Saddam-sheltered Terrorists Arrested in US

[supercharged]

This article was written by Mike on ConPush. The site where I post political news. I hope you like it:

http://conpush.com/2004/08/saddam-sheltered-terrorists-arrested.html

Today, the AP(http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040805/D8495KO80.html) reported on an arrest of two men with Al Qaeda ties, who helped a man they believed to be a terrorist obtain a shoulder-fired missile. Thankfully, the man was working undercover for the government and the transaction never took place. But there is something extremely interesting about this report, which has gone as unnoticed as the story itself.

The men have ties to a group called Ansar al-Islam, which has been linked to the al-Qaida terror network, according to two federal law enforcement authorities speaking on condition of anonymity.

What this AP story does not mention however, is that Ansar al-Islam was based in northern Iraq, admittedly Kurdish controlled territory, but that its members were also operating out of Baghdad. The 9/11 commission says this about Ansar al-Islam

In 2001, with Bin Laden's help, [the extremists in Northern Iraq Iraq] reformed into an organization called Ansar al-Islam. Therer are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated, and may even have helped Ansar al-Islam, against the common Kurdish enemy.

Although I always considered Ansar al-Islam a valid connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda, I was always skeptical of the ability of this connection to threaten the United States. Sure, the group has ties to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is killing Americans in Iraq on a daily basis, but I had doubts the group had the ability to threaten us inside the United States. Now we know that ths connection did, and still does endanger the United States. Now, what kind of help did Ansar al-Islam receive from the Iraqi regime? Stephen Hayes has the answer in his bombshell new book, "The Connection."(http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060746734/qid=1091722504/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2293044-6384742)

According to detainees from both Iraqi intelligence and Ansar al-Islam, [Saddam did help Ansar al-Islam.] The support came in the form of financial payments and arms. And the third-ranking officialin Ansar al-Islam was an Iraqi intelligence agent who reportedto top Mukhabarat officials and, according to one detainee, met personally with Saddam Hussein four or five times.

Today's AP report proves that this support which Saddam Hussein provided to Ansar al-Islam was a threat to the United States. Just another reason why we were right to remove this regime from power

[MetalMilitia]

Thankfully, the man was working undercover for the government and the transaction never took place.

How convenient. Why do I not find that at all suprising.

I wonder if they were with that other group that was deemed 'dangerous' to the US. Oh that's right, those were Iraqis on a civil rights tour.


Iraqis visiting on a civil rights tour were barred from city hall after the city council chairman said it was too dangerous to let them in.

The seven Iraqi civic and community leaders are in the midst of a three-week American tour, sponsored by the State Department to learn more about the process of government. The trip also includes stops in Washington, Los Angeles and Chicago.

The Iraqis were scheduled to meet with a city council member, but Joe Brown, the council chair, said he feared the group was dangerous.

``We don't know exactly what's going on. Who knows about the delegation, and has the FBI been informed?'' Brown said. ``We must secure and protect all the employees in that building.''

Elisabeth Silverman, the group's host and head of the Memphis Council for International Visitors, said Brown told her he would ``evacuate the building and bring in the bomb squads'' if the group entered.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Iraqis%20Unwelcome


The support came in the form of financial payments and arms.

What I don't understand is why Saddam is never mentioned with the word 'CIA' or 'US asset' that would surely link him back to the ones that helped him out on the first place.


met personally with Saddam Hussein four or five times.

Rumsfeld is shaking in his shoes right now.

-MM- :crs:

[Emerald_Dragon]

>Today's AP report proves that this support which Saddam Hussein
>provided to Ansar al-Islam was a threat to the United States.

well that's good news.

but the question in my mind is, would they have been a threat had we not invaded Iraq? we went there on false pretenses, and now have reaped the repercussions. Are we a threat to Germany? Would we be, if they invaded? On false pretenses?

[supercharged]

How can you say we went on false pretenses? We introduced more than 3 U.N. security resolutions against Iraq. And the only one that powell and everyone else pushed was the one about WMD. That was the only one that would flare any attention but it was also the only one with the least ammount of bonafied evidence.

I don't know if you guys remember but during the Presidents State of The Union Address he said we will go after and destroy any country or persons harboring terrorists or committing terrorism itself. This just shows what Saddam was doing while he was in contact with Al Qaeda. No matter how much you deny it the evidence is infront of you.

[MetalMilitia]

We introduced more than 3 U.N. security resolutions against Iraq

I will only point out that Israel is in breach of dozens of UN resolutions.... that's all I'll say.


I don't know if you guys remember but during the Presidents State of The Union Address he said we will go after and destroy any country or persons harboring terrorists or committing terrorism itself.

Yes, the Bush doctrine. Holding regimes that harbor terrorists to account. The doctrine, of course, also carries the Bush asterisk, which simply states "doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria and..."

I'll list you four things : developing weapons of mass destruction, inflammatory rhetoric against the United States, supporting and harboring terrorism, and oppression of their own people. Now here's the problem with your doctrine. You can't tell me what country I just named. And that's a problem when you're talking about war. You don't know if I'm talking about Iraq, Iran, North Korea, or Sudan.... etc. (Thank you John Stewart)


This just shows what Saddam was doing while he was in contact with Al Qaeda. No matter how much you deny it the evidence is infront of you.

Shoot this down all you want : Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 said, "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

Two months later, Rice reportedly said, "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

"The Sept. 11 commission reported that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration's main justifications for the war in Iraq." ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html ) I still don't beleive they were working hand in hand.

There were 'contacts' but no cooperation.

As "W" would say "I believe we had darn good intelligence."

Of course, for Bush and the US ruling class as whole, the violence carried out against Iraqis by the US-led occupation forces ...such as the dropping of bombs by warplanes on mosques, tank and artillery shelling of villages and urban residential neighbourhoods, sniper attacks on unarmed civilians and ambulances (to name a few)... is not terrorist, but a 'legitimate' part of Washigtons "war on terror"

The Iraqi resistance fighters ("insurgents" if you will) right now are no more terrorist than guerilla warfare groups fighting for their cause, as numerous others have done throughout history.

These are Iraqis driven to fight (along with foreigners, perhaps sharing the same cause) because they don't like the US installing a puppet government, and controlling Iraq. Another scenario : If your home was blown up, and a kid of yours died in the attack, would you sit on your ass... or join the cause opposing the ones that did it to you?

You can't fight terror with more terror. I don't rule anything out though - If you can prove me wrong on the links... then that's fine. If you can prove me wrong on his 'stockpiles' of WMD's (dream on).... then fine.

-----------------------------------------

By the way, we lost 54 soldiers in Iraq last month (1.87/day) and we have already lost 11 more this month, and it's only the 6th. ( http://icasualties.org/oif/ ) That makes 923 total US soldiers, at a rate of two dying per day. 5976 - 9,276 wounded also.

Maybe we should have been more sure of the 'intelligence' before we went in gung ho... fearing for our lives because he was going to nuke and bio attack all of us "in 45 minutes."

I'm just rambling, and you can quote me.

-MM- :crs:

[Defiant Noquisi]

How can you say we went on false pretenses? We introduced more than 3 U.N. security resolutions against Iraq. And the only one that powell and everyone else pushed was the one about WMD. That was the only one that would flare any attention but it was also the only one with the least ammount of bonafied evidence. So you believe that going to war based on lack of and innaccurate evidence is justifiable?


I don't know if you guys remember but during the Presidents State of The Union Address he said we will go after and destroy any country or persons harboring terrorists or committing terrorism itself. This just shows what Saddam was doing while he was in contact with Al Qaeda. No matter how much you deny it the evidence is infront of you. So then the President is doing what he said he would do. Since he is slowly destroying our constitutional rights and values, AND the US is no less innocent of sponsoring terrorism (especially in Latin American countries) he is keeping his word....for once.

[substand]

What I don't understand is why Saddam is never mentioned with the word 'CIA' or 'US asset' that would surely link him back to the ones that helped him out on the first place.

I can just imagine the exchange: "Saddam has a US asset within the CIA that is going to rat him out!" No code words or anything... Would you expect that to be mentioned???


but the question in my mind is, would they have been a threat had we not invaded Iraq?

yes- and see every terrorist group who hates the US as evidence to support my claim of "yes," this one included.


we went there on false pretenses,

please stop acting as if "WMD" was the only reason we went into Iraq. Please also remember that iraq is part of the War on Terror. Further, while it has been reported that al qaeda and saddam/old iraqi regime had contact but no "collaborative relationship," please also remember that al qaeda is not the only terrorist group in existence. Finally, please note that iraq has been for the past several years designated as a state sponsor of terrorism and see the State Dept's rationalization thereof.


We introduced more than 3 U.N. security resolutions against Iraq.

while technically correct in stating "we introduced more than 3... resolutions against Iraq," if my memory serves me correctly, there were 17- a lot more than 3.


I will only point out that Israel is in breach of dozens of UN resolutions.... that's all I'll say.

again, this is irrelevant because 1) israel is not in the discussion here, 2) even if it was part of the discussion, there is no point in saying "well since one murderer got off the hook, they all should", and 3) there is the fact that the iraq resolutions are BINDING while the israel ones are not.


also carries the Bush asterisk, which simply states "doctrine not valid in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria and..."

perhaps its not so much that the "doctrine" is not valid in those places, as in the asterisk says "poontang libs like my dad and others emasculated the military so we cant be everywhere all at once- as if other mad libs like yourself wanted us to be- no you'd be bitching even more if we were in all those places!"


Shoot this down all you want : Powell in Cairo on February 24, 2001 said

And GODDAMN... if i have to "shoot that down" one more time by providing a "more recent" source of intelligence that happened about october 2002, I will have to shoot myself with my non existent gun. Its one thing to say that "iraq is not a threat" and then put on your flip flops and say something like "they are a threat, but i dont own an SUV, my family does, but they dont own it, I do" with no intelligence to back you up... its quite another when a CIA doc comes out (which you can see at: http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html) and then you change your mind... again, completely irrelevant due to later publications.

and just because the press reports that "no collaborative relationship" meant "challenging" Bush's main reason for war, does not make it so. I cannot recall where Bush ever said Saddam planned and helped carry out 9/11. Can you?


So you believe that going to war based on lack of and innaccurate evidence is justifiable?

In this case and assuming you only see part of the evidence, yes. Of course there was more than WMD as evidence that justified war, and you are selectively ignoring it.


AND the US is no less innocent of sponsoring terrorism (especially in Latin American countries) he is keeping his word

First, I dont recall Bush saying much about latin america- at least not enough to "keep his word" on it. Second, there is a big difference between using underground forces to promote freedom as opposed to communism (and I chose "freedom" specifically over "democracy", as they are not one in the same, although the powers that be may use them interchangably, I expect that you see the difference)

[Defiant Noquisi]

In this case and assuming you only see part of the evidence, yes. Of course there was more than WMD as evidence that justified war, and you are selectively ignoring it. Im not ignoring anything. The key evidence presented in going to war was flawed. Building business and making money off the war is the most accurate "evidence" Ive seen other than removing Saddam. I find it hard to believe that after all the investigations about his evidence in going to war that you dont see the reality of the situation. It was a push for war based on emotions, not real evidence. The people were played and they are letting it happen, per usual.


First, I dont recall Bush saying much about latin america- at least not enough to "keep his word" on it. Second, there is a big difference between using underground forces to promote freedom as opposed to communism (and I chose "freedom" specifically over "democracy", as they are not one in the same, although the powers that be may use them interchangably, I expect that you see the difference) I didnt directly quote Bush with Latin America. However, I dont see him doing anything to change or improve things there. Like you said, he hasnt said much but he also hasnt done much either. He is keeping his word about destroying constitutional rights and values America, although misquoted.

[substand]

Im not ignoring anything.

You're ignoring the fact that pre-war Iraq was a known supporter of terror, overlooking it, and thus overlooking the entire US strategic position in fighting terror, which IMO is to oust terror supporting regimes and give terrorists no safe haven.


However, I dont see him doing anything to change or improve things there.

Try as we have, we cannot be omnipresent.

anyway, i like that constitutionazi comment in the other thread. thats funny word, can I use it?

[Defiant Noquisi]

You're ignoring the fact that pre-war Iraq was a known supporter of terror, overlooking it, and thus overlooking the entire US strategic position in fighting terror, which IMO is to oust terror supporting regimes and give terrorists no safe haven. Im not ignoring it, I am very well aware of it. I refer to this part of one of your posts.......


In this case and assuming you only see part of the evidence, yes. Of course there was more than WMD as evidence that justified war, and you are selectively ignoring it. I know there was more than WMD, the unjustified "evidence" was more than just WMD and I left it out since it was already covered via the "blanket" coverage (to me anyway) of anything he lied about.

Also, since you bring it up again, lets not forget that the US has used the M.E. for a chess game and in my opinion has created much of the "terrorist" situation pointed this way to begin with.

Not only that, the US is a terrorist nation itself. So when do we start killing each other?


anyway, i like that constitutionazi comment in the other thread. thats funny word, can I use it? Yep, use it at will. I actually came up with that while typing up an article for your Clinton website and immediately thought of you. Just for shits and giggles I thought it would be fun to have a point/counter-point on the website and thought of it while typing. Of course the only ignorant slut would be Mon.....hehehe. :burnin:

[substand]

I know there was more than WMD, the unjustified "evidence" was more than just WMD and I left it out since it was already covered via the "blanket" coverage (to me anyway) of anything he lied about.

How can you be aware of it when you are saying it falls under lies? Either Iraq was or was not a known supporter of international terrorism, and if they were not, Bush lied about it. Of course they were, so Bush did not lie about it, and as such it can't be covered by the "blanket of anything he lied about."


Also, since you bring it up again, lets not forget that the US has used the M.E. for a chess game and in my opinion has created much of the "terrorist" situation pointed this way to begin with.

Maybe we did. Thats not an argument for how to fix the situation though. Thats akin to being against the war and saying "well why not [insert country that needs to be attacked or helped with revolution here]" as an argument... as if you would be Pro-that war when its obvious you would not be. We have all these points of interest and need that all converge on one country- Iraq- and yet ppl try to say "why not some place else?" Like you are doing here with, "we created the situation." If we created the situation, that does not preclude us from trying to fix it.


Not only that, the US is a terrorist nation itself. So when do we start killing each other?

...

yeah, thats a lack of response.

[Defiant Noquisi]

How can you be aware of it when you are saying it falls under lies? Either Iraq was or was not a known supporter of international terrorism, and if they were not, Bush lied about it. Of course they were, so Bush did not lie about it, and as such it can't be covered by the "blanket of anything he lied about." I am refering to the lies told to garner support for going to war in the first place. Not that it was a lie that Iraq supported terrorism.


Maybe we did. Thats not an argument for how to fix the situation though. Maybe? If the foreign policy was different and not "bought", things would be different. As long as the US and its "allies" treat the M.E. like a bartering chip, the people there will resent it. The biggest mistake made was in possibly thinking the average Muslim might not be intelligent enough to notice what was happening around them.


...

yeah, thats a lack of response.

Which could be construed as "I dont care" but could also imply many other things.