Iraqi-Al Queda connections

Remove all ads!

It seems to have become a generally accepted fact that there was no connection between Saddam and Al Queda, but this article details many connections and meetings. Additionally it details some of Saddam's own homegrown terrorist acts against the US.
The Mother of All Connections

For those who don't want to wade through the long details here are some quotes:

While Iraq was certainly not complicit with Al Queda at a level that is comparable to the Taliban in Afghanistan, there is definitely evidence that there were more than just casual arms length relationships between Saddam's regime and Al Queda.

 

Hmmm... This does seem to contradict a lot of statements in the Duelfer report - especially those mentioning a certain level of enmity between the more secularly-minded Saddam and the fundamentalism Osama. I'm not saying Saddam would not support jihadists - only that he would use religious means to secular (his) ends, not the other way around. He might have employed Islamist ideology, but his government played on many other identities - there were many cultural programs stressing the Iraqi identity as the descendants of the Mesopotamian and Persian, instead of Arab, culture. I believe there probably were some al-Queda agents in Iraq, but the government either did not know about them or did not know them as such (after all, there are a lot of islamist fundamentalist organizations out there, and operatives don't carry an ID card) . This would be, for me, the true criterion: Saddam would not mind supporting a terrorist organization that would harm an enemy, but would not accept it if it could threaten his position in the country with its radical Islamist ideas. There was a mention, for example. that Iraq paid pensions to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Still, Al-Queda - and Osama - might be more of a problem. Not only were they very religious, but they had ties with the more Shi'ah oriented (therefore Iran-oriented) Afghanistan. Active support might be an overstatement.
Then again, maybe not. Osama had many sources of funding - why not Iraq? However, if we were to trace al-Queda's financial ties, they would probably encompass half the world. It may be possible that Saddam had a similar opinion of Osama as Reagan did - support him fighting our enemies abroad, but don't let him at home. Again, it would be possible. However, I think it more likely Saddam either wanted a terrorist force loyal to him (or one whose activities he could channel in the right direction) or to defuse suspicions that he was an atheist - therefore an infidel. It might be that Osama had wanted to establish close relationships with Iraq and courted the Iraqi services (he would be the one only to gain from this relationship - material support and possibly a foothold). As in every similar question, there might have been a pro-islamist lobby. The question is: how powerful was it and who were its supporters?
Furthermore, the main objective of the commission was to ascertain a link between Iraq and the 9/11 attack. There is little here to support that - and that exactly was the justification behind the invasion of Iraq.
Another problem I have - what are the sources of the article? Admissions of guilt...I would like more proof, given other intelligence failures and misstatements, especially from the Pentagon (where the first report comes from, the 13-points one). The thought that documents could be released specifically for a policy goal didn't pop out only after I saw the Downing St. memo. As for the intelligence community requiring sooo much persuading that there was a Saddam-Osama link... well, given the pressure they were under to find one - and that they took the blame when one was not indisputably found, I wouldn't be so sure they wouldn't like to find it. Nor am I completely certain Allawi and other CIA sources in Iraq would be wholly unwilling to invent a link between Al-Queda and Saddam - it would make them and their policy that much more legitimate to the rest of the world.

 

That is incorrect. The justification for, and legal basis of the invasion of Iraq was that Saddam was not in compliance with the cease-fire agreement from the first Gulf War. Additionally, the US suffered the UN's incompetence in issuing resolution after resolution making empty threat after empty threat in an attempt to allow Saddam to have a chance to comply so that we didn't look like we were rushing to war. Unfortunately the majority of the Security Council and the Secretary-General of the UN stood to reap great financial gains from the status quo, so they decided to allow the situation in Iraq to fester.

Any statement in regards to the justification of the resumption of hostilities to the contrary of this is either made in ignorance or is politically motivated.

 

The Weekly Standard is owned by News Corporation, Rupert Murdoch's empire that owns Fox News and many other media companies. If Weekly Standard is not partisan than neither is Mother Jones or Air America Radio. To imply that your position is somehow one of transcendent, informed neutrality and all other opinions are born of either ignorance or political manipulation is ridiculous. This is a political discussion by nature, and every argument made is going to be political! Things are never black and white, and looking at the world in such a manner is dangerous.

 

Shaman,

Contradictions are obstacles easily overcome by faith.

Darkwolf,
The 'ceasefire agreement' you write about is UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 687. That is, the sides are (a) the UN Security Council (UNSC) and (b) Iraq.

The U.S. were in no way entitled to determine alone and by themselves wether a violation of the ceasefire agreement was there, much less if it would justify further hostilities.

That would require consultations of the UNSC. Such consultations took place. But in these consultation the council didn't make up a resolution for another war - resolutions are the form the decisions of the UNSC have. By the absence of resolutions on an issue you can conclude on an absence of will.

The 'serious consequences' of UNSCR 1441 were dependent on a decision of the UN Security Council, too. But there was no resolution on when and how they were to be executed. It never came.

Why is it that you try to keep grips on the fiction the U.S. acted in accordance with international law? It didn't.

Listen to Richard Perle, he's right when he candidly admits the US was acting illegally when invading Iraq. He has the air of a nonchalant gravitas and coolness when he states that 'international law stood in the way of doing the right thing'.

This time, he wasn't lying.

 

I am not talking about the "justification" used before the UN, but the one given to the world public.
From here on, I will speak a bit on a favourite topic of mine, anti-UN statements, especially the oil-for-food thing. I apologize if you consider some of it personally offensive.
The US "suffered UN imcompetence"? Quite the strong word, given the lack of attention the US paid to the problems - its attention limited to dropping bombs over Iraq. Suffer implies loss, damn it. Suffered? Just what did the US suffer, in figurative or literal sense? Iraq suffered, as the embargo did not allow for medicaments, and Albright had the gall to tell the entire American nation that Iraqi children are an acceptable sacrifice to make sure Saddam couldn't produce zarin out of aspirin. The UN suffered its reputation as a couple of spinmeisters decided that it could be branded as inefficient so that the US could threaten or bomb whenever it wanted, and that since Saddam sidestepped the oil for food program, the entire UN staff, its chief, and not least (oh, joy) the weapons inspectors could finally be labelled hopelessly corrupt, or at least incompetents? More on that later. What did the US suffer? S..t. I know that the UN doesn't do well in quick-paced situations, but I think it was the UN that suffered, sometimes unjustly, in all the belittling rants (especially from the part of a Mr. Bolton), not to mention the random bombings from US/UK planes "patrolling" the flight-free zones. Just who do you think allowed the US to set no-flight zones? It is not resolution 688 from 1991, as it does not sanction any use of force. Unscom(the inspectors) and IAEA were allowed flights, no one else. Suggestion: someone "adopted" UN rules to decide in which parts of its airspace a country can use its air force. That resolution was supposed to be for protection of Kurdish civilians during and after their rebellion against Saddam. No one gave them a help, so soon after Desert Storm - but for years afterwards, their plight was used as justification for patrol flights, and sometimes bombings (when Iraqi AD fired at the planes) over a country theoretically under a cease-fire agreement. That is quite the arrogance, I'd say. Only matched by a later one - attacking Iraq, purportedly for not complying with the same cease-fire agreement. Other resolutions - sure, there are a lot of 'em.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/scriraq.html
So why didn't anyone push for something more, if Iraq was considered such a threat? No one cared. The embargo was kept, and Iraqi officials were restricted somewhat in their travels. Would you have been happier if the UN had gone to war in 1997, or 1999 because Saddam had not opened some sites? It and whose army? I don't think any country was willing to send troops for that. So what, more bombings? Oh sure, they would be a lot of help to anyone. Resolution 1284 (from 1999) spoke of prisoners of war, also mentioned in the pre-war hysteria, and did not speak of any problems with inspections
Then came the legendary scandal of the millenium, the oil-for-food program. Actually, 90+% of the UN resolutions on Iraq were dealing with it. In order to make at least some provisions for the Iraqi citizens suffering under the sanctions it had imposed to keep Saddam from acquiring "dual-use" components, the UN allowed Iraq to sell some of its oil. Yes, I admit - by allowing the Iraqi government to run the show a lot could be appropriated, but what other way was there, airdrops over the villages? I don't think that would have been agreed on. Oh, by the way, the initial sale back in 1991 was approved also to help fund compensation claims and weapons inspections. Somehow, I doubt someone else than the government at that time could handle that. Doing that meant you practically declared the government illegitimate - which would have effectively prevented any future dealings. Another non-productive solution. On to what really happened: the UN hired a swiss firm to oversee that Iraq was doing the job properly, and the firm (Cotecna) made payments to Kojo Annan. Also, one of the overseeing personnel - I do not remember the name exactly - was offered a sum in the range of $400,000 to facilitate some deal. Personally, of course, not in the name of the UN. Truly, this is a scandal - and should be. However, that is all there is to it. The "great financial gains" the UN stood to reap were, unless you consider six-digit numbers for a few officials, non-existent. It seems some people think Kofi Annan has several million gallons of Iraqi oil at his garage... total BS. It wasn't the UN that got Iraqi oil money - Iraqi oil "vouchers" and ultra-low-price deals worth much more were given to many firms and organizations worldwide, including the UK, US, Russia, France, and many others. By the way, if anyone on the SC was so offended by what was happening - and they knew it - why not speak earlier? A lot of the profitable deals involved oil going through Jordan and Turkey, countries whose governments are much closer to Washington than Baghdad, so the entire thing was well known well before 2000. But hey, no one cared - business is business. Then some time after - what a change of heart - two permanent SC members decide something terrible had been happening, which surprisingly coincided with other UNSC members and the secretary not looking too amenable to pass a resolution allowing more liberal use of force. Yeah, right. And the whole stuff is after the UN itself decides to review the entire thing, the one person accused of taking a bribe is suspended, and control is strengthened. It couldn't be any more absurd.
At last, the time that Saddam was issued with an ultimatum, he made steps to comply with it - but then, Bush's "patience" ran out. How convenient - you give an ultimatum, the other side gives in, and then you attack. Benevolence at its finest, indeed. If Saddam was so evil, why wait so long? If he could be tolerated for 12 years, why exactly now? Thus we get to the WMDs, and I think we discussed that part.

 

We provided the majority of the troops, and took the majority of the risk involved in pushing Iraq back out of Kuwait in '91, and that provides us with the right to a little more weight in this issue. If it weren’t for US involvement, Kuwait would likely be a province of Iraq now. Additionally, resolution 687 is so twisted and non-descript that it can be argued that it could be interpreted to mean that any nation could enforce the terms of the cease-fire (while passing the red faced test). The UN didn't have the balls to follow through on its threats, and gained far more by not acting than it would have by acting, and thus destroying any credibility and influence it might have had.

Sorry Shamen, but you are wrong about the amount of money that Kofi received. I have a contact inside one of the investigations of these allegations, and while he could not give me details, he assured me that Kofi did make literally millions of $'s from the oil for food program. He also stated that it is very unlikely that it will ever be disclosed due to the political wrangling that is going on. In reality it will likely be used as blackmail, which pisses me off!

Now, we are completely off topic, so if you want to continue this conversation, start a new thread and continue it there.

 

No, it is irrelevant. Legally, it doesn't make a yota of a difference.

When you are the majority holder of a company, but have a minority with veto right, and ignore their vetos, you're in violation of your foundation contract. That is very simple.

The U.S. too have signed the charter, but have decided to ignore it.

You put it as if the US had some special right to act beyond the charter just because they provided more troops to the war. But that is a consideration of raw military power that legally has no meaning. It's the law of the jungle.

Politically the U.S. can get away, for now nobody can prosecute their leaders for their breach of law -- to a point, as there is a price attached -- the U.S. have paid dearly with their plummetting global standing.

PS: You couldn't possibly tell me the party affiliation of your 'insider' too, does he or she, perhaps, work for a republican senator like Norm Coleman or an aide by any chance? Just a thought.

 

I replied to a point you made, and refuted it

But to bring it back on track: You could post entire books written by certified crackpots like Laurie Mylroie and there would still be no Iraq-Al Quaeda connection ...

You might like this link: http://www.spiritoftruth.org/againstallenemies.htm

But this one brings you back to reality: Saddam and Bin Laden allies? Forget it. You're wasting your time trying to make that case.

 

I never said that they were allies, I said that there were connections, and the article points out specific instances where Saddam's regime provided support to Al Queda and committed terrorist acts against the US.

Slate?!? And I get accused of dubious sources?

 

Interesting collection, but I tend to agree with the Shaman. Bin Laden was a threat to Saddam (politically). Saddam tolerated Bin Laden, but was not an active supporter -- that does not mean some in his organization did not support bin Laden under the table (which, of course, never happens in government). There was even evidence of animosity between Saddam and bin Laden.

Hell, we can even find ties between the US and bin Laden (after all we helped him in his war against the USSR). Bin Laden is quite resourceful, that is something which should not be underestimated.

Didn't think it would take long for Ragusa to join in here....

 

... at your service

 

What that article does, whether it's true or not, is give the US reason to invade and bomb the hell out of Irraq. These press sources may conveniently receive such information linking any nation that the US wants to bomb when the time comes...

 

The Weekly Standard does not miraculously receive, but asks to write such articles.

It is a neo-con mouthpiece where the usual suspects write the usual peices implying the usual enemies: China, Cuba, Iran, Syria - and of course - Russia.
The other part is about how great it is going in Iraq and internal politics and how worse Clinton was than Bush.

It's owned by one Rupert Murdoch. It's like the Prawda.

 

Nah, recently the pravda seems to be quite an amusing paper. I sometimes go to their site when I'm in need of a laugh, their "funny"articles are really so. Plus, a change in perspective is sometimes welcome.
http://english.pravda.ru/

OK, that was off-topic. Now the entire tirade about Iraq, the UN and everything else was inspired by the fact that I found the source interesting, but rather dibious. A little less dubious than the allegations that Kofi (not Kojo) Annan got something for the Oil-for-Food. Link please.
Frankly, given all the time coalition forces have been in Iraq and the pressure on the Bush and Blair administrations to prove Iraq was such a threat, they would have given any "proof" of an Iraq-AQ connection, even the most indirect one, if it couldn't be refuted in two days.

 

Shaman,

In regards to your request for a link, go back and read what I said again.

You can believe it or not, it makes no difference to me.

This thread is not about justifying the war in Iraq. As much as the left loves to try to pin the reason for the war on one individual reason so that they can try to discredit the entire endeavor by discrediting that one issue, it is not about one issue, it is a preponderance of issues that lead to one simple fact, the world is better without Saddam ruling Iraq, and undeniable fact.

This thread is nothing more than a presentation of an article that discounts the claims that there were no connections between Iraq and Al Queda and terrorism.

I still find it amusing that rather than actually looking at the article and the connections that it describes and attempting to discredit them, the entire article is blown off because it isn't from a source that certain individuals don't trust, but those same individuals defend Newsweek and CBS. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that some people only choose to believe those sources that tell them what they want to hear.

 

I suppose this statement would go both ways in this issue.

Anyway the reason why I won't choose not to buy these assumptions and claims this newspaper makes is that I would assume that the Bush crew would be jumping around yelling "we told you so!" if it was clear that there was a connection. Also as it has been said that contradicts the official Duelfer report. Now it's of course possible that they missed something or that they simply did their job badly, but I tend to value their investigation over the investigation done by these journalists. As for the various points made by the article.

Even if there was a connection that would be found now afterwards I don't think it would make it any better. The Bush adminstration still jumped to conclusions in order to get the public to support their war, which to me would be quite unforgivable. A politician who tries to trick the public about important and crucial things such as war should deserve nothing but a fast political death.

 

I have not once stated that these items are factually true. I have stated that there is evidence to the contrary of what is being reported by the alphabet soup, and presented it, and no one has presented a single shred of evidence that contradicts it other than claiming that the source is bad, despite the fact that there are numerous specific quotes from individuals that could easily be discounted.

The fact is that if you want to discount the story, the easiest way to do it is to say that the connections were minor, and that they were simply at the convenience of Saddam and were more to keep Bin Laden out of his hair (sort of a payoff) rather than proving any intent to support Al Queda, and this is probably the reason that he Fox Network and the President aren't screaming it from the rooftops. However, until the actually allegation of the article are refuted, there is evidence that Iraq did supply aid and comfort to our enemies, and that it may be untrue to state there was not collusion or connection between Al Queda and Saddam's regime.

However, the President also stated that the "War against Terrorism" was not limited to Al Queda, and that he would not take any option off the table for dealing with any nation that supported, aided, or sponsored terrorism, or provided safe haven for terrorists. Is anyone here willing to state that Saddam did none of these things? In fact is anyone here willing to state that hid didn't do all of these?

 

Probably the entire situation is much more muddled than people generally allow. I would be very very surprised if Saddam's intelligence people *didn't* have some kind of back channel to islamic terrorists. But the question is, how significant this would be? All sorts of country's intelligence agents communicate with terrorists, and some of them make deals and collaborate when beneficial. The ISI, the secret service of Pakistan, an ally of the US, is widely known to deal with terrorists in India, Kashmir, Afghanistan etc etc, but we don't invade them. In Iraq, US forces reportedly meet regularly with representatives of the insurgency to work out a deal; isn't this "negotiating with terrorists"? Who exactly were the Reagan people dealing with during Iran-Contra, and how did they make these oh-so-appealing contacts?

So, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see evidence that Iraqi intel kept tabs on Al Quada, or even had some kind of "understanding" with them. But I'm sure one could find all sorts of, say, CIA "understandings" with unsavory groups, and it's one should be careful to distinguish an understanding with support or direction: I'm sure many Americans are tired of seeing the CIA blamed as orchestrating every single global conflict, just because they had an agent in the field at the time. Likewise, intelligence reports claiming communication between Saddam and AQ don't seem to me at all to substantiate the kinds of prewar claims made by Bush, and his repeated attempts to pin 9/11 on Saddam.

I would also like to add that just because the US, etc, has engaged in backroom dealings and dealt with dictators or other unsavory groups in the past (and present), doesn't necessarily mean that they are hypocritical in trying to rein these sorts of things in today. This would be like saying the UK has no right to object to another nations attempt at colonizing another, just because of the UKs history as a colonial power. No government can function in today's world without compromise, and besides the business of government is in it's very nature unclean and compromised. But this doesn't make all gov'ts equal to eachother (i.e., corruption in a democracy is not the same as the rampant corruption of a kleptocracy), and a gov't *can* improve itself...