Bad consititution means civil war in Iraq in the future. - Page 5

Read more about Originally Posted by Italian Guy Originally Posted by WARmachine88 He does not have the WMD, that is for sure now. I am not suring how does the U.S president got the conc

  International Military Forums > >
User Name

September 9th, 2005   #41
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
Originally Posted by WARmachine88
He does not have the WMD, that is for sure now.

I am not suring how does the U.S president got the conclusion based on some "slam-dunk" intelligence (in CIA director's own words) that IRaq had WMD, but indeed they were wrong.

Saddam wasn't really a serious threat since 1991 if you look at its economic power and military strength.

but it is a threat to the respect of human rights, no doubt about that.

It is just Bush's ill-prepared post-war strategy pisses me off.
WarMachine, people forget that Bush's motivations for waging war on Iraq have always been THREE, and three reasons for wanting a military intervention had been clearly stated for months before 3/03.
1. Iraq has WMD
2.Iraq has links with terrorism (which was true, Hamas, for instance, but Al Qaeda too if you read the 9/11 Commission Report)
3.Democracy hence peace. Bush agrees with the neocons that in order for peace to exist democracy has to be exported. He never concealed this aspect, people forget that. So now it's not a post war strategy. It'always been that.
no.1 is wrong, no.2 is wrong (really?? could you provide source for that? I have read 911 report and they say no evidence shows Saddam has connection with Laden)

so two thrid of Bush's reason to wage war in IRaq is like false.
September 9th, 2005   #42
Italian Guy
N.1 we talked about it already, and the burden of the proof was on him
N.2 not exactly right, since Saddam had close ties with Hamas, and that is proved. About Al Qaeda-Saddam connections, my friend, we have tons of evidence. You just have to look. But it's too late now (1:40 am) and I hit the sack. I'll tell you more tomorrow.

"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it".

September 9th, 2005   #43
Originally Posted by Italian Guy
N.1 we talked about it already, and the burden of the proof was on him
N.2 not exactly right, since Saddam had close ties with Hamas, and that is proved. About Al Qaeda-Saddam connections, my friend, we have tons of evidence. You just have to look. But it's too late now (1:40 am) and I hit the sack. I'll tell you more tomorrow.
good night buddy, and have a nice dream.

but I still disagree on No.2, and I did a bit research.

I found some crediable news sources (not some unreliable blogs). I would agree that Saddam had something to do with other terriost groups, but not Laden according to the report.
and Saddam has nothing to do with 9/11.
September 9th, 2005   #44
Let me ask a rhetorical question:

If I pay person A to talk to Person B who will then talk to person C who will then hire person D to provide person E with the means to "do a number" on person F. Person F then investigates person E and finds person D who leads him to person C and/or B who is dead or unable to be located, how will you ever know who person B and/or A is let alone be able to find me?

Just something to think about.

I am like Radio Shack. You have questions? I have answers!
September 9th, 2005   #45

but conclusion is based on strong intelligence (not "slam-dunk" ones).
September 10th, 2005   #46
Originally Posted by WARmachine88

but conclusion is based on strong intelligence (not "slam-dunk" ones).
True. . . to a point. Now back to the topic.
September 10th, 2005   #47
Italian Guy
Ok, WarMachine, I finally found a couple hrs to sum up some information you might have missed. I apologize for my bad bad English. Feel free to ask me about anything you don’t understand. Saddam Hussein had close ties with Hamas (he paid 25,000 $ to the family of each suicide bomber), he gave hospitality to Abu Nidal and Abul Abbas. The first had staged a terrorist attack on rome airport causing dozens of victims, the second was involved in the Achille Lauro's cruise ship hijacking and the murder of American Leon Clinghoffer.
I never said Saddam had to do with 9/11, I say he had ties with Al Qaeda, and going to prove it.

The United States is the country of the Free Press par excellence, so there is even a law, the Freedom of Information Act, that makes it mandatory for federal agencies to reply to journalists who ask for information on events or facts that are kept classified for national security reasons. It has recently happened that the Associated Press asked the Pentagon to explain why a certain Iraqi citizen is detained at Gitmo.
The DoD delivered to the AP a “summary of evidence” made up of all the transcripts of the prisoners interrogations.
From the summary it’s possible to learn that the Iraqi has admitted that in 1994 he was recruited in Baghdad by the Taliban, that once arrived in Afghanistan he associated himself with Al Qaeda, that he became a close aide of Osama Bin Laden and that eventually, “in the August of 1998, went to Pakistan together with an Iraqi Mukhabarat (Secret Services) man with the stated goal of attacking, with chemical bombs, the American and British embassies in Pakistan”.
It was not an incredible plan, given the fact that in the very same month Al Qaeda actually attacked American embassies in Eastern Africa causing 224 victims and 4 thousand wounded (The newspaper “Babel”, directed by Saddam’s son greeted Osama as an “Arab and Islamic Hero” on that very occasion).
In that very same month, Bill Clinton accused the Iraqi regime for having provided chemical weapons to Al Qaeda.
This is just the last element of a long line of information that, contrarily to what the European (and Canadian?) newspapers say, prove the connection between Baathist Iraq and Al Qaeda.
The second last is the one about an Iraqi agent who, in January 2000, arranged an operative meeting held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, with one of 9/11 hijackers.
Official documentations, including the ones released by the 9/11 Commission say that there actually was a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.
They don’t go as far as to explain how deep that connection was, but they leave zero doubts on the fact that there was a connection.
On the other hand, the reports on a Baghdad- Al Qaeda connection date back to a pre-Iraqi war era, back to 8 year before 9/11 and Bush’s election to the White House.
The first one to talk about it was Bill Clinton. In 1998 his Department of Justice, when they still believed Al Qaeda could be faced in the courts, open investigations on Bin Laden with these words: “Al Qaeda has reached an agreement with Iraq to not operate against that government, while on particular projects, which specifically include the development of weapons, Al Qaeda will cooperatively work with the government of Iraq”.
Osama himself, it was 1998, February 23, issued the fatwa launching jihad against the US making an esplicit reference not only to “the presence of troops in Saudi Arabia”, but also to the “ongoing aggression against the Iraqi people”, and to the “alliance between crusaders and sionists that inflicted heavy devastations to the Iraqi people, killing a huge number of them, more than a million”. For this, Bin Laden wrote, “it is an Islamic duty to attack the American Satan and his allies, so that they learn the lesson”.
Bin Laden was talking about the first Gulf War, the one with the UN brandmark and the approval of many Arab countries. Just like the London alqaidists don’t make any distinction between wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and exactly like Al Zarqawi never make it a problem to blowing up the UN base in Baghdad killing 22 UN emplyees, Bin Laden doesn’t make any difference and believes it’s all part of the great war against the west and the moderate arab countries.
The Saddam defeated and abandoned by the other arab leaders (apart from Arafat) turned out to be a natural ally. Osama shared a common political plan with Saddam: Take over the whole arab world, chase the Americans and erase Israel.
But there’s more: It was Clinton the liberal, in 1998, who preemptively bombed a foreign country, Sudan, because it was developing together with Iraq chemical weapons to provide Al Qaeda. Richard Clarke, the then chief of anti-terrorism and today Bush’s archenemy, justified the bombings of the pharmaceutical facility of Shifa with these words: “The intelligence data link Bin Laden to the current responsibles of the factory, which are the Iraqi experts of nervine gas and Sudanese Islamic National Front”. On an email sent to the then National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, Richard Clarke wrote that the presence of those Iraqis was “probably a direct outcome of the Iraq- Al Qaeda agreement”.
Nobody would ever question that, back then.
Clinton’s Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, interrogated by the 9/11 Commission, confirmed last year that the Sudanese facility “had to do with Bin Laden and with the Iraqi chemical weapons plan leadership”.
The relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda have been acknowledged by the 9/11 Commission as follows: “Bin Laden has looked for the possibility of a cooperation with Iraq when he resided in Sudan”. The bi-partisan Commission goes ahead: “In order to protect their own relations with Baghdad, the Sudanese arranged contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq. A top rank officer from Iraq’s secret services went to Sudan three times, and met Osama Bin Laden in 1994. Bin Laden asked for large spaces for his training camps and assistance for weapons, but apparently Iraq never answered”. More: “The contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq went on also when Bin Laden went back to Afghanistan, but it doesn’ t seem like they brought to a collaborative relationship”. The Commission could not go any further with its inquiries because its task was only bound to 9/11, and this is why it doesn’t have “credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated in the attacks against America”, which is the attack on the Twin Towers. But the Commission does have evidence of meetings, contacts and exchange of intelligence.
Today, one year after that report, more confirmations begin to flow in, and they are weirdly ignored by the American journalists, with the exceptions of Stephen Hayes, author of “The Connection”, and author of a long and detailed reportage on more recent developments published by the Weekly Standard. Hayes told that a US intelligence base in Iraq is analyzing more than one million pages confiscated in the secret services offices after Saddam’s fall. In some of the first checked documentations they found that, starting in 1992, the Iraqi regime considered Bin Laden as an asset of its own secret services. It has been read that Saddam protected and hid the Iraqi who admitted he had prepared the bomb for the 1993 WTC attack.
It can be found that Saddam accepted Osama’s request of broadcasting anti-Saudi propaganda on State-owned Iraqi National Tv.
Hudayfa Azzam, son of Bin Laden’s right arm, said that “before the Iraqi war Saddam open armedly welcomed Al Qaeda members which had entered the country in large numbers to arrange a network that would oppose the occupation”.
King of Jordan Abdullah repeatedly stated that before the war his goverment asked Saddam to turn over Zarqawi, Jordan citizen.
On 1998, February 3, twenty days before the total war declaration on America due to the sufferings caused “to the Iraqi people”, Al Qaeda number 2 man, Ayman al Zawahiri, went to Baghdad to meet with Iraqi leaders. According to the weekly US News and World Report, now confirmed by the documentations found in Baghdad, he was given 300,000 $. The 9/11 Commission added that it found evidence that a few days after Osama’s fatwa two Al Qaeda affiliates “went to Iraq and met with secret services officers”. From Baghdad papers new evidence appears that one of the two affiliates stayed in town from March 5 to 16, in room # 414 at Mansour Hotel. The 9/11 Commission wrote that “a few months later an Iraqi delegation went to Afghanistan to meet with the Taliban and also with Bin Laden”. According to the Commission these meeting were arranged by Al Zawahiri, “who had ties with the Iraqis”.
Zawahiri’s visit to Baghdad took place at the same time as one of the yearly Islamist meetings called Islamic People’s Conference, alike to those organized by the fundamentalist Hasan Al Turabi, architect of the Islamist Revolution in Sudan in 1989. The one of 1992 called for 500 Islamists to gather and transform Iraq into “the fortress of islamist jihad surrounded by atheist forces”. Saddam’s Islamist Conferences, started in 1983, regularly took place until the regime’s fall, and had the esplicit goal of involving laicists and islamists in the common fight against America. The Fourth Conference was opened by a message from Saddam depicting war with America as the war between “believers and infidels”. Saddam always tried to match the Islamic extremism with the arab-iraqi nationalism, since the Iran-Iraq war era.
All this exposes the fallacy of the “non-religious nature of Saddam’s regime”. After the 1991 defeat, the rais insisted for a strong islamist breakthru of Iraq well visible in the rhetorics, such as the ongoing references to jihad and the writing inserted in the middle of the flag “Allah is great”. In the Baghdad Great Mosque, inaugurated in 2002, he had 650 Koran pages shown, along with 20 liters of his own blood donated in 20 years.
As a result of the Clinton’s bombings on Baghdad in December 1998, went on for 4 days, Saddam sent his most trusted agent, Faruq Hijazi, to Afghanistan and meet Bin Laden. Newspapers from around the world wrote about it. Even Italian most important newspaper made headlines “Saddam Hussein and Osama made an agreement”. Newsweek quoted an arab agent who said “Very soon you are going to witness a large number of terrorist attacks worldwide aimed at Western targets, led by Iraqis”.
Information was convergent: Osama wanted to move to Baghdad. Richard Clarge wrote very clearly that had Osama been aware of American plans on Afghanistan he would have very likely fled to Iraq.

As you can see, I don't agree with you on the mere "Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda".
September 11th, 2005   #48
something interesting to read for you

Saddam did not aid Al-Qaeda TO ATTACK U.S unlike Bush's words that they had "'collaborative relationship'

and by the way, some source plz.
September 11th, 2005   #49
Italian Guy
I never said that myself, nor did the US wage war on Iraq on the grounds of Saddam's link to 9/11.
What we were talking about was the Saddam-Al Qaeda connection, man.
Bush always stated there were 3 reasons to go into Iraq. One of them was that connection. It is proved. My sources? Most of them are just listed all thru my post. Some others are in Italian, not sure if you read Italian.
September 11th, 2005   #50

Bush said they have cooperations.

but 9/11 report said "there are connections" but no cooperations together.

consititution, crap, defeat, provinces, times