, it’s just incredible. It’s like friggin Star Trek!

SO, Louis Freeh gets the bomb analysis from his FBI guys who investigated the bombing. They tell him it’s Russian RDX. He calls his counterpart, tells him, the analysis is correct. Now, the question remains…did these hack job moron engineers who couldn’t build a boat (ie, their attack on the USS Sullivans) manage to make the largest shaped charge ever, AND did Walid Bin Attassh buy the Russian RDX from Russia, or someone else?

Clue, it’s not a pc thing to discuss, but the USS Cole is DEFINITELY my hotbutton issue.

15.)

Well information from the 1990s needs to be updated; Hayes’s book is without footnotes or a works cited page so I wasn’t sure where he got the info from.

Cool, let’s close 15 then?

16.)

“Tell that to Turkey when they forced Ocalan from Syria in 1998. Turkey knew Syria sponsored the PKK and Syria knew that Turkey knew; so any “deniability” is just polite diplomatic speak. Most state sponsors make no secret of their sponsorship including Iraq via MEK; states sponsor terrorism because it is cheap and easy.”

YES!!!! (big grin!) States sponsor terrorism:

As polite diplomatic speak (faux deniability prefaced by real deniability)

Because it’s CHEAP
Because it’s EASY

I’d only add that there’s a HUGE return on investment. Give a nutjob $300 grand or a few million, maybe some bombs, passports, some bomb-making training, and you get a LOT LOT more in return all without the risk of consequences since, “It wasn’t us. It was those other guys.”

(cool, close 16?)

17.)

“Yeah but those “authenticated” docs don’t specify anything; no names, dates, plans, money transfers, weapons transfers, training etc. Ray Robison is far from an expert on Iraqi documents. He doesn’t speak Arabic, and he only worked as a sub-contractor for ISG (his company SAIC, contracted with DIA, which gave him access to the Iraq documents in Qatar), and his work for them was little more than a filing clerk.”

Ray’s expertise is not really all that important since he specifically references a US translator and Westpoint’s counter-terrorism docex translation dept. Btw, the docs DO include dates, and strategies. Plans would not be the kind of thing a state-sponsor would normally include, and money transfers are only proven by detainees and sometimes docs (which, as we’ve seen have been made and authenticated). Anything Ray does, he does with a guy named Sammi who does speak Arabic, does the translations, and has helped authenticate docs. Let’s avoid the character attack when multi sourcing is there and not single sourcing?

18.)

“You claim to have many, many sources in the IC, but if so why can’t you get published?”

19.) Back in the 90’s I did my senior portfolio as a fictional novel. The intent was to demonstrate a sort of Tom Clancy, Red Storm Rising meets All Quiet on the Western Front. I wanted to show that war-particularly conventional war-was not gone, and even more mechanized, industrialized, and horrific than ever. In the late 1990’s I re-wrote it into a series, and tried to get it published. Traditional publishing is a bear unless you know someone or live in NYC. I got tired of trying to get an agent (cost too much money to send out all those queries), and decided to do the print on demand route just to get closure. Besides, this was 2000. Who wanted to read about war? Even Clancy’s books weren’t selling like they once had. In June 01, it was published, picked up by Amazon, I sold a lotta copies, made some money, and published the rest myself.

I’ve never tried traditional publishing since. I also don’t market my books. I mean, I’m proud of em, but I HATE being a salesman. It makes me feel like a pimp or something. So, I mention em in conversation, include em in bylines, and that’s about it. They just sell out of word of mouth, and I get beer money checks every month. Re the Sam Pender books, I used a pen name for a variety of reasons. I got some not-so non-violent comments from so-called non-violence advocates (one in particular who lived in Egypt). I notified the FBI, and the trouble ended, but when it came time to publish, I chose a pen name (my favorite character from my fiction books). I also wanted a pen name because those books are almost all chronologies from a huge list of other sources, and I wanted people to focus on the information-not me as a source. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn’t. At least I know I compiled the info, put it out there, and did what I could to point fingers at both the left and the right for this war. To my knowledge, I was the first to publish a book in 2003 that specifically pointed blame at President Bush re WMD etc in Iraq. I didn’t say he lied, I said he was responsible for the inexcusable intelligence failures that lead to the Chinese seizure of a US spy plane, the 911 attacks, the spies at the FBI and CIA, and the failure to accurately determine the WMD capacity/threat from Saddam.

21.) Others share that blame, but my core point is that we have a polarized political football in the Iraq War. One side too often aims to cry, “BUSH LIED BUSH LIED” and the other can’t bear the truth that: that the vaunted American intelligence community screwed up royal in the 90’s and early 21st Cent. It’s getting better, but the more people scream Bush Lied, the less they look at the real cause: intelligence failures. What’s that cause? Bush’s failure to enter office and completely overhaul things, AND the lack of oversight in the 1990’s (not to mention that the oversight which was done was COUNTER productive).

Neither side can admit their failures. I seek to point them out so that they can be fixed. That’s it

Democrats and media types play word games with your life. When someone calls them on it they have one advantage, the lying media and a population made up of 50% dummies.

I read that in the past couple of weeks the media has committed treason, twice, by printing highly classified national security data.

Today I read that the Iranian’s are capturing/kidnapping, American citizens.

How smart do you have to be to see that the democrats/media have released information on Iran that caused the kidnappings? Telling them that the U.S. has an on going black ops going on was really stupid (much less treason) even if they already ‘think’ it’s going on. Confirm the operation to the enemy and who is the enemy going after? American citizens, because American citizens are involved in the operation.

I think we’re up to 99% of the democrats in congress that have committed treason and 100% of the antique MSM. Firing squad or hanging in their future? I thinks so, as soon as a member or members of ‘your’ family are slaughteed. Someone else’s family means nothing to a democrat, but maybe even the dumbest of the dumb will wake up when it’s their own family.

James,
I replied to your comments, the “quotes” you just cited, in my
May 25, 2007 7:01 AM post.
-Scott

Fascinating debate, on both sides. I hope it continues. (I could–& just might–spend the rest of the day following all the links in support of Scott & James’ arguments…)

Dignified & respectful for the most part, too… That’s too rare on partisan political blogs, where personal attack seems to be the rule.

I don’t know what happened with James in his last two posts, but I will say this; once I signed in to comment myself, the commentary page that came up ends back at May 15th, with no obvious link to go further. (I figured I’d add my comment before exploring to figure out how to get back to the rest…)

For the record, I’m currently on James’ side, and was directed here by Wordsmith, who posted this and a few other links over at Mike’s America. (& by the by… I recognized Mike’s comment as being his from the first sentence… Long form commentary containing evidentiary links isn’t his cup of tea… He’s more of a “You’re with us or with the turarists” kinda guy… 8>)

I’m far less well informed than either of these debaters (though I’m workin’ at it), and thus could never argue my case as thoroughly as either of ’em has, up to now. I’m here to see the evidence, and I hope that the debate continues…

And now that I left a comment the comments all reappear.

1.) “Interesting theory, I could not bring anything up about a SCUD missile attack in 1993 on Google or lexisnexis. Certainly Saudi Arabia would have raised a stink about it, and Bush I would have reacted strongly to any SCUD missile attack. If you have a source I would like to see it. “

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/98-386.pdf
“according to a report not confirmed by the Pentagon, fired a Scud missile at the city of Dhahran in Saudi Arabia (January 18)”

I’ve seen other reports about this as well-not just the one. Never did follow up on it though. Scott Ritter’s book, Endgame mentions it as does UNSCOM Chairman Richard Butler’s, The Greatest Threat. It could be another case of multiple people reporting the same report, but it’s hard to see Ritter and Butler agreeing on much. Remember, the point here is that Iraq and the US were waging war upon each other between ODS and OIF. Whether that was justified via the UNSC is debatable, and semi-argumentative as: — if it were not authorized by the UNSC, then it makes it even more aggressive towards Iraq – if it were authorized by the UNSC, then it confirms that the official war remained.
Again, I can list many many examples of no-fly-zone and/or non-no-fly-zone combat, bombings, cease-fire breaches, etc. Literally thousands.

2.) “Send what you have”

Sorry, got confused. Send what I have re:?

3.) “At various times the condition between the US and Iraq post-1991 have been called a cease-fire, a permanent cease-fire, and a peace. Whatever you call it it was still under the auspices of the UN Security Council. Like any permanent cease-fire under international law the victim of any violations would have to present them to the Security Council and the Security Council would have to vote on if it did or did not constitute a violation, and what action would be appropriate. The no-fly zones were a separate matter that Iraq at first complied with and then ?defied?.
Compliance wasn?t required of Iraq under any SC resolution. I maintain that Saddam did not act as if he were at war with the US as there was minimal ?aggression? on the part of Iraq to defend against the no-fly zones. If Saddam truly believed himself at war he wouldn?t have done away with the SCUDs, and WMD, and would have maintained a more aggressive posture toward the US. Anyway we can close this point as well as neither of us will agree with the other.”

Your entire argument is dependent upon the unsubstantiated perception that the 1991 Cease fire was a “permanent cease-fire under international law” Can you show an example of that cease fire being described as permanent by the UNSC? As I can list at least 4 UNSC statements of material breach, and many more UNSC statements that 678 was still in effect.

4.) “Again you?ll have to show me those ?authenticated? docs regarding Abu NIdal. One document that turned out to be fraudulent stated that Atta was trained by Nidal in the summer of 2002 before his ?death?. The ANO group was dysfunctional after 1991 and had not hit a Western target since the mid-1980s, so I hardly think that Saddam was ?harboring? al-Bana in the hopes that he would lead a vanguard of terrorists against his enemies.”

I’m referring to the CNS docs again.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200410%5CNAT20041011a.html
I do agree that the doc re Atta was not reliable, but I think the other reports that Nidal was more than just sitting around watching TV for years in Iraq would be equally unreliable. A retired terrorist legend is an oxymoron imo.

5.) “Your Richard Clarke story is a nice anecdote but irrelevant as UBL wasn?t falcon hunting with Iraqis, and didn?t go to Iraq when the US had eyes on him. The alleged meeting happened in 1999 when the Clinton Administration thought other things about Iraq that proved to be wrong like WMD. So all that really means is both Clinton and Bush got bad intelligence, or didn?t believe the good intelligence that was given to them.”

I’m gonna show that one again….

“both Clinton and Bush got bad intelligence, or didn’t believe the good intelligence that was given to them”

This was exactly the point I was trying to make. Glad we can agree here.

6.) “Reporting about Activity at Salman Pak
[—–] The Salman Pak facility outside Baghdad was an unconventional warfare training facility used by the IIS and Saddam Hussein’s Fedayeen troops to train its officers for counterterrorism operations against regime
opponents. The facility contained a village mockup for urban combat training and a derelict commercial aircraft.
[…]
[—–] In Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the CIA provided additional
explanation of the sources of the information, noting that, “press and sensitive reporting about al-Qa’ida activity at Salman Pak ? ultimately sourced to three Iraqi defectors ? surged after 11 September.” The CIA determined, “that at least one of these defectors, whose story appeared in Vanity Fair magazine, had embellished and exaggerated his access.” Additionally, two other sources only repeated information provided by the [—-] defector, and also lacked first-hand access to the information. Committee staff asked both CIA and DIA analysts whether any al-Qaida operatives or other sources have confirmed Salman Pak training allegations, and the unanimous response was that none have reported knowledge of any training. A DIA analyst told Committee staff, “The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and
training of al-Qa’ida
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/heroes_in_error.html?welcom
e=true”

Yeah, the Sen Intel Com Phase II rpt. I don’t even have to look it up to recognize it. My take on the Sen Intel Com Phase II rpt:
http://www.scottmalensek.com/PhaseIIrebuttalrpt.pdf

re camps Tommy Franks, American Soldier, pg 519

“And they [USMC] had encountered several hundred foreign fighters from Egypt, the Sudan, Syria, and Libya who were being trained in a camp south of Baghdad.”

The only camp on the S side of Baghdad that I know of is Salman Pak (unless there’s others), and Franks says they encountered hundreds of foreign fighters who’d been trained there. Just this week we’ve had fresh reporting on it.

http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/05/the_missing_link.php

How did Iraq help? “We helped them by building military camps in Salman Pak, in Khos, Khalis, Yusafiya. Iraq is expert in chemical weapons. We trained them in chemical weapons. We trained them about ground fighting, too.”

7.)”>From December, 2004:
“As for its interference in the foreign policy, the ruling families have obeyed America and are carrying out their role with their treacheries. Abdallah Bin-al-Sharif Husayn and his father began against Palestine. Here is his son Abdallah II who comes after him on the same path. Here is
Muhammad VI in Morocco, walking on the same path of treachery, which his father and grandfather previously treaded. Their implementation of Crusader colonies continues. There is no room to explore them in this message, but we will remind of some due to their importance. The government of Riyadh has entered into an international alliance with the infidel Crusaders lead by Bush against Islam and its people. This also took place in Afghanistan. Moreover, these conspiracies in Iraq have begun and not ended yet. They have opened their bases for the US forces so that they can invade Iraq, which assisted them and made it easier for them to occupy it. On that day, the Saudi foreign minister went out disparaging the religion, blood, and minds of Muslims, admitting that his country has opened its airports for the Americans for humanitarian purposes, as he alleged. Here they are today showing us a new link in the chain of conspiracies with America, which they called the initiative to send Arab and Muslim forces to safeguard security in Iraq. This is a great betrayal. They were not content with supporting the infidels in their occupation of the lands of Islam, so they came with this initiative to give legitimacy to the US occupation …”
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/006101.php#dec16ultimatum

And lest we forget about Paul Johnson and Robert Jacobs among others:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-06/09/content_337892.htm”

Good quoting. It seems that after the US pulled out its forces (seriously, 261 is not mentionable as a military force), then UBL started raving about political affiliation with the US rather than direct military aid. Now, true enough he talks about Saudi letting the US use bases to attack Iraq (which I fully agree happened, and have been trying to make the case for since our first discussion), but in the 04 ranting he seems to have shifted his excuse to mere affiliation and conspiracy theories. Kinda ironic that so often we hear the left in this country complain that the Bush Admin is a puppet of the Sauds, and UBL’s complaining that the Sauds are puppets of the Bush Admin. Sorry, ot, but the irony is amazing. Again, my point is that UBL was po’d about US forces in Saudi that helped wage war on Saddam (a war which some have said was illegal and not sanctioned by the UN). In this rant, when he complains about military aid, I think he’s talking in past tense of that aid. That, or he didn’t get the memo that the US only had 261 people in Saudi. Maybe he thinks there’s some Saudi Area 51 where tens of thousands of US troops are controlling the Saudi govt?

Re Paul Jones and other contractors, this seems to back the idea that UBL’s rant shifted from being against inter-operation military support to non-military support once US forces (all but 261) left Saudi…unless Jones and other contractors are military?

9.) “The only IIS attack that I was aware of around the 1991 Gulf War was one in the Philippines that was fairly inept. According to this report Iraq dispatched 30 terror teams though none reached their targets (and none consisted of foreign terrorists).
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/980302/archive_003360.htm
What agency in DOD did the study on Khafji? Was it CAA (Vandiver?s outfit), Office of Net Assessment (Andy Marshall)? I had always heard it was a feint to test coalition strength or draw ground forces into battle, and considering they used 2-3 battalions, and not brigades I still tend to believe that.
http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb1998/0298epic.asp”

re the terror teams, there’s a lot on the 2003 IIS attacks out there (ironically from Dems like Sen Rockefeller and Levin), and while they were generally solely IIS, the ones in the PI were directly linked to Abu Sayef (sp?), and the PI even expelled the an Iraqi “diplomat” for having made repeated phone calls to AS’s leader on the eve of attacks. Iraqi embassy stuff is predominant in all kinds of ways.

re Khafji, I’d seen Gen Horner’s assessment that it was a feint attack in prep for a real mechanized attack by RG mech forces in Kuwait, and I’ve seen others-none that you’ve mentioned (never one that said it was battalions), but I think the best public account I’ve read of the battle was here:

10.) “You don?t believe Saddam?s words when he says he wanted to be an ally, yet believe his words when he claims to be an enemy of the US. It isn?t that easy for two countries to come together after a shared past animosity, both sides have to make accommodations. Saddam says he was willing to but didn?t trust the US. Lack of trust does not mean a state of war existed. I don?t trust the French but don?t think the US should go to war with them. Misunderstanding lead to the renewal of hostilities since Saddam didn?t think that the US would attack, or go all the way to Baghdad. Instead he thought the US would use him to make a point to the international community; it doesn?t mean they were enemies, otherwise Saddam may have believed he was truly in danger “

We’re so close to agreeing here James. My point is that Saddam did more than just “not trust” the US-that he expected to be attacked, and it was his miscalculation that the attack would come in the form of more impotent air strikes in Desert Fox style. Now, you bring up a great point that seems at odds, but your missing the different settings which make a huge difference. When you asked how I can believe Saddam when he said he was an enemy of the US, and not believe it when he said he wanted to be closer…you forgot that in the latter case, he was a captive, facing death, and not anywhere close to being as free to say what he wanted as he was prior to the invasion. I can easily envision how (for example) a policy maker in the Clinton Admin might rant and rave about the Bush Admin, the war, whatever, and then when jailed, claim that, “what I really meant to say was, I support the admin and wanted to help….” Nah, I just am not buying the words of yet another “innocent man on death row.” Had Saddam ranted and raved about being closer to the US when he was free, I’d be more inclined to believe him, but instead he constantly-almost daily-ranted about the Umm El-ma-arek, the mother of all fights. Here’s a better description. How often do police arrest a person who readily and consistently admits their malice once arrested? Me, I think most people claim innocence when arrested, and how often do we hear, “noooo, it wasn’t me. I was trying to break up the fight” etc.?

11.) See Franks’ quote above re foreign fighters. Re the suicide bombings, you cannot possibly be suggesting that there were no VBIED’s in the invasion? Please tell me you’re not going to suggest that every single personal account of the invasion, and all the documentaries showing these suicide attacks are unreal? There are literally THOUSANDS of witnesses to the suicide attacks against US tanks and other vehicles during the invasion, and personal suicide attacks against infantry, checkpoints etc. I’ve even got pictures of one of the suicide vest bomb factories at Baghdad University as well as pics of the hundreds of suicide bomb vests found there.

12.) “Then how do you explain Al Qaeda support for other Moslem insurgencies against non-Moslems (irrelevant to you, yet you claim you are so ?concerned? with the facts), or al Qaeda?s support for Islamic militants in SE Asia? Of course al Qaeda was angry about the sanctions on Iraq, and US troops in Iraq, but that doesn?t imply any sympathy or support for Saddam Hussein. You have yet to make that causal link. “

AQ support for other insurgencies (ie, the AQ fight against other non-Moslems) is different because I’m talking about AQ’s fight against the US, and UBL’s excuse for that. One can hardly say that the reason AQ Spain is the same as the reason AQ fights the US. UBL is nice enough to come up with excuses for each nation, and so in discussing why he called for holy war on Americans, I prefer to discuss why he called for holy war on Americans. There are some across the board commonalities, but his war on this nation and that seems to have nation-specific reasons as well.

13) “Everyone portrays themselves in the best possible light in their autobiographies, so I would take it with a grain of salt. Even if that is all true there is no indication that Iraq sold or gave RDX to al Qaeda. The problem with the Sullivans attack was too many explosives (almost all were retrieved and used in the Cole attack), and not that they couldn?t build a boat.”

Are you saying that they were smart enough to make the largest shaped charge bomb ever, but not smart enough to make a boat big enough to carry the bomb? Perhaps you can tell us where the RDX came from, or who helped design the sophisticated bomb?

14.) “I?ve read the docs they include a date but no strategy as to how to drive invaders from Somalia. I am familiar with Ray Robison, and well let?s just say he isn?t as cordial as you are if someone criticizes his posts, but fine no more character attacks.”

I beg to differ re the strategy. We can eliminate some pretty simply. It seems clear that by using the IIS and terrorist groups, the strategy wasn’t a conventional attack with fighter bombers, and it wasn’t a conventional naval attack or any other conventional attack. Given the simple combination of any intelligence service interacting with a terrorist group with the intent of taking X action in order to drive the an opponent from an area, it seems far more likely than not that X action is unconventional warfare, and given that we’re talking about a state intelligence service interacting with terrorists…we’re talking about state-sponsorship of terror. Since the terror group here is Al Queda and its affiliates, we’re talking about Iraqi sponsorship of Al Queda in attacks against the US for the mutual and individual benefits of Iraq and of AQ.

15.) “Interesting, I am not an author but I do work in the DC area in a related field. I?m not completely discounting your assertions just wondering why they haven?t been picked up in the MSM.”

Well, I’m not big believer in the liberal media idea as I think each outlet has its own tone to secure its own demographic. So, my bet is that my books and other writings don’t get picked up because I don’t market em. I HATE selling anything. I’ll inform, but I just can’t stomach the idea of selling or marketing. Something about it just doesn’t mesh with me. Don’t get me wrong, I’d LOVE to make some money off my books and writings, but my interest is more in research, discussion, and sharing of open source information. I should market, and I’ve done enough to realize that sales directly parallel marketing efforts, but I’d rather read, discuss, and share than spend time, effort, and money marketing. I dunno. Sometimes I think I should try getting an agent again, and at least give the traditional publishing method another try. A common thought in the vacuum between my ears. Still, please feel free to alert the media (hehehehe).

Sorry for the delay in posting. BUSY ’round here. Wife’s outta town & I’m flyin solo with the kids. Also had to get a new car all of a sudden. Craziness.

This is all I could do in a short period of spare time. Apologies.
🙂

1.

“The SCUD report is still an unconfirmed report. No doubt the SCUD failed to reach its target if it ever was fired, so either the SCUD was never fired or it disintegrated into the air. It cannot be proven either way, bur I would tend to stay away from “unconfirmed reports “

For me, if an unconfirmed report is corroborated (as I demonstrated), then it’s better to keep it in mind than dismiss it. The SCUD is but one of the many cease-fire violations (CFVs) listed in that pdf I linked to earlier.

“Also go ahead and list the cease-fire “breaches” so I have a clearer understanding of what you are talking about; Iraq was held in material breach seven times by the Security Council and none since 1993. None of these breaches were considered serious enough to warrant a second resolution authorizing force, and the no-fly zone infractions were immaterial to the UNSC, and not relevant to the cease-fire/peace.”

“warrant a second resolution authorizing force” The reason no second resolution was needed was because a second resolution wasn’t needed, and instead the subsequent resolutions in response to the CFVs/material breaches all reiterated the original authorization. Why reiterate instead of offer a new one…because the cease fire was not a peace treaty, but a temporary agreement that once broken becomes invalid. If a soldier walks across the line in the sand with a white flag, and no one shoots at him, it’s a cease fire…not the kinda thing that requires a UN affirmation. If enemy forces-paused by a cease-fire agreement-suddenly invade (be it Kuwait or South Korea or whatever) there is no time to go back to the UN, get everyone together, write up a second resolution to basically reiterate the legitimacy and reauthorize the first authorization of force, and then tell commanders on the other side of the globe it’s ok to respond. No. If there’s no need for a second resolution to re-say what the authorization said, then all that needs be done is to reaffirm that the first authorization is still valid, and that’s exactly what the UN did-reaffirmed that 678 was still valid….again, and again, and again, and again. It’s easy to take a dozen resolution post 678 and cite sections of resolutions that reaffirm 678 was still active, but it’s impossible to find a single UN resolution ending the 1991 Gulf War that is not conditional. If it’s conditional, then when those conditions aren’t met, the resolution is not met/not in effect.

2.

“By its nature it was permanent codified into law by the very Resolutions you claim Iraq violated. There were 7 material breaches en total yet none
of them were a justification for the resumption of hostilities as the Security Council as a whole has to vote on the correct response. The US cannot just say “a ha Iraq was/is in material breach, UNSCR 678 is still in effect bombs away” even though that is what the US did. 678 was specific to the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, i.e. Iraq invading Kuwait, the same way UNSCR 82 was specific to the situation between North and South Korea, i.e. North Korea invading South Korea even though North
Korea has violated the cease-fire multiple times, South Korea and/or the US are not justified under international law to attack North Korea under UNSCR 82 even though they are technically in a “cease-fire”

Again, please show me something that says the 1991 war was over, and that Iraq was free to break the cease fire agreement as long as it wanted, as many times as it wanted, as grievously as it wanted until someone decided to get a second resolution?

It’s like this, you say a cease-fire is permanent. The minute a soldier walks across with a white flag, and the shooting stops, then there’s peace (until the UNSC decides to pass a new resolution).

I say that a cease-fire is temporary, that its permanence is dependent upon the conditions it contains, and that the reason it is temporary is to get one side or the other to comply with those conditions as fast as possible (12yrs?). Thus, if a cease-fire is temporary, and conditions based, if those conditions are not met, or if it is broken, then the fighting can resume at any time, and there is no need for a second resolution of authorization to just reaffirm the first. Reaffirming that the first authorization was in effect happens several times in the subsequent resolutions, and there is nothing in any of them that says a new resolution must be given to authorize force again.

Re North Korea, I’d say that if DPRK invaded S Korea (via their invasion tunnels for example), they could be in Seoul in an hour or two. They could kill a million or two in Seoul with arty alone within a few days. Should the UN assemble, right up a new resolution, debate it, vote, and THEN respond? Nah. I don’t think so. I think the right and depth to respond to cease-fire violations is in the hands of those who have been violated. If they want the war to restart, they can do it after being violated.

I went back and actually re-read the resolutions, and the State Dept claim that 678 was still active. I think where the confusion rests (as with almost all the debate on pre-war intelligence does) with the fact that no one stance, no conclusive point is made. There is no specific claim in any of the resolutions that a second resolution authorizing force would be needed as opposed to a reiteration of the first.

3.

“Well the doc comes from 1992 when ANO was still kind of active, but a lot can change in 10 years as both Nidal and his organization suffered terribly in the 1990s. By 2002 he was no longer an active terrorist, you claim to not believe him, that’s your choice. But his actions, or rather inactions, speak louder than your words”

Retirement is a good punishment for terrorists?

4.

“Well he was po’d about US forces in Saudi Arabia, he’s po’d about US forces in Iraq, po’d about US forces in Afghanistan, po’d about Russians in Chechnya, po’d about Indians in Kashmir, po’d about Serbs in Bosnia, po’d about Israelis in Palestine. He gets po’d a lot, about one thing in particular; foreign troops in Moslem lands, which leads to perceived mistreatment of Moslems. He’s not doing it because he liked Saddam Hussein he did it because he hated Americans. If Saddam was overthrown in 1991 and there was still a troop presence in the Gulf (as there still is), he would have still called for jihad against the US.”

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/06/01/in-lawrence-wrights-book-the/

5.

“I was referring to the 1991 Gulf war when I stated that Jordan was an ally of the US, I thought that was the war you were also referring to since we were talking about Khafji.”

Jordan was a HUGE covert ally in the second invasion of Iraq in 2003. They allowed US fighters, bombers, etc to operate out of their bases. They did the same for US special forces, they even rescued US special forces on the eve of the invasion. Gen Franks and others now tell us that the King of Jordan even offered to allow the 4th ID to transit Jordan when it was refused in Turkey.

6.

It’s also what other regime officials say, especially those not charged with crimes. I’m sure the FBI interrogators can figure out if someone is lying. Saddam was never up for charges while he was being interrogated, the US just held him as a POW, so he may have held out hope that he could be released or at least not killed. Finally, it was always to Saddam’s benefit to become a friend of the US; he had lots of oil and the US needs lots of oil, but believe what you will.

I don’t have a lot of faith in the FBI’s interrogations, and prefer CIA ones. As to the FBI determining if one is lying? Hansen is but one of many many many examples. Better question would be why cite an FBI interrogation instead of a CIA one of Saddam? As to Saddam only being a POW when interrogated by the FBI, then why did the FBI interrogate him instead of the DIA? The idea that Saddam wanted to be a friend of the US and that this comes from non-prisoners….hmmm, like whom?

Oil….ahhhh, oil. The classic focal point. Sorry man, but if you’re gonna use the “he had oil/U.S. needs oil” theory as a substantive basis for being friends with the US, then please explain Iran and Venezuela to me for both have oil, and clearly don’t want to be friends with the US. The one thing about oil…it’s not just the US that wants it. There are bigger, better, customers (EU, India, China, etc).

7.

I missed that quote by Franks though he could be engaging in propaganda. In the link I provided which you instantly discounted, it cited references from field commanders and embedded reporters (foreign as well as American) and came away with fairly accurate conclusions regarding the level of Iraqi casualties during the invasion; there were almost no foreign fighters in
Iraq during that time. Even the Iraqi Perspectives Project, though it claims that Iraq trained non-Iraqi Arab volunteers in Fedayeen “training camps”, starting in 1998, it does not claim that these fighters were involved in the regime fight in early 2003. Brookings only lists 300-400 foreign fighters in Jan. 2004, which also includes Ansar al-Islam, and its
200-300 members. Ansar al-Islam was in Iraq, in the area of Kurdistan, but not at the invitation of the regime, nor did Ansar fight for the regime’s survival.

Why would Franks, retired, need to form propaganda in collusion with embedded reporters, other Marine generals on the scene, other Marine officers, and Marine enlisted personnel on the scene in 2003? That seems like a lotta people on the scene allegedly forming near identical propaganda with no reason to do so. Your comments re the IPP rpt claiming non-Iraqis in Martyrs of Saddam training camps seems at odds with your claim that there were no foreign fighters in Iraq during or before the invasion. Citing the Brookings rpt of what the situation was like in 1/04 is not representative of what the situation was like in 3/03. The claims of Ansar being a tool of Saddam’s are backed by several credible detainees, and the actions of Ansar against Kurdish forces in late 2002 and early 2003 were done in direct support of Saddam’s regime (assassinating generals etc).

As for suicide attacks, perhaps we are talking past each other. There have been only two suicide bombings by Iraqi security personnel dressed as civilians, directed by the regime, which took out US troops at checkpoints. A suicide attack on a tank, if that person is a legitimate combatant (Iraqi Army, or irregular) would not constitute terrorism; it would be a military attack on a military target; the Japanese did this sort of thing in WWII as well:

http://www.ww2pacific.com/suicide.html

Spin. I’ve been saying that the suicide attacks were done largely by Fedeyeen and foreign fighters making them terrorists. Did Japanese forces wage suicide attacks in WWII? Sure. Were they doing so in direct support for their ally Italy? Notachance. Were they wearing uniforms? Yep. Were they hiding behind women and children and deliberately targeting civilians (non-uniformed Fedeyeen and foreign fighters did in fact hide behind women and children and target anyone who worked with the Coalition forces-they never ever limited their attacks to just military forces).

I’m getting real REAL curious to hear your definition of terrorism or terrorist as it seems you’re too eager to dismiss any and all aspects of a terrorist. It almost sounds like you’re trying to say a few thousand Iraqis had a right to protect their dictatorial regime against the will of tens of millions of Iraqis.

Me, call me old fashioned, but I think people who never wear uniforms, routinely hide behind their own civilians, wear suicide vests, and drive VBIEDs are terrorists.

8.

It’s all intertwined and part of al Qaeda’s ideology; drive foreigners from Moslem lands. The US is just the most egregious violator of this policy, due to its backing of Israel and stationing of troops in other places. So I don’t think you can play up Osama’s words about US troops in Saudi Arabia and support for UN sanctions against Iraq, and downplay al Qaeda’s support for the Chechens struggle for independence against Russia.

US backing of Israel is my favorite of these misled accusations. US support for Israel has surely not been $100billion a year for the last 4 years, it has always been about the same as US support for Egypt, and US support for Israel is a tiny fraction of the financial and military support given to the Arab World as a whole (let alone the Muslim world as a whole). No, US support for Israel is hardly unjust and/or imbalanced, and the presence of the US in Muslim lands is mere excuse making since there are more Muslims in the US than there are in most any Moslem nation save perhaps 3-5. Should the US then leave the US? If it’s US presence in Moslem holy lands, then why not be happy that the US has basically left Saudi, Somalia, and all other Moslem holy lands save Iraq (which the US would love to leave except AQ has chosen to keep us there). Is Chechnya a Moslem Holy land? Are US forces there? How does that work exactly-call for a Holy War on the US because of the US invasion of Chechnya? Pretty sure Chechnya has nada to do with the US.

9.

“They’re certainly smart enough to build truck bombs without help, smart enough to learn how to fly jumbo jets into skyscrapers, so why not? RDX comes from lots of different places; Pakistan has it, Iran has it, Libya
has it, Egypt has it, and all these countries got weapons from Russia or China (who got their weapons from Russia). It seems circumspect to me that they would ask Iraq for RDX and bomb-making capabilities and then sink
their boat (Sullivans), and then go back to Iraq and state that they needed help in building a boat. It’s more logical to assume that they bought the RDX on the black market (easily available for the right price), utilized the expertise of some of the multiple ex-military jihadists in their employ (including US Army) and ta da you have yourself a shaped
charge. Here is an article on the attacks in India last year that also utilized RDX, and talks about how easy it is to get the material and to make a bomb.”

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2319/stories/20061006004101900.htm

It’s not too hard to get RDX, but to get hundreds of pounds of it, and be a moron….that’s questionable, and the guys who couldn’t manage to build the boat were morons. They didn’t get x-military help etc as you suggest (no evidence at all to support your claim per this particular attack). You need an engineer to make a shaped charge that big. According to my sources (only 2 of em), according to a fmr CIA guy on one of The History Channel’s shows re UBL, Iraqi IIS ”tutored” the bomb makers and helped them make it. The explosives (per 1 of my sources, and per Russian media reports at the time) Russia sold the RDX to Iraq. Iraqi IIS flew it to UAE and drove it from there to Yemen. After the failed attack on The Sullivans, Iraq refused to help again, and the bomb makers had to go to AQ. They went out to where the boat sank, got some of the explosives, flew (again to UAE then..) to Afghanistan to try out the explosives and get help making a new bomb using some of the original explosives. Fyi, USN intel and CIA uncovered the plot first as part of the uncovering of the Millennium plot, and despite specific reporting that UBL planned to hit a US ship in the 5th or 6th fleet area of ops, despite being briefed on the plot while in port in Slovenia before heading to Malta then Yemen, the crew was not prepared for it. USN intel docs support this specifically. The problem was it was treated as a “criminal threat” and not a military threat (specifically, see the USS Cole JAGC investigation where the NCIS lists “Criminal threats”). A standard boat filled with explosives would have damaged the ship (but not put a nice hole in it), and a mere boat loaded with explosives was a threat, but not a dire threat. It was the training and bomb design that made the bomb dire.

10.

But I think Iraq has to give something to AQ; direction, financing, weapons, training, etc. They cannot just say we would like the Americans to be driven from Somalia, and AQ says we also would like the Americans driven from Somalia; ok we have an agreement then. It doesn’t work that way. If AQ is going to drive Americans out anyway and has the means to do it and a strategy, what do they need Iraq for? A terrorist organization that is sponsored by a state cannot live without that state support; like Hezbollah or Hamas. AQ can live without state support, so it didn’t really need Iraq. Also there would be much more of a paper trail if Iraq was helping al Qaeda. Iraq has a bureaucracy; bureaucracies have to account for things, weapons cost money, training costs money, requisition orders have to be filled, approvals have to be gotten, follow-ups have to be done, etc. So far in the several million documents, we have the one document you mentioned about Somalia from CNS news and this new revelation that I just got to read, actually weakens the case of Iraqi support for al Qaeda.”

Several million documents captured (videos, audio tapes etc as well). Please, point me to a post-war intelligence investigation that has gone through all of those (or even more than 18% of them). The entire point of the article that started this thread was to point out that no intelligence agency has looked into this and formed a conclusion. Some have formed assessments, but those same assessments come with the caveats that the matter remain open, needs further examination, and at the time of the assessments there was incomplete collection and/or analysis. While opponents of the war would love to just carte blanche point to a political spin report and declare the matter closed, the intelligence community on the other hand admits that it was never adequately examined, and requests such an examination.

What’s really odd about your statement is that earlier in this same post you’ve described Iraq has having provided training. Additionally, the high level meetings that AQ/Iraq were having clearly included all the direction needed. The biggest problem with your misperception of state sponsorship of terror is that you’ve said the terror group cannot survive without its sponsor, and that’s not true at all. That’s a proxy not a mere state-sponsored terror group or act. By your own standard you’ve made Al Queda completely autonomous, and it’s not at all. It needs the support of governments to survive, but not just one as you so well point out, and I do agree there.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/05/more_evidence_of_saddamal_qaed.html

“The Al Qaeda operative mentions how he trained the Somalis in learning how to use RPG-7 (a very common and fairly easy weapon to use), and in basic
tactics. Everyone knew that the US had forces in Somalia, certainly al Qaeda knew, and needed no prodding from Iraq to attack America. “

It was more than just RPG-7s. There was also training in how to target an American helicopter, how to modify the warheads with proximity fuses taken out of 23mmAAA rounds, and lots lots more. I’m pretty confident that after a decade plus of war, most Somalis who had held an RPG-7 had learned the basics of how to use it, but at the request of the IIS, Al Queda went to Somalia and trained them in all kinds of ambush techniques, guerrilla warfare, and more. That’s pretty weak to just dismiss the IIS/AQ training as RPG 7 training that meant nothing (call it dismissive).

1.) “RE: Iraq SCUD. If UNSCOM had evidence that Iraq had fired a SCUD at Saudi Arabia, they had ample time to present that evidence to the Security Council, likewise for the US and Saudi Arabia. That they didn’t suggests that the “unconfirmed” report is unconfirmed for a reason. As for Ritter and Rolf, both proved to be wrong about WMD (though Ritter later corrected himself), so if they want to wax on eloquently in their books about evidence of an Iraqi SCUD that they never produced they can go right ahead”

You can’t possibly be suggesting that Iraq accounted for all its SCUDs.

“RE: North Korea, It’s quite a different situation though as South Korea could invoke Article 51 if it were invaded by North Korea; if North Korea though say captures a US warship in international waters, and accuses the crew of spying and keeps the ship; then the US/South Korea would need additional authorization for the use of force.”

By the time South Korea could even invoke article 51, Seoul could have fallen, and the government seized. The point of a cease-fire is temporary. Everyone agrees that technically DPRK and ROK are still at war. Or are you trying to say that the Korean War was ended by a permanent cease-fire and the nations are not at war? This scenario is very much like the one between Iraq and the world though simpler. imo

There is some confusion regarding the need for a second resolution, most every international law expert agrees that a second resolution was needed and 678 did not carry over past the 1990 mandate. This is my stance as well. The State Department sees things differently, mostly because they are advocating a particular policy, and are carrying out the wishes of policy-makers. In the first of these articles Richard Perle states that he think the Iraq war was probably illegal under international law but still morally justified, and in the second article the authors outline why 678 was not applicable to the current situation.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1089158,00.html
http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm#_Toc41379597

“most every international law expert agrees”

….oh come on. There are no international law experts at the State Department? This “most every” comment is pure speculation and distortion aimed to bolster an argument that is oxymoronic at its core. To suggest or say that removing a dictator is immoral isn’t just incorrect, it’s an oxymoron for leaving one in power is what’s immoral (to say nothing of boosting them or directly putting them in power). I’m sure you can find international law experts who will say it was immoral, but I am equally confident of three things. First, the State Department probably has international law experts too. Second, 678 DID carry over past the 1990 mandate (particularly since Desert Storm took place in 1991 not 1990, and because most of the 17 subsequent resolutions reiterate 678 the authorization to use force). To be specific, the authorization to use force (“paragraph 2 resolution 678 (1990)”) was reaffirmed (see also UN949 October 15, 1994 for just one example: “reaffirming resolutions 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, … and in particular paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990)”, [ie. Again specifically reaffirming the authorization to use force]). To reaffirm is to say it is still in effect. Lastly, cease-fires are temporary, and while they can be permanent if both sides maintain them, they are not inherently permanent.

“687 is completely different from 678, and no automatic trigger for war existed within its structure. The entire Security Council had to “remain seized” of the matter, meaning that only they could decide as a whole if a violation of 687 took place and if so what the punishment should be.”

You’re speculating. As there is no stated trigger for resumption of hostilities, there is also no stated need for a re-authorization. Instead, reiteration of the original authorization is repeated in the subsequent resolutions.

“687 only referred to the sanctions regime, and Iraq’s compliance with 687 would mean sanctions would be lifted, Iraq’s non-compliance means that sanctions would stay in place. So my evidence that the 1991 “cease-fire” was permanent is as follows.
1) The United Nations deemed the matter of 1990/1991 settled as the Security Council did not pass any resolution that authorized force against Iraq, nor did the UN offer its good offices to mediate a peace between the US and Iraq.”

Complete speculation as the war was between the UN and Iraq not the US and Iraq

“2.) The US was never put on a war footing with Iraq during the 1990s. President Clinton said some mean things about Saddam, and may not have liked him, but he never declared that we are still at war with Iraq, and never prepared the nation for any such war.

Sure it was. It was on a constant war footing. When Shia and Kurds rose up from 1991-1993, Iraq was certainly at a war footing as well as past that. There was never a peaceful stand down of Iraqi forces, and I’d love to see an example of a non-martial Saddam society. The conflict between the UN/US and Iraq was far from just “saying things” as I listed the hostile, combat actions and acts of war in the chronology link many posts earlier. Clinton certainly DID prepare the nation for war with Iraq on 4 different occasions. How exactly does that work…
Clinton bombs Iraq in 1993, addresses nation, says he bombed Iraq for violation of cease fire, but bombing isn’t an act of war?

Clinton sends brigades to Kuwait in 1994 because Iraq re-invaded Kuwait and ran away before UN could even pull a Monty Python, “Stop! Or I’ll say, ‘Stop!’ again”, tells press corps that Iraq isn’t complying with cease fire, gets nation ready to accept resumption of straight up open war, and it isn’t an act of war?

Clinton bombs Iraq in 1995, addresses nation, says he bombed Iraq for violation of cease fire, but bombing isn’t an act of war?

Clinton bombs Iraq in 1997, addresses nation, says he bombed Iraq for violation of cease fire, but bombing isn’t an act of war?

Clinton bombs Iraq in Spring 1998, addresses nation, says he bombed Iraq for violation of cease fire, but bombing isn’t an act of war?

Clinton threatens to bomb Iraq in November1998, addresses nation, recalled bombers while in flight, but somehow didn’t give the nation the impression to be ready for all out hostilities again?

Clinton bombs Iraq in December 1998, addresses nation, says he bombed Iraq for violation of cease fire, but bombing isn’t an act of war? (recall that this is what set the 911 plot in motion specifically carrying it from campfire brainstorm and rant to active, authorized plot per 911 Commission)

3.) Iraq was also never really on a war footing with the US. Sure Saddam said some things and he had AAA fire away at a few US planes (that were far out of range), but his priority was still on lifting sanctions, and not war with the US.

I agree and have said that he had learned his lesson and was waging a conventional war with the US. To have done so would have been insane as defined by trying the same thing over and over and getting the same results while expecting different ones.

2.) “Retirement is a good punishment for terrorists?”

Whatever fate befell Nidal (suicide, murder, cancer) he long ago became irrelevant. Some terrorists become politicians (Gerry Adams) others are still alive and were never brought to justice (Chin Peng), still others are very much relevant and active in terrorism (bin Laden), so Nidal’s fate is satisfactory to me.

“A Palestinian source in the West Bank city of Ramallah said Iraqi authorities had discovered Abu Nidal had opened channels to Iraqi guerrillas in Syria and Jordan opposed to President Saddam Hussein and wanted to put a stop to the activity before any US military operations against Iraq.
Other sources in Ramallah said Abu Nidal shot himself because he had cancer and was addicted to painkillers.”
http://www.caroptionsonline.com/2002news/08222002/world/20426.htm

I’m certain I heard something about staying away from unconfirmed single source reports. You’re still sticking to the idea that he shot himself several times to commit suicide?

3.) “I’m not going to get into a debate with you over FBI/CIA interrogations. I cited the FBI interrogation because it was cited in the ISG report and the SSCI report. I don’t know why the FBI and not the DIA interrogated Saddam, I only know he was classified as a POW by the DOD. I never stated the comments cane from non-prisoners but by regime figures not charged with crimes, including military commanders; not all of them were lying unless you believe all POWs lie, or all Iraqis lie.”

I don’t believe all POWs lie or that all Iraqis lie, but I do believe a free man’s words are more reliable than those of men proclaiming their innocence on death row, and this litany of corroborating sources you’ve pointed to remains mia. Trusting claims of innocence and compliance from Saddam Hussein is folly.

4.) “Each case is different; Saddam specifically told his staff he believed eventually the US would cut a deal with him because of his oil. Venezuela exports oil to the US despite its leader’s rhetoric (which makes you wonder how serious Chavez is).
http

Cool, we agree again. Each case IS different. Please show me where Saddam’s staff said he expected to cut a deal with the US because of oil. I’m interested.

5.) “I didn’t see any of those reports about foreign fighters during the invasion. Even if I had I would be dubious of any “initial” reports, seeing as we got burned regarding the WMD issue (barrels of uranium already marked and sealed by the IAEA were unsealed by the US Army and the Army then declared that Iraq had WMD). The IPP report didn’t specify what happened to the non-Iraqi “fighters”, there was no detail as to how many and where they came from and where they went in the IPP report. Indeed it doesn’t say if those fighters swore loyalty oaths to Saddam, given specific orders by Saddam, etc. so it’s mere speculation.”

If you didn’t see them, it might be because you didn’t want to and were looking for ways to dismiss pre-war claims rather than seeking confirmation of pre-war claims. The fact remains, very credible people who were there saw, fought, and many good men died fighting foreign fighters by the thousands in Saddam’s Iraq. I listed but a few of the sources earlier. Intelligence reporting, detainees, first hand accounts, even video documentaries on The History Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, CNN, Fox, etc…all show people on the scene describing how they encountered and fought foreign fighters at terrorist training camps. This is not something hidden, secret, or speculative. Real people died fighting them. Too many people too often clamp their eyes shut rather than being willing to open them and see the reports. If it doesn’t fit an anti-war perspective, then move on and keep looking for something that does or something that can be spun to fit.

“Ansar al-Islam was an Islamist Kurdish group that wanted to overthrow the secular Kurdish leadership, so of course it’s going to assassinate secular Kurdish generals; but they weren’t very good at it, it took them three tries to kill one general. Once the war started they were scattered to the four winds. One detainee stated that Abu Wael was an IIS agent (amazing how you’ll believe detainees when it suits your agenda), but the SSCI states that Iraq was gathering information against Ansar.”

Equally amazing how you too believe detainees when it fits your agenda. The difference here is that Wael’s testimony is corroborated, and while you’ve said that others believed Saddam believed he could cut an oil deal with the US, you haven’t provided any examples. Wael’s testimony is corroborated by at least 2 other detainees (possibly 3), captured documents, and first hand accounts of what the US SOF found at the Ansar camps. That Ansar shared the same objective as Saddam-overthrow the Kurds, supports the claims that they would work together (as intelligence pre and post war claimed and as confirmed immediately after the fall of Saddam). It also weakens the argument that Saddam (who constantly called for jihad and worked hard to feign his faux revived Islamiacism) would never work with jihadis (unless one trusts the word of a captured dictator proclaiming his innocence on death row in the presence of his lawyers).

6.) It seems to me you have trouble distinguishing what a terrorist is. This all goes back to the semantic debate we had earlier regarding insurgents. Bruce Hoffman, perhaps the world’s pre-eminent authority on international terrorism defines it thusly:

* ineluctably political in aims and motives;
* violent — or, equally important, threatens violence;
* designed to have far-reaching psychological repercussions beyond the immediate victim or target;
* conducted by an organization with an identifiable chain of command or conspiratorial cell structure (whose members wear no uniform or identifying insignia); and
* perpetrated by a subnational group or non-state entity.

However odious the tactics of Saddam Fedeyeen and like-minded militia, the tactics themselves were not borne from political motives but military, and the tactics were not perpetrated by a subnational or non-state entity; thus they cannot be terrorists. Like I said this goes back to the argument over what is or isn’t an insurgency. The MRLA was considered a terrorist group by the British Empire, but history remembers it as an insurgent group. Likewise were the PAGIC, MPLA, ZAPA, ANC terrorist groups or insurgencies? All these groups utilized what you would define as “terrorist” tactics yet all are now in power in Africa.

The Martyrs of Saddam used terrorist tactics and are by most accounts thus terrorists, but I’ll go further and ask if the definition of a terrorist is one who “ineluctably political in aims and motives” then what are the political motives of Al Queda or the thousands of foreign fighters encountered by the USMC and 3rd ID during the invasion of Iraq? If they had religious objectives instead of political (crying Allah Ahkbar instead of Long live Iraq), then they’re not terrorists? You’ve listed very clearly political terrorist groups to support the theory that all terrorists have political aims, but ignored completely any and all Islamic holy warriors. They’re HOLY warriors-not political warriors. They fight for the misperception of what their religion directs…not for politics.

7.) “I’m not the one that needs to be convinced regarding US support for Israel. There is however a perception on the so-called Arab street that the US has leverage over Israel or that the US could apply pressure to Israel, but the fact that the US doesn’t do these things (regardless of the reasons behind it), only makes bin Laden and his ilk angrier.”

An interesting argument. Seriously. By that same standard, one could say that since anti-war protesters protested against invading Iraq, they emboldened Saddam because they didn’t put pressure on Saddam. I’m of the mindset that the so-called Arab Street uses US support for Israel as an excuse, and even when the US does exert some pressure, it’s declared not enough. I would ask, where is the outcry against those who are terrorists and keep giving excuses for Israel to “defend itself” by attacking terrorists?

“As to Muslim “Holy” Lands, I am merely trying to reinforce the point that Al Qaeda, and the jihadists before them fight for Moslems against non-Moslems in (perceived) Moslem lands. Why did Osama go to Afghanistan in the 1980s, was it at the behest of Saddam, to fight Americans, or to fight non-Moslems on Moslem land? It shouldn’t be too hard to figure out why al Qaeda was formed, and what its’ ideology is all about, and thus why they hate America.”

America occupied Chechnya? America invaded Afghanistan? I understand that they claim it’s about occupying Moslem lands, but does that mean the US and the West should abandon all lands with Moslems? The US should leave Detroit? Spain should give up the South of its country? Nah, I think these guys are killers who use Islam as a cover and an excuse for their killing. The US doesn’t is not an occupier in Saudi, and wasn’t occupying Afghanistan or Iraq until long after UBL reformed AQ and went on his tirade about occupying Moslem lands. That “occupation” thing is just another excuse. They’re just killers.

8.) “That’s all very interesting and informative; I had not heard any of this before. There are two slight problems I have with it though. If Iraq only helped with the Sullivans attack (which failed) and used local (Yemeni) bomb-makers unaffiliated with AQ, and then backed away once the attack failed, leaving the Yemeni terrorists with only Al Qaeda to turn to, doesn’t that still make the Cole attack an Al Qaeda operation, and doesn’t really prove ties between Iraq and AQ (Iraq and local dumb Yemenis sure, but not AQ)? The second problem I have is that I am assuming all this information was known prior to the 2003 invasion so why wasn’t it used to bolster the case for war?”

There’s a perception among many that the Administration went on some sort of cherry-picking hunt to for info that could make up a war. I say that what’s more consistent isnt’ that they’re warmongering liars, but screwups. If they wanted to make a case or “bolster” a case for war, they could have just pointed to the anthrax attacks and spun those, or the ricin attacks at the time. Nah. They were given conflicting intel re Iraq and AQ, and having been charged with the security of the nation chose to look at the threatening intel and saw it as threatening. Why not include the Cole? In addition to the misperception that a war mongering admin was searching high and low for ‘excuses’ or ways to “bolster” a case for war, I think the Cole was far too much of a reminder to people that the Admin was a dove until post 911. The Cole, failure to prevent and failure to respond was a disaster, a huge embarrassment. It’s why people don’t talk about it today. That comparatively tiny event had massive strategic impact on Al Queda’s war against the US. It confirmed their belief that the US is a paper tiger with no will for a real fight. Lastly, there is a pattern of Russian involvement with Iraq that makes things very hard to address without creating at the very least an awkward situation with the Russians, and at the most a serious crisis. So, the list of reasons to sweep the Cole attack under the rug is longer than the list of reasons to bring it out beyond merely mentioning it from time to time. It’s just that simple.

9.) “RE: Iraq documents Well this is the reason I responded to your post because isn’t Iraq document exploitation addressed here:
“The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), which is leading the exploitation of documents (DOCEX) uncovered in Iraq, told Committee staff that 120 million plus pages of documents that were recovered in Iraq have received an initial review for intelligence information. As of January 2006, 34 million pages have been translated and summarized to some extent and are available to analysts in an Intelligence Community database.”

That was a year and a half ago, and yes I’ve read Stephen Hayes’s piece in the Weekly Standard about how an “initial review” only means they read the cover page, etc. but how much detail to you need to go into before you figure out their talking about WMD or terrorists. So if the DIA is confident that no new documents will surface indicating a relationship, what basis do you have to argue with them?”

That quote says nothing at all about DIA claims that nothing new will be found in the remaining 90 million pages of docs. The Senate Intelligence Committee/agency makes that claim, and they’re no more an intelligence agency than Doug Feith’s OSP was.

“As for state-sponsorship my definition follows Daniel Byman’s: he worked for the CIA as a Middle East analyst, got his PHD from MIT, a 9/11 Commission adviser, and the head of Georgetown’s Security Studies program. Most if not all terrorist groups require strong or passive support from states in order to survive. Al Qaeda did have some passive support from the Taliban, but only in so far as allowing them safe haven. Operationally Al Qaeda was autonomous and remains so to this day, even more so since the collapse of the Taliban.”

Exactly. Earlier you said that, “A terrorist organization that is sponsored by a state cannot live without that state support.” And my point is that because AQ gets its support from multiple states and multiple other sources….it can survive without the active support of a single entity. You might want to re-read the part about passive support as well as I think that’s integral to the matter. Also, the part about AQ being operationally autonomous is incorrect as Iran and Syria help out Al Queda a great deal as do entities directly and indirectly in Saudi, Pakistan, and elsewhere; passively and actively. Terrorism is cheap, but it ain’t free.

10.) “Well okay AQ knows how to use RPG-7, Somalis know how to use RPG-7, AQ knows guerrilla tactics, Somalis know some guerrilla tactics, AQ knows how to use RPGs to shoot down helicopters (Afghanistan), Somalis need to be trained thusly, also 23mm was old style Soviet AAA guns, quite common in the Middle East. So I can see the AQ/Somalia connection, I don’t quite see the IIS/AQ/Somalia connection. What you think one little sentence from Saddam’s secretary to the Arab Bureau to generically “hunt Americans’ makes a connection; it’s still dubious to me. Like I said before Iraq needs to give “something” to al Qaeda, for it to qualify as state support. Al Qaeda already hated Americans, had the equipment, personnel, training, money, and access to locals to carry out the attacks; so I don’t think they really needed tacit “approval” from Uncle Saddam to do so.”

Something like:

Training (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere)

Money ($300k at least)-multiple trips by AQ leaders to meet with Iraqi leaders…just to say, “Hi, hey, nice job with that soccer team Uday!”

Documents-passports, etc

Travel facilitation-Iraqi embassies were more IIS intel gathering stations than diplomatic stations

Safe haven-we’ve already established that terrorists had safe haven in Iraq

And most of all…public support (Iraq directly declares the greatness of AQ, and indirectly provides excuses to fight the US…like leaving Saudi, ending the US blockade of Iraq, and ending US war on Iraq-described to be a US war to protect Israel).

@Scott Malensek:

Hello Scott, forgive the much belated response to this thread. I got busy with other things and well you know how that goes. Anyway I cam across our little debate that I had saved on a USB drive I was cleaning out and found this old thread and thought I would respond. To wit:

You cannot possibly be suggesting that Iraq accounted for all its SCUDs.

Absolutely, we are talking about the 819 SCUD-B missiles that Saddam had in his possession in the 1970s.

By the time South Korea could even invoke article 51, Seoul could have fallen, and the government seized. The point of a cease-fire is temporary. Everyone agrees that technically DPRK and ROK are still at war. Or are you trying to say that the Korean War was ended by a permanent cease-fire and the nations are not at war? This scenario is very much like the one between Iraq and the world though simpler. imo

There was a clear end to the Korean War, an armistice line was drawn up, etc. Any renewal of hostilities would indicate a second Korean war had begun, fought over the same issues, but definitely a separate war.

First, the State Department probably has international law experts too. Second, 678 DID carry over past the 1990 mandate (particularly since Desert Storm took place in 1991 not 1990, and because most of the 17 subsequent resolutions reiterate 678 the authorization to use force). To be specific, the authorization to use force was reaffirmed (see also UN949 October 15, 1994 for just one example: “reaffirming resolutions 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, … and in particular paragraph 2 of resolution 678 (1990)”, [ie. Again specifically reaffirming the authorization to use force]). To reaffirm is to say it is still in effect. Lastly, cease-fires are temporary, and while they can be permanent if both sides maintain them, they are not inherently permanent.

First of all as I have stated before this ceasefire apparatus was under the auspices of the UN Security Council so yes it could remain permanent until the Security Council re-authorized force. Secondly, as I probably have also stated preambulatory clauses in Security Council resolutions are meaningless (the ones that refer back to previous resolutions), it is the operative clauses (the numbered clauses) that have teeth. Finally, it doesn’t really matter if the State Department has lawyers with international law backgrounds, they didn’t set the policy, the POTUS did. The State department was sidelined a great deal before, during, and even after the Iraq war.

You’e speculating. As there is no stated trigger for resumption of hostilities, there is also no stated need for a re-authorization. Instead, reiteration of the original authorization is repeated in the subsequent resolutions.

There is no speculation on my part. The law is the law, the UN Security COuncil is set up the way it is for a reason. It is designed to prevent war not acquiesce to it, so there are multiple redundancies, such as the need for a new resolution to authorize force. This is what happened in 1990.

Complete speculation as the war was between the UN and Iraq not the US and Iraq

Exactly my point. So any re-authorization of said war must go through the Security Council.

Sure it was. It was on a constant war footing

I was talking about the US. Your examples are interesting, but hardly consist of a “war footing.” A few bombings here and there, and a few brigades moving in Kuwait. Most Americans didn’t notice. You know what a war footing is right?

I’m certain I heard something about staying away from unconfirmed single source reports. You’re still sticking to the idea that he shot himself several times to commit suicide?

Well that’s still the story. In fact Saddam was worried Abu Nidal was a spy for the US: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/abu-nidal-notorious-palestinian-mercenary-was-a-us-spy-972812.html

words are more reliable than those of men proclaiming their innocence on death row, and this litany of corroborating sources you’ve pointed to remains mia. Trusting claims of innocence and compliance from Saddam Hussein is folly.

It was not just Saddam’s words, although they were enough to convince his interrogators of his veracity. Saddam was even convinced during his captivity that the US would put him back in power to help stem the violence.

Cool, we agree again. Each case IS different. Please show me where Saddam’s staff said he expected to cut a deal with the US because of oil. I’¢m interested.

This was all in the ISG report, I recommend you read it: “Saddam did not consider the United States a natural adversary, as he did Iran and Israel, and he hoped that Iraq might again enjoy improved relations with the United States, according to Tariq ‘Aziz and the presidential secretary. ”

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap1.html#sect6

and here: http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/12/world/fg-saddam12/2

The fact remains, very credible people who were there saw, fought, and many good men died fighting foreign fighters by the thousands in Saddam’s Iraq. I listed but a few of the sources earlier. Intelligence reporting, detainees, first hand accounts, even video documentaries on The History Channel, Discovery Channel, National Geographic Channel, CNN, Fox, etc, all show people on the scene describing how they encountered and fought foreign fighters at terrorist training camps. This is not something hidden, secret, or speculative. Real people died fighting them. Too many people too often clamp their eyes shut rather than being willing to open them and see the reports. If it doesnt’ an anti-war perspective, then move on and keep looking for something that does or something that can be spun to fit.

There were foreign Sunni fighters in Iraq, during the occupation, I don’t dispute that. Thomas Hegghammer pegs the number at 4-5,000. However what I do dispute is when they came, and at whose behest. Was it a coordinated plan by Saddam? No, I don’t think so. These foreign fighters naturally gravitated toward the conflict as they did in Afghanistan, as they continue to do in Syria, etc. And there were only two suicide bombings carried out by the regime.

Equally amazing how you too believe detainees when it fits your agenda. The difference here is that Wael’s testimony is corroborated, and while you said that others believed Saddam believed he could cut an oil deal with the US, you haven’t provided any examples. Wael’s testimony is corroborated by at least 2 other detainees (possibly 3), captured documents, and first hand accounts of what the US SOF found at the Ansar camps. That Ansar shared the same objective as Saddam-overthrow the Kurds, supports the claims that they would work together (as intelligence pre and post war claimed and as confirmed immediately after the fall of Saddam). It also weakens the argument that Saddam (who constantly called for jihad and worked hard to feign his faux revived Islamiacism) would never work with jihadis (unless one trusts the word of a captured dictator proclaiming his innocence on death row in the presence of his lawyers).

Wael was never captured so I don’t know where his testimony commes from. It was speculated by detainees that he was an ISS agent. In reality his linkage to Anser and Saddam is unknown, but no new evidence has surfaced in the intervening nine years to prove the link.

The Martyrs of Saddam used terrorist tactics and are by most accounts thus terrorists, but I’ll go further and ask if the definition of a terrorist is one who ineluctably political in aims and motives then what are the political motives of Al Queda or the thousands of foreign fighters encountered by the USMC and 3rd ID during the invasion of Iraq? If they had religious objectives instead of political (crying Allah Ahkbar instead of Long live Iraq), then they’re not terrorists? You’ve listed very clearly political terrorist groups to support the theory that all terrorists have political aims, but ignored completely any and all Islamic holy warriors. They’re HOLY warriors-not political warriors. They fight for the misperception of what their religion directs ¦not for politics.

Ah you misunderstand the nature of Islam which in itself is a political religion, there is no separation of the politics from the religon. Al Qaeda’s goals were absolutely political, the removal of US troops from Muslim lands, the resolution of the Palestinian problem, etc.

By that same standard, one could say that since anti-war protesters protested against invading Iraq, they emboldened Saddam because they didn’t put pressure on Saddam. I’m of the mindset that the so-called Arab Street uses US support for Israel as an excuse, and even when the US does exert some pressure, it’s declared not enough. I would ask, where is the outcry against those who are terrorists and keep giving excuses for Israel to defend itself by attacking terrorists?

It’s all about perception. But yes, you have a good point here.

America occupied Chechnya? America invaded Afghanistan? I understand that they claim it’s about occupying Moslem lands, but does that mean the US and the West should abandon all lands with Moslems? The US should leave Detroit? Spain should give up the South of its country? Nah, I think these guys are killers who use Islam as a cover and an excuse for their killing. The US doesn’t is not an occupier in Saudi, and wasn’t occupying Afghanistan or Iraq until long after UBL reformed AQ and went on his tirade about occupying Moslem lands. That occupation thing is just another excuse. They’re just killers.

There’s a big difference between Chechnya and Saudi Arabia, but yes this is what al Qaeda claims, has claimed and continues to claim. The big problem is, in my view, the lack of a caliphate (leader) to unify Sunni Islam. This is what they want to establish, what ISIS, (formerly AQI) is trying to establish. Sunni Islam has been bereft of leadership since 1922, even if it is symbolic, and in a political religion like Islam, that’s a big deal.

That quote says nothing at all about DIA claims that nothing new will be found in the remaining 90 million pages of docs. The Senate Intelligence Committee/agency makes that claim, and they’re no more an intelligence agency than Doug Feith’s OSP was.

Well nine more years and still no new information on WMDs, or al Qaeda have been found. I don’t know how much longer you want to wait but it seems fairly definitive to me at this point.

“Exactly. Earlier you said that, a terrorist organization that is sponsored by a state cannot live without that state support. And my point is that because AQ gets its support from multiple states and multiple other sources¦. it can survive without the active support of a single entity. You might want to re-read the part about passive support as well as I think that’s integral to the matter. Also, the part about AQ being operationally autonomous is incorrect as Iran and Syria help out Al Queda a great deal as do entities directly and indirectly in Saudi, Pakistan, and elsewhere; passively and actively. Terrorism is cheap, but it ain’t free.”

Substate entities, private individuals certainly may have helped al Qaeda but not states, certainly not Shiite Iran or Alawite Syria, as we can see now in the Syrian civil war.

Something like:

Training (in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere)

Money ($300k at least)-multiple trips by AQ leaders to meet with Iraqi leaders¦ just to say, Hi, hey, nice job with that soccer team Uday

Documents-passports, etc

Travel facilitation-Iraqi embassies were more IIS intel gathering stations than diplomatic stations

Safe haven-we’ve already established that terrorists had safe haven in Iraq

And most of all¦ public support (Iraq directly declares the greatness of AQ, and indirectly provides excuses to fight the US¦ like leaving Saudi, ending the US blockade of Iraq, and ending US war on Iraq-described to be a US war to protect Israel).

Well no, we didn’t establish any of this. I asked repeatedly for a verified source for the 300k claim, and no one has been able to verify where it came from. Or travel claims by AQ leaders to Iraq during Saddam’s reign. There was no safe haven for al Qaeda in Iraq, and Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal were former terrorists, not active, even renounced terrorists. And there were no training terrorist camps, this has been debunked. Public support? I think you misunderstand al Qaeda’s intentions.

All right Scott, I think that’s everything. If you get this post, and want to continue this discussion, I will send you my email address, and we can have a tit for tat via email. Sorry for the long delay, but never let it be said that I didn’t respond.

James

@Randy:

No, it’s not supporting terrorism, since it happened after the fact, the money was not given to Hamas-it was intended for families only, and was applied inconsistently.

There were no suicide attacks in Israel in Feb. 2003, the earliest one before that was Jan. 5, 2003 and that was Fatah’s Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Islamic Jihad. The last Hamas bomber prior to that was November 21, 2002, so payments were not given immediately after, nor were they given to the families of all, (or even more than one), Hamas suicide bombers. Thus, there was no guarantee of payment.

The payment (I’ve only seen one that was actually recorded as a payment for a suicide attack) may have inspired future suicide bombers, but no more so than paying a ransom encourages more kidnapping, and that isn’t sponsoring terrorism.

Most of the money going to Palestinians from Iraq went to families who had a family member killed during the early 2000s uprising. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

@Randy:

I don’t know what Saddam said, or even if he gave the money “personally” or not (Kuwaiti sources when it comes to Iraq are not usually reliable) since all available information states the money was funneled through the PALF. If you have a link to the broadcast or a specific date then I could look it up, it would be appreciated.

As for Abu Nidal, the manner of his death is known only to Iraqi officials. No independent autopsy was performed, and his body has never been found. What is known through ISS documents is that his presence in Iraq, once discovered, was not welcomed, he was suspected of being a spy, and interrogated. What happened afterwards…?

We do know he was sick with cancer, perhaps terminal, and the country he was in was unfriendly toward him. It is not implausible to think he committed suicide.