Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Saddam Hussein Trained Al Qaeda Fighters - Report
September 14, 2002 4:06 PM   Subscribe

Saddam Hussein Trained Al Qaeda Fighters - Report Blair's evidence to convince the Brits that attacking Iraq is going after Saddam is needed because he has been directly involved with Qaeda network.
posted by Postroad (27 comments total)

 
This is such bullshit. The article basically states that a couple of Baghdad's butchers ended up in AQ and still have friends in Baghdad (huge surprise). Strictly passive. There continues to be a profound lack of evidence that Saddam has any affinity for AQ. Quite the opposite, in fact -- they hate his secular megalomania.

The irony, of course, is that our own government had more to do with AQ's genesis than Saddam ever did. Of course, we created Saddam too. But at the time, our hobgoblins were the U.S.S.R. and Iran. And all's fair in blah blah blah.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:19 PM on September 14, 2002


because Tony and George seem so intent on invading Iraq, why would anyone trust them when they say "Oh look, now we have some evidence!" the PM and President could manufacture or have manufactured whatever evidence they wanted. it's not like citizens or Parliament/Congress would be able to verify this information with anything other than more information from the PM/President's underlings.
posted by tolkhan at 4:42 PM on September 14, 2002


Very interesting. It tells us nothing, it doesn't even suppose very much. I cannot believe that if they had any evidence that Iraq had close ties with Al Queda we wouldn't already know about it, in fact Iraq would very likely have ceased to exist months ago.
It had to be the Telegraph didn't it.
posted by Fat Buddha at 4:45 PM on September 14, 2002


We've just spent the last year bombing and rooting around in training facilities and caves in Pipelineistan, some of which were partly constructed by CIA funds. If the al Qaeada connection is enough to justify military intervention, may I humbly suggest that the cause of world peace would be admirably served by the delivery of tactical nukes on Langley?

Sure, that's sarcastic - but it's as valid an argument as Blair's.
posted by Nicolae Carpathia at 4:49 PM on September 14, 2002


Couldn't agree with donkeyschlong more. The only time Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons was when he was 'working' for the US. Osama was also on the payroll. Let's all read Mary Shelley and move on.
posted by michaelonfs at 4:49 PM on September 14, 2002


Saddam Hussein Trained Al Qaeda Fighters - Report

The headline for this article is somewhat misleading. A casual reader might think that Blair has evidence that Hussein trained current members of Al Queda, implicitly linking him with the events of September 11, 2001.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:55 PM on September 14, 2002


I'm deplorably ignorant on the specifics between the US and Iraq so I was wondering if the pres. was telling the truth when he said today, "Saddam Hussein has defied the United Nations 16 times...". Does anyone here know if this is correct, misleading, etc?

Oh, btw, How many here drink bottled water? Raise your hands.
posted by poopy at 4:59 PM on September 14, 2002


How long have we waited for this? and how unsurprised are we that it details very little connecting The Butcher of Baghdad with The Database (= Al-Quiada).

Two Iraqi operatives? Puh-lease! We could probably find more than two MI5 / CIA operatives connected with SoDamn Insane, if we only knew what was really going on.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:04 PM on September 14, 2002


British Prime Minister Tony Blair's promised...

The dossier is also expected to disclose...


My soon to be released dossier proves that the President of the United States shares DNA with the flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz... really, I promise. I'll be releasing it any day now.

Look, the combined forces of the UK and the US intelligence agencies have spent the better part of a year trying to link Iraq with al Qaeda and have had no success whatsoever. Surely if there were any grounds for this it would have come up in Bush's UN speech?

I think the telling part of the story is, "Blair, facing opposition from within his own Labour Party over going to war with Iraq without U.N. backing..."
posted by cedar at 5:11 PM on September 14, 2002


Oh, another question: Has anyone written letters to their congressmen/women or president expressing their displeasure over the current government's agenda? Educating their local community on the real story behind the propaganda? Anyone planning civil disobedience sit-ins? Running for office?
posted by poopy at 5:19 PM on September 14, 2002


A really interesting article in the new New Yorker about Bin Laden's right-hand man is a must read. In it, we learn how disparate fanatic groups joined up with Al Qaeda after Islamic extremism basically hit its peak and lost much of its support some time in the late 80s/ early 90's. Only the most extreme stayed on board.

This article mentions that the men in question were training in Iraq, then decided to join up with Bin Laden. It would probably be more surprising if there weren't Iraqis who were involved with extremism and then got involved with Al Qaeda.

There is a Q and A (not the actual article) in the online version of the New Yorker here. It's really interesting as well and worth a read.
posted by chaz at 5:20 PM on September 14, 2002


Nicolae Carpathia's actually on the ball here. The (accurate) line from certain quarters is that, no, of course the CIA didn't underwrite the Taliban and Al-Qaeda: it just funded the Afghan mujahidin in the 1980s, and the Taliban and Al-Qaeda subsequently sprang out of the mujahidin in the 1990s. So, if Saddam Hussein trained up a couple of thugs, and those thugs have subsequently tossed their hat in with Osama... causation sucks, doesn't it?

And if it's this Abu Zubair, who was pulled up in Morocco: hey, he was on the side of the 'good guys' in Bosnia.

(And yeah, the Torygraph is the puddle of choice for war leaks.)
posted by riviera at 5:43 PM on September 14, 2002


This is slightly off topic, but germane nevertheless, I think.
posted by Fat Buddha at 5:57 PM on September 14, 2002


Someday soon, all you damned hippies are gonna be proven wrong, and then who'll get the last laugh? TERROR, that's who.
posted by Hildago at 6:06 PM on September 14, 2002


Fat Buddha, isn't Fisk the same guy that got himself beat up by a gang of Afghan and Arab thugs and then said that if he were an Afghan or Arab thug, he'd've done the same thing to himself?

Hard to take a dude seriously after a thing like that. I mean, come on.

"They beat my head in, but I understand, it's my fault for being a Westerner." Postmodernism ad absurdum.

As to the claim that Iraq only used chemwar in Iran-Iraq, it's false. He's also used bio and chem on the Kurds several times. Decimating them. Well, that's inaccurate. Decimation means to kill every tenth person. He killed about a quarter of them and gave the rest various maladies that are untreatable and incurable. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Of course, there's also the US Servicemen still unaccounted for after Gulf War I. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Then there's weapons inspectors, part of the UN movement to hem him in after Gulf War I. I'm not sure what Scott Ritter's deal is, although I wouldn't put past Saddam people threatening his family. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Then there's the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which could explain any quaeda/iraq links if they ever turn up. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Then there's the payment of $10k per suicide bomber to the families of suicide bombers, fostering terrorism and fanning the flames in Palestine. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Then there's the fact that he's got a very good and ruthless intelligence agency at his disposal, who are notorious for going around the world and killing dissidents, not to mention covering their tracks. Because we don't see evidence doesn't mean nothing happened. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Then there's the argument made by some that revealing specifics about the Iraq-Quaeda connection would jeapordize our men on the ground, and make clear what our spies do when they spy. Of course, the absence of evidence isn't a compelling reason to suggest that it exists but we're hiding it to protect the lives of the men and women who risked their lives to get it. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Then there's the constant firing on the planes in the no fly zone. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

I don't see a single compelling reason to attack Iraq. Doves, your point is made.
posted by swerdloff at 6:15 PM on September 14, 2002


The bottom line is that we chose not to take out Saddam when were in his backyard years ago. What new evidence do we have now that indicates we should overthrow Iraq's government? None. We threaten the UN instead of providing evidence. Sad.
posted by fleener at 6:34 PM on September 14, 2002


http://ebaumsworld.com/diplomacy.html
posted by Postroad at 6:37 PM on September 14, 2002


It is the very same Fisk yes. I would not have been as forgiving as him, but that does not invalidate his argument.
You do not have to love Saddamm to consider that the upcoming war will be unjust. 12 months ago Bush announced his determination to get the folks responsible for flying planes into the twin towers. Fair enough, go get em podna but what has it got to do with Iraq.
Where is your evidence for the suicide bomber payments? not that even if true it would validate the forces of the UN waging war, per se, as it were.
How many Americans are unaccounted for after Gulf war 1? and what does that have to do with the price of fish. How many Iraqis are unaccounted for?
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, which might explain .
why Saddam was a friend of the US when he was having it out with Iran.
This good and ruthless intelligence agency, does it remind you of anyone? Firing on planes who are dropping bombs on Iraq territory? Sheer affrontery.
There is an interesting point about the no fly zones. The Kurds who are being protected by it have established a workable secular state. They are terrified of war because they will inevitably lose what they suffered to create.
I cannot understand why you are so bloodthirsty, swerdloff. Bush the senior could have finished Saddam off but chose not to, Saddam is no worse now than he was then.
Years ago I had a fight with Tommy Whelan. Morally and physically I won, but didn't finish him off, he admitted defeat nevertheless. When I turned round he jumped me from behind and rained blows on my beautiful and delicate features. It is a wound that has never really healed, my son will probably get him when he is powerful enough though. Justice.
posted by Fat Buddha at 6:51 PM on September 14, 2002


As to the claim that Iraq only used chemwar in Iran-Iraq, it's false. He's also used bio and chem on the Kurds several times. Decimating them.

The Kurds have recovered quite well, enjoy a great deal of autonomy and have even drafted a constitution. Though it changes frequently the current ruling party is the Kurdish Democratic Party led by Massoud Barzani. Unfortunately, Mr. Barzani wants little to do with the war and has refused to even meet with President Bush.

Barzani has far more more interest in controlling an independent republic centered around Kirkuk. Needless to say this also happens to be where all of Iraqs oil is. Another concern is that this region is also claimed by the Turks (who are the closest thing we have to an ally with a real airbase in the region). The Northern Alliance (no relation to the otherNorthern Alliance) are by no means guaranteed to even wind up on the side of the US.

Of course, there's also the US Servicemen still unaccounted for after Gulf War I. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Well, there may be one. Or there may not be depending on how the administration chooses to spin the story.

His name is Michael S. Speicher. He was/is a navy pilot who was first missing, then dead and now a potential prisoner of war. His status changes all the time.

Then there's weapons inspectors, part of the UN movement to hem him in after Gulf War I. I'm not sure what Scott Ritter's deal is, although I wouldn't put past Saddam people threatening his family. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Valid point, but I never understood the grounds for the inspections in the first place. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction shouldn't the US, the UK, China and whatever the Russians are calling themselves today be held to the same standards?

Then there's the old adage "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" which could explain any quaeda/iraq links if they ever turn up.

By this logic I suppose we should begin considering Iran an ally? The al Quaeda link doctrine is nonsense, why we feel we have the right to hold a country responsible for the actions of everyone with the misfortune to be born there, I'll never understand. Of course there are al Qaeda supporters in Iraq, they are also in the US, the UK, Canada, Yemen and a slew of other countries.

Then there's the payment of $10k per suicide bomber to the families of suicide bombers, fostering terrorism and fanning the flames in Palestine. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him

This is oft cited and I begin to wonder if it's not one of those things that is said so often it becomes a fact. I've also heard it said the Saudis do the same... I'd be grateful if you could point me to a source.

Then there's the argument made by some that revealing specifics about the Iraq-Quaeda connection would jeapordize our men on the ground.

No worries, Tony Blair will be filling us in any day now. Anyway, CNN will be waiting on the beach and we can all watch it live... if we're really lucky they'll schedule the invasion for prime time.

Then there's the constant firing on the planes in the no fly zone. Not that that's per se a reason to attack him.

Guys not some nerve huh? Fires on planes over his country even when the United States says he can't. Anyway, I thought it was a no-fly zone?

I don't see a single compelling reason to attack Iraq.
Doves, your point is made.


At last, something we agree on.
posted by cedar at 7:08 PM on September 14, 2002


You know what? Fuck you pacifists. I've paid thousands of dollars every year in taxes, I want to see some goddamned results. I want to know that those nukes I've paid for fucking work, goddammit, and there's no better place to start than Iraq, unless it's Mecca or Medina.

Bring on the Islamic hordes, and let's let the holy fire fall!

Pussies.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:14 PM on September 14, 2002


Guys not some nerve huh? Fires on planes over his country even when the United States says he can't. Anyway, I thought it was a no-fly zone?

well that's just a silly fucking argument. That same logic could be used to excuse every instance of him going against a treaty he signed.

Logic, it's your friend. you should give it a try.
posted by Mick at 7:19 PM on September 14, 2002


Unless there's more than the link reports, this is not a major tie to AQ. Besides, if there was a major tie, it would have been revealed by now.

Unless, of course, the Administration knows the feckless UN forces it is up against, and wants to reveal the solidity of the connection at the most opportune moment? My guess is that this is NOT the "new" info soon to be released.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:19 PM on September 14, 2002


well that's just a silly fucking argument. That same logic could be used to excuse every instance of him going against a treaty he signed.

I'm having a hard time understanding your problem with this.

Someone indicates that Iraq firing on planes in the no-fly zone is reason (or one reason) for military action. I point out that the planes are flying over *his* country.

Logic, it's your friend. you should give it a try.

Irony, it's your friend. you should give it a try.
posted by cedar at 7:32 PM on September 14, 2002


The headline for this article is somewhat misleading. A casual reader might think that Blair has evidence that Hussein trained current members of Al Queda, implicitly linking him with the events of September 11, 2001.

"Somewhat misleading"?
You're new around here man. It's a Postroad link. A great guy, but check his old FPP's, the man is a little to the right of the late Mehir Kahane
posted by matteo at 8:00 PM on September 14, 2002


cedar - not only do I agree with what you say about firing on overflights, but it goes even further. American and British planes have fired on radar installations for merely "painting" them with signal.
posted by Nicolae Carpathia at 8:36 PM on September 14, 2002


matteo - I am chuckling - I didn't realize he had a history of misleading headlines. Plus, thanks for the link
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:00 AM on September 15, 2002


Agreed with Paris and Joey. I found this misleading. It isn't the actual Sunday Telegraph article, or the report itself, it's just a wire service heads up that more information is coming. Yes, I could go look on the net to see what Tony Blair actually has had to say on this subject, find the applicable British Government links, dig out more info on the two individuals with ties to Iraq, or find the Telegraph article for you, which requires a login. But this morning, I don't feel like it, and it's time remind you guys that you can all do this Internet research for yourselves just as well as I can.
posted by sheauga at 5:29 AM on September 15, 2002


« Older People for the Ethical Treatment of Alec Baldwin...  |  Dear Dr. Tatiana - I am a ... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments