Direct Link between Sadaam's people and the 911 attackers?

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 27, 2004, 12:52 pm

I bumped into a hum dinger from the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/pri ... =110005133

WSJ wrote: One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.

WSJ wrote:...... at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

WSJ wrote:......... The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 27, 2004, 1:00 pm

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. If there's any real substance to it I expect it to be trumpetted across every major news outlet worldwide for the next 6 months or so.
If not I expect it won't make much of a ripple. Although that'll be due to the liberal media conspiracy though, right?

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 27, 2004, 1:04 pm

This is all bullshit. Iraq and Saddam are innocent peace loving people raped by the United States.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 27, 2004, 1:11 pm

Yep Winnow. There can be no connection between terrorist organizations and Iraq. Impossible. The media, democratic party and people on this board have said so many times. I refuse to believe such non-sense.

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » May 27, 2004, 1:12 pm

Is anyone going to be horribly surprised if they did have members in each other's camps? Seriously. ><

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 27, 2004, 1:25 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yep Winnow. There can be no connection between terrorist organizations and Iraq. Impossible. The media, democratic party and people on this board have said so many times. I refuse to believe such non-sense.

Nobody here ever said anything remotely close to that. We simply ask for proof. The same thing many of us asked for during the WMD debates (and we would have supported the war if it had been provided) when you blindly believed the retoric. Now you latch on to anything that gives you a glimmer of hope that you were not a dumbass blind follower.

Real proof that they colaborated, not just speculation.

In your world this would prove Rumsfeld and Sadam were best buddies.

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 27, 2004, 1:57 pm

Umm Forthe, you would not have backed the US under a republican president unless Iraq detonated a nuclear device in Toronto. I love you and think you are a great guy, but THAT is a fact.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 27, 2004, 1:58 pm

Forthe wrote:
Real proof that they colaborated, not just speculation.

In your world this would prove Rumsfeld and Sadam were best buddies.

If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt

Sun Tzu!

Ah yes! Crusty old Sun Tzu quotes almost as old as that picture!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 27, 2004, 1:59 pm

In your world putting words in peoples mouth is the thing to do.

Anyway, they have made many references to the connections before. They were denounced. It sure would be nice to have some real undisputable proof of connections so people can start eating crow.

See many of us had no problem believing a connection. Terrorist organizations having ties with Iraq was a completely believable notion. I find it laughable how many people found this a tough thing to believe.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 27, 2004, 3:02 pm

It's still a little early.

Give it a month or two. Things will hopefully clarify.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 27, 2004, 3:15 pm

Kylere wrote:Umm Forthe, you would not have backed the US under a republican president unless Iraq detonated a nuclear device in Toronto. I love you and think you are a great guy, but THAT is a fact.

I said before the invasion on these boards I would support action against Iraq if there was proof of WMD. I'm sure you can go back and quote me if you are so inclined. I also had a problem with the US' escalating conditions every time Iraq cooperation improved (remember it all started with the demand that inspectors be given access). It seemed to me the closer we got to full cooperation the more hurried the push for war got.

If proven then action was justified IMO. My problem has always been the lack of proof and now a year later when even the retoric has fallen apart I am even more skeptical.

If you aren't skeptical after what has happened you are a fool.

Edit:

As to your republican president thing that I missed. I don't care that Bush is a republican. I'm not a democrat.

Ex: I blasted Clinton (was probably on the old boards) when he bombed Iraq to deflect attention from his blowjob. An insane misuse of power.

I believe Bush is either an idiot or an evil bastard. I'm not sure which but either combined with his reckless behavior, lack of respect for a nation's sovereignty and for the lives of both Iraqis and his own troops is dangerous. Throw in his administration's moves to get around the geneva conventions, his god rants and evil doers retoric and his spooky domestic policies and the picture gets even scarier.

If he was a democrat I'd feel the same way.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » May 27, 2004, 3:51 pm

Forthe wrote:I believe Bush is either an idiot or an evil bastard. I'm not sure which but either combined with his reckless behavior, lack of respect for a nation's sovereignty and for the lives of both Iraqis and his own troops is dangerous. Throw in his administration's moves to get around the geneva conventions, his god rants and evil doers retoric and his spooky domestic policies and the picture gets even scarier.

I don't think he is either of those things. I think he has made some poor choices for advisors and is being misled by those who have an agenda. Once mired in this mess, it is impossible to gracefully get rid of them without ruining a chance at re-election.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 27, 2004, 4:08 pm

I'm thinking a few people on this board would vote for Saddam over Bush in the next elections. Poor misunderstood Saddam...just give him a chance!

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » May 27, 2004, 4:17 pm

The story might or might not pan out. We'll see. Certainly worth watching (though not at all relevant to Bush, given his steadfast denial that Iraq and 911 were connected).

That said, you really should not put "WSJ said:" and then link from their opnions page. WJS and WJS opinions are night and day. WJS reporters are some of the most unbiased reporting in print. WSJ opinions is on par with right wing talk radio. Some things they say turn out to be true, but none of it is reliable as a sorce.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 27, 2004, 4:22 pm

This really doesn't prove a connection between al-Qaeda and the Iraqi government. It does show that a member of the Iraqi military was, at the very least, tenuously involved with al-Qaeda. It doesn't clarify whether he acted alone or with the support of the Iraqi government/military. Clearly, it was safe to assume that many Iraqis had ties and contact to terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda or al-Qaeda itself. There are al-Qaeda cells in nearly every country in the world, including the United States. Does it mean they all support terrorism? No. It's laughable to suggest that just because the man worked for the Iraqi military that his ties to al-Qaeda automatically implicate the Iraqi government.

I think that this information is an important step to examining the possibility that Iraq supported al-Qaeda but it doesn't prove it in and of itself. Hopefully, in the next few months, more information will surface to either prove or disprove Iraqi support for Shakir's ivolvement with al-Qaeda.

Unfortunately, at this point it's largely moot. We've already invaded Iraq. This information, and more, should have been thoroughly investigated before invading. Even if this vindicates Bush's claims, we still went to war without the proof and that's a frightening precedent in my mind. Even worse, is if it's shown that he acted alone. That would be another allegation disproved and another knock the to purported moral righteousness of the war.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 27, 2004, 5:50 pm

See many of us had no problem believing a connection. Terrorist organizations having ties with Iraq was a completely believable notion. I find it laughable how many people found this a tough thing to believe.

No many of you had no problem taking a liar's word for good faith without any shred of evidence behind it. The rest of the world asked for proof. I find it laughable how you accept everything thrown at you without evidence whatsoever.

Btw there are plenty of links between the US and terrorist organizations. And there is plenty of proof about that.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 27, 2004, 6:46 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Yep Winnow. There can be no connection between terrorist organizations and Iraq. Impossible. The media, democratic party and people on this board have said so many times. I refuse to believe such non-sense.

I have yet to see anyone say this. I also have yet to see any clear connection between the two.

You have to convince me first before I'll just randomly believe something. It helps to have evidence or proof to convince an individual of something.

Being skeptical and prudent are NOT bad personality traits, Midnyte.

It doesn't mean you're anti-anything, or un-patriotic, it means you make rational decisions based on tangible evidence, not heresay or conjecture. I don't understand why that is so hard for you to understand.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 27, 2004, 8:31 pm

Saddam known for killing over a million of his own people, known for torture chambers, known for breaking UN regulations......then throw in the hint that he could also be linked to a notorious terrorist organization.....yeah I have no problem buying into that.

noel · Post by **noel** » May 27, 2004, 8:44 pm

Or perhaps he was just a ruthless, power-hungry dictator.

All I'm asking for is a little proof before I just believe. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » May 27, 2004, 8:50 pm

Several people in your military torture prisoners: rogues!!

One person in Iraqi military linked to Al'Queda: Ah ha! I told you so! Damn Iraqis

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 27, 2004, 9:05 pm

This board has liberalitis. If I ever mass murder a few thousand people I sure hope I get a bunch of liberals on the jury. I could probably threaten to kill the jury after I was released and they'd still let me go. Oh, they would have videos of me kicking in faces of people...but that doesn't mean anything. Some of my followers (officers!) would be caught killing people after I told them to but that can't be linked to me! Saddam = Charlie Manson...he didn't do anything directly ya know! Kuwait was just a small country...no biggie that Saddam rolled over it and then burned the oil fields on the way out. He's was just misunderstood when he was lobbing scuds into Isreal and paying off families of suicide bombers. I think we should have left the guy there to rebuild his army so he wouldnt have to stop at Kuwait next time.

In another era you'd be crying for Charlie Manson's release.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 27, 2004, 9:35 pm

Winnow wrote:This board has liberalitis. If I ever mass murder a few thousand people I sure hope I get a bunch of liberals on the jury. I could probably threaten to kill the jury after I was released and they'd still let me go. Oh, they would have videos of me kicking in faces of people...but that doesn't mean anything. Some of my followers (officers!) would be caught killing people after I told them to but that can't be linked to me! Saddam = Charlie Manson...he didn't do anything directly ya know! Kuwait was just a small country...no biggie that Saddam rolled over it and then burned the oil fields on the way out. He's was just misunderstood when he was lobbing scuds into Isreal and paying off families of suicide bombers. I think we should have left the guy there to rebuild his army so he wouldnt have to stop at Kuwait next time.

In another era you'd be crying for Charlie Manson's release.

The christian right turned Manson into what he is. It's not his fault.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 27, 2004, 9:40 pm

Saddam known for killing over a million of his own people, known for torture chambers, known for breaking UN regulations......then throw in the hint that he could also be linked to a notorious terrorist organization.....yeah I have no problem buying into that.

You don't get it do you.. at least parts of that argument could be used against the US as well.. and the UK.. and France.. and Russia.. and.. and.. and..

Here is a hint for you:

[Show]: Things are not black and white!

Btw.. Kurds should not be considered "his people". They were fighting a civil war against him.

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 27, 2004, 9:47 pm

A million people and Charles Manson.

Pretty desperate arguments.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 27, 2004, 11:26 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Saddam known for killing over a million of his own people, known for torture chambers, known for breaking UN regulations......then throw in the hint that he could also be linked to a notorious terrorist organization.....yeah I have no problem buying into that.
You don't get it do you.. at least parts of that argument could be used against the US as well.. and the UK.. and France.. and Russia.. and.. and.. and..

Here is a hint for you:
[Show]
Things are not black and white!
Btw.. Kurds should not be considered "his people". They were fighting a civil war against him.

Yeah, thank god I don't get you. Then I would be in your IQ bracket and that would be very bad. The discussion isn't about our part decades earlier. It's about now. Try and stay focused dimwit.

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 27, 2004, 11:36 pm

lol, did you just say Saddam was a bad man for breaking UN regulations?
theres a word we use for people like you, it starts with an H and is followed by a ipocr...

Whats funny is 3 years ago i was more of a republican then anything else, while i do blame some of that on being young, and influenced from a republican backround, knowing that people like George W Bush, Jerry Falwell and ashcroft were in the same party turned me the fuck away from that path

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 27, 2004, 11:37 pm

Then stop bringing up Saddam's use of WMD on "his own people." That was twenty years ago; we're talking about now.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » May 28, 2004, 1:08 am

Hey whats Bush's IQ again?

Arundel Pajo · Post by **Arundel Pajo** » May 28, 2004, 2:33 am

Just a quick word on the Kurds...

I'll try to find a source for this, but I remember reading that there was actually still some debate in US intelligence agencies as to whether or not the gassing of the Kurds was actually done by Saddam or by Iranian forces.

The Kurds were engaged in a civil war of sorts with Iraq, and were caught in the middle of the Iran/Iraq conflict. Gas was used, predominantly on the Kurds.

When the case was being made for war in Iraq after 9/11, the administration and supporters siezed on this as a shining and ironclad example of Saddam's brutality against his own people. This caused some backpedaling from intelligence agencies who responded (for instance, in the article that I read back then) by claiming that there was also a fair amount of evidence that the gas could have been used by the Iranians, but there *was* a lean toward the Iraqis - it looked like Iraq, but just wasn't as 100% certain as some were claiming. Prudence, then, would dictate not using this as a rock solid example.

Myself, I think it probably *was* Saddam, as do most of the intelligence community apparently. I'm just submitting that this particular argument against him in fact relies on a bit of speculation to fill in some blanks.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 28, 2004, 2:48 am

Saddam Apologists!

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 28, 2004, 8:44 am

Markulas wrote:Hey whats Bush's IQ again?

Not sure, but it is clearly higher than Midnyte's and most of his other mindless supporters. Not that it says much really.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 28, 2004, 10:16 am

Kelshara wrote:
Markulas wrote:Hey whats Bush's IQ again?
Not sure, but it is clearly higher than Midnyte's and most of his other mindless supporters. Not that it says much really.

lol, good one Kelshara.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 28, 2004, 11:26 am

Kelshara wrote:
Saddam known for killing over a million of his own people, known for torture chambers, known for breaking UN regulations......then throw in the hint that he could also be linked to a notorious terrorist organization.....yeah I have no problem buying into that.
You don't get it do you.. at least parts of that argument could be used against the US as well.. and the UK.. and France.. and Russia.. and.. and.. and..

Here is a hint for you:
[Show]
Things are not black and white!
Btw.. Kurds should not be considered "his people". They were fighting a civil war against him.

Boy your really digging arent ya

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 28, 2004, 12:43 pm

Markulas wrote:Hey whats Bush's IQ again?

I dont remember where i saw a link, but i recall it being the lowest of all presidents ever recorded

this doesnt mean much to me, being that i believe IQ, and IQ tests are complete bullshit, this also comming from someone who "supposedly" has a 141 IQ

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » May 28, 2004, 12:59 pm

edit: you know i should shut up

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 28, 2004, 1:25 pm

Boy your really digging arent ya

Nah but looks like you good ol' boys are digging in the sand still! Man those huge WMD storage areas sure were easy to find!

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 28, 2004, 4:00 pm

Kelshara wrote:
Boy your really digging arent ya[shadow=]

Nah but looks like you good ol' boys are digging in the sand still! Man those huge WMD storage areas sure were easy to find![/shadow]

New features giving you a little trouble I see.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » May 28, 2004, 4:33 pm

heh not sure how that happened *shrugs*.. not exactly a big deal.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 28, 2004, 11:12 pm

Winnow wrote:Kuwait was just a small country...no biggie that Saddam rolled over it and then burned the oil fields on the way out....I think we should have left the guy there to rebuild his army so he wouldnt have to stop at Kuwait next time.

Wow, what an ignorant statement. You'd think that over a decade after the fact more people would know more about what exactly led to war.

First, Kuwait and Iraq had been involved in a border dispute for decades.

For some time, Kuwait had been slant drilling under the disputed border for some time leading up to the war.

Kuwait had been exerting financial pressure on Iraq by violating OPEC contracts to undercut oil prices and by prematurely calling in loans made to Iraq.

Hussein, though he had confirmed from the U.S. State Department, via then Ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, that they didn't not care if he invaded Iraq had also stated that he would not invade Kuwait if the Emir attended a summit in July 1990 to settle the dispute and end Kuwait's "economic warfare." The Emir refused to attend. Iraq, feeling no other recourse, invaded. However, unbeknownst to them, the Emir of Kuwait had assurances from the Pentagon (led by Dick Cheney at the time...noticing a pattern?) that the U.S. would in fact defend Kuwait if Iraq invaded. This is the very reason the Emir refused to attend. Shortly after the U.S. committed itself to the war, the State Department began backpeddling, denying they ever gave Iraq the OK to invade Kuwait - even though it was well documented.

My point is not to claim that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were victims of some conspiracy. Cleary, Saddam is a bad man, that's not under debate. My point is only that Kuwait was not the innocent and helpless victim the media and government portrayed them as and neither were Saddam and Iraq the aggressive conquerors they were portrayed as. This was not Iraq's first step in conquering the Arabian peninsula - it was a border dispute, nothing more.

I know your view of right and wrong is formed solely by the black and white conflicts comic books where super-villains battle super-heroes but in the real world everything is grey and oftentimes villain and hero are indistinguishable.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 28, 2004, 11:19 pm

Oh, btw, I think this says all you need to know about Bush's intelligence. Or perhaps this one. What were you saying about his reaction again Kylere?

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 28, 2004, 11:22 pm

Karae wrote:Wow, what an ignorant statement. You'd think that over a decade after the fact more people would know more about what exactly led to war.

uhm wow. The only part of your post I've read about was the slant drilling.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 28, 2004, 11:28 pm

Kelshara wrote:heh not sure how that happened *shrugs*.. not exactly a big deal.

Thats okay I have a problem Quoting

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 28, 2004, 11:33 pm

You can read about it in Iraq by Dilip Hiro and A World Transformed by Brent Snowcroft. I've only read part of A World Transformed myself but a lot of newspapers and magazines picked some of the parts and quoted both books as sources.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 29, 2004, 5:15 am

Karae wrote: Kuwait had been exerting financial pressure on Iraq by violating OPEC contracts to undercut oil prices and by prematurely calling in loans made to Iraq.

A little financial pressure makes it ok to roll over a country and then burn their oil fields? Bent out of shape over oil prices and being asked to pay back money they owe is cause for taking over and devastating a country? It makes me sick to see these rationalizations.

I take it you'd be ok with the US invading Japan and then leveling their auto factories on the way out? We are feeling a little financial pressure from them afterall.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » May 29, 2004, 9:35 am

Can't you read? He never supported Iraq, he just said Kuwait wasn't so innocent.

Karae wrote: My point is not to claim that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were victims of some conspiracy. Cleary, Saddam is a bad man, that's not under debate. My point is only that Kuwait was not the innocent and helpless victim the media and government portrayed them as and neither were Saddam and Iraq the aggressive conquerors they were portrayed as. This was not Iraq's first step in conquering the Arabian peninsula - it was a border dispute, nothing more.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 29, 2004, 4:01 pm

Winnow wrote:
Karae wrote: Kuwait had been exerting financial pressure on Iraq by violating OPEC contracts to undercut oil prices and by prematurely calling in loans made to Iraq.

A little financial pressure makes it ok to roll over a country and then burn their oil fields? Bent out of shape over oil prices and being asked to pay back money they owe is cause for taking over and devastating a country? It makes me sick to see these rationalizations.

I take it you'd be ok with the US invading Japan and then leveling their auto factories on the way out? We are feeling a little financial pressure from them afterall.

Lynks pretty much summed it up, but I'd like to add: Goddamn you're a stupid motherfucker.

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » May 30, 2004, 1:58 am

So do people believe you should go to war over a speculation?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 30, 2004, 10:30 am

Markulas wrote:So do people believe you should go to war over a speculation?

I don't Mark. But this war doesn't fit that mold. So not sure why you brought it up here.

Karae · Post by **Karae** » May 30, 2004, 3:52 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Markulas wrote:So do people believe you should go to war over a speculation?
I don't Mark. But this war doesn't fit that mold. So not sure why you brought it up here.

You're absolutely right. This war is based on lies. A very different thing.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » May 31, 2004, 5:26 am

Lynks wrote:Can't you read? He never supported Iraq, he just said Kuwait wasn't so innocent.

Karae wrote: My point is not to claim that Iraq or Saddam Hussein were victims of some conspiracy. Cleary, Saddam is a bad man, that's not under debate. My point is only that Kuwait was not the innocent and helpless victim the media and government portrayed them as and neither were Saddam and Iraq the aggressive conquerors they were portrayed as. This was not Iraq's first step in conquering the Arabian peninsula - it was a border dispute, nothing more.

I can read. I disagree with blowing off Iraq's invasion of Kuwait as a simple border dispute.

Karae wrote:
Lynks pretty much summed it up, but I'd like to add: Goddamn you're a stupid motherfucker.

You're like that regurgitating college geek in Goodwill Hunting that had mad skills quoting from books but didn't understand what the fuck they meant...look what I can repeat mom! Aren't you proud?!! Do you like apples?