"Smoking Gun" Saddam-Al Qaeda Connection

[Gladiator]

"Document http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf)which is still up on the Harmony Data Base website is a captured Al Qaeda document in Afghanistan and shows without any doubt that Aymen Al Zawahiri who is the Bin Deputy and the so called “Al Qaeda Brain” had visited Iraq as well as he had visited Iran. The document does not indicate which year he did the visit but it is for sure after the year 1995 based on the context of the document. Other reporting from different sources said that there is an indication that Zawahiri visited Iraq in 1998, and this document confirms that he indeed visited Iraq."


Link for article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825605/posts?page=51,13




The Democrats' anti-Iraq war arguments are dead.

[oldskiier]

"Document http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf)which is still up on the Harmony Data Base website is a captured Al Qaeda document in Afghanistan and shows without any doubt that Aymen Al Zawahiri who is the Bin Deputy and the so called “Al Qaeda Brain” had visited Iraq as well as he had visited Iran. The document does not indicate which year he did the visit but it is for sure after the year 1995 based on the context of the document. Other reporting from different sources said that there is an indication that Zawahiri visited Iraq in 1998, and this document confirms that he indeed visited Iraq."


Link for article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825605/posts?page=51,13




The Democrats' anti-Iraq war arguments are dead.

This is very good news !!! Bet CNN wiont post it !!! LMAO....some one send itto FOX !!! they would LOL

[yunowu]

Good post !! Now if only the "mainstream" media will post this article, which I doubt they will...:(

[Ialdoboath]

Yes, dealings with despots like Saddam are clearly bad.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg)

[stayfrosty5]

"Document http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf)which is still up on the Harmony Data Base website is a captured Al Qaeda document in Afghanistan and shows without any doubt that Aymen Al Zawahiri who is the Bin Deputy and the so called “Al Qaeda Brain” had visited Iraq as well as he had visited Iran. The document does not indicate which year he did the visit but it is for sure after the year 1995 based on the context of the document. Other reporting from different sources said that there is an indication that Zawahiri visited Iraq in 1998, and this document confirms that he indeed visited Iraq."


Link for article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825605/posts?page=51,13




The Democrats' anti-Iraq war arguments are dead.

So.... because one guy went to Iraq once then that means that Saddam and Al-Qaeda are in bed together. Lol! :rolleyes:
Just because I have been D.C. doesn't mean that I am part of the D.C. Madam network.... or does it?

frosty

[BILLYG]

So.... because one guy went to Iraq once then that means that Saddam and Al-Qaeda are in bed together. Lol! :rolleyes:
Just because I have been D.C. doesn't mean that I am part of the D.C. Madam network.... or does it?

frosty

Saddam would have done ANYTHING within his power to exact revenge on the USA up to and including getting in bed w/ al-qaeda JMO...

[rykpa]

I cannot believe you people.

READ the article.

And even IF it was one visit, what do you think it was for? Vacation?

[rykpa]

No.

Only the "Ratherized" lemmings of leftist leanings will continue to deny the obvious.

But then again, they also believe that 911 was a US govt conspiracy.

There is not enough Prozac in the world to fix those people.

Very sad lots, truly.:no:

[rykpa]

Don't try too hard to reach him/her. You'll get a headache after the third or fourth disjointed reply.

[Shau - Kenshin]

But our very thourough CIA has advised our president that there was NO alqaeda connection and he advised the american public. Does this make the commander in chief wrong, or does it prove that the articles sources are dubious? Hmmm..... take your pick!

[Gladiator]

But our very thourough CIA has advised our president that there was NO alqaeda connection and he advised the american public. Does this make the commander in chief wrong, or does it prove that the articles sources are dubious? Hmmm..... take your pick!


That's an easy pick.

[Gladiator]

Yes, dealings with despots like Saddam are clearly bad.

http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg (http://www.marxist.com/images/stories/saddam-rumsfeld.jpg)


With all due respect, this post illustrates a grave misunderstanding on the part of those on the left who make assertions such as “the U.S. funded Saddam” or “the CIA funded bin Laden.”

Here is the fallacy of their argument: The U.S. providing money or weapons to militants is not equivalent to supporting their terrorist methods, especially not when they are going to perpetrate those methods upon the U.S.

If Rumsfeld or anyone else had known what Saddam or bin Laden were going to do in the future, obviously the relationship would have been drastically different.

For example, if your next door neighbor turns out to be an internet pedophile, you shouldn’t be charged with a sex offense just because you helped him fix his computer a couple years ago.

I would rather not accuse people of having no ability to think critically, but sometimes I don't have much choice.

[Shau - Kenshin]

With all due respect, this post illustrates a grave misunderstanding on the part of those on the left who make assertions such as “the U.S. funded Saddam” or “the CIA funded bin Laden.”

Here is the fallacy of their argument: The U.S. providing money or weapons to militants is not equivalent to supporting their terrorist methods, especially not when they are going to perpetrate those methods upon the U.S.

If Rumsfeld or anyone else had known what Saddam or bin Laden were going to do in the future, obviously the relationship would have been drastically different.

For example, if your next door neighbor turns out to be an internet pedophile, you shouldn’t be charged with a sex offense just because you helped him fix his computer a couple years ago.

I would rather not accuse people of having no ability to think critically, but sometimes I don't have much choice.

Please consider the Mu Hajadeen warriors (Russias terrorists, U.S.'s freedom fighters right?) that fought the Russians. "Bin Missin" was running with that crew but got salty towards the U.S. hence our current state of affairs. Also keep in mind that one of Saddams first jobs was to take over Iran in the early 80's. He failed and when the World bank who actually funded his war with iran (among some other countires) and wanted to get their monies back, and he did not have it they wanted to take the oil and that greedy bastard stink nugget did not want to give it up, hence he became a problem.
There is alot here. I think that the more we find out we know, the more we find out we have had a few dealings with the devil to keep a lid on certain factions that they will stay in check, this has been widely understood by "Dalisa" Rice and she, I must say was NOT proud of it, but it served a purpose for a time.

As all things do, time changes as well as foreign policies, some of them I am damned pround we changed. WE NEVER should have backed any tyrants, but we have. NO MORE.

[Mucho Dinaro]

So.... because one guy went to Iraq once then that means that Saddam and Al-Qaeda are in bed together. Lol! :rolleyes:
Just because I have been D.C. doesn't mean that I am part of the D.C. Madam network.... or does it?

frosty

Agreed, it is wrong to assume that he went there to visit saddam.......it is also wrong to assume that he was there on vacation to relax and "get away" from the crushing stress of terrorism.

[Gladiator]

Please consider the Mu Hajadeen warriors (Russias terrorists, U.S.'s freedom fighters right?) that fought the Russians. "Bin Missin" was running with that crew but got salty towards the U.S. hence our current state of affairs. Also keep in mind that one of Saddams first jobs was to take over Iran in the early 80's. He failed and when the World bank who actually funded his war with iran (among some other countires) and wanted to get their monies back, and he did not have it they wanted to take the oil and that greedy bastard stink nugget did not want to give it up, hence he became a problem.
There is alot here. I think that the more we find out we know, the more we find out we have had a few dealings with the devil to keep a lid on certain factions that they will stay in check, this has been widely understood by "Dalisa" Rice and she, I must say was NOT proud of it, but it served a purpose for a time.

As all things do, time changes as well as foreign policies, some of them I am damned pround we changed. WE NEVER should have backed any tyrants, but we have. NO MORE.




Don’t miss the point: we never backed tyrants knowing they would turn around and attack us.

The only people backing and emboldening tyrants now are the Democrats (Nancy Pelosi? Harry Reid?)

[Mucho Dinaro]

I cannot believe you people.

READ the article.

And even IF it was one visit, what do you think it was for? Vacation?

there I go skipping over posts again............. ;)

[rainsofterror]

"Document http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf (http://www.ctc.usma.edu/aq/AFGP-2002-601693-Trans.pdf)which is still up on the Harmony Data Base website is a captured Al Qaeda document in Afghanistan and shows without any doubt that Aymen Al Zawahiri who is the Bin Deputy and the so called “Al Qaeda Brain” had visited Iraq as well as he had visited Iran. The document does not indicate which year he did the visit but it is for sure after the year 1995 based on the context of the document. Other reporting from different sources said that there is an indication that Zawahiri visited Iraq in 1998, and this document confirms that he indeed visited Iraq."


Link for article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1825605/posts?page=51,13




The Democrats' anti-Iraq war arguments are dead.

I do not doubt that Scarface traveled to Iraq, practically every capable muslim does at some point in their lives as Iraq contains many of the holiest sites in all of Islam. From all credible accounts, it is clear that Saddam was intolerant of any threat to his power. Al Qaeda more than likely did not want a relationship with Saddam as they are definitely anti-establishment so I highly doubt this document proves anything other than a religous pilgrimage.

[Gladiator]

I do not doubt that Scarface traveled to Iraq, practically every capable muslim does at some point in their lives as Iraq contains many of the holiest sites in all of Islam. From all credible accounts, it is clear that Saddam was intolerant of any threat to his power. Al Qaeda more than likely did not want a relationship with Saddam as they are definitely anti-establishment so I highly doubt this document proves anything other than a religous pilgrimage.


Let’s get real. Saddam had absolute, total control. Any terrorist leader coming to Iraq was by his consent and upon arrival they reported directly to Saddam and got straight to business.

[rainsofterror]

Let’s get real. Saddam had absolute, total control. Any terrorist leader coming to Iraq was by his consent and upon arrival they reported directly to Saddam and got straight to business.

No actually he did not. Maybe in government matters, but the fear he imposed was the source of control, and he was even losing his grip on that. There were many underground groups that wanted to overthrow him, one of which nearly killed his oldest son Uday. Saddam compensated for his immense insecurity complex with brutality. I have seen video proof of his insecurity. I do not deny that Saddam had contact with terrorists, but he had no working relationship with the base.

[Gladiator]

No actually he did not. Maybe in government matters, but the fear he imposed was the source of control, and he was even losing his grip on that. There were many underground groups that wanted to overthrow him, one of which nearly killed his oldest son Uday. Saddam compensated for his immense insecurity complex with brutality. I have seen video proof of his insecurity. I do not deny that Saddam had contact with terrorists, but he had no working relationship with the base.



“Underground groups” have threatened every dictator who has ever lived. Their mere existence does not define “losing grip.”

None of them ever came close to toppling Saddam because his power was so absolute.

Insecurity complex? You mean he was spanked as a child maybe? Come on. Saddam was a mean, self-centered SOB like nobody else in the land.

The origin of terror, always and everywhere, is cruel disposition. The thing in itself, if you will. Sadism—enjoyment in watching others suffer. Together with the tendency to lust for power it’s the major source of the world’s problems.

[Gladiator]

Think about this for a minute, it’s quite fascinating. In professing our desire to fight for our country, we conservatives enjoy a tremendous liberty—the privilege of stating our agenda exactly as it is.

But liberals have the awful burden of having to act like they want to stand up for the country when in fact they only want to be oh so Gandhi-like (“we support the troops #!&%@#$!!!”)

I say, just be men. Come out and admit it, you don’t want there to be a Saddam-Alqaeda connection, you hope there isn't, because it ruins your argument. But when you see the evidence, just admit you’re wrong!

Better yet, come on over to the conservative side! True liberty is having real cojones, do not underestimate this.

[rainsofterror]

Think about this for a minute, it’s quite fascinating. In professing our desire to fight for our country, we conservatives enjoy a tremendous liberty—the privilege of stating our agenda exactly as it is.

But liberals have the awful burden of having to act like they want to stand up for the country when in fact they only want to be oh so Gandhi-like (“we support the troops #!&%@#$!!!”)

I say, just be men. Come out and admit it, you don’t want there to be a Saddam-Alqaeda connection, you hope there isn't, because it ruins your argument. But when you see the evidence, just admit you’re wrong!

Better yet, come on over to the conservative side! True liberty is having real cojones, do not underestimate this.

So i guess what you are saying is that I should believe anything on the internet even though it has no concrete evidence to substantiate its claim and relies on an incestuous amplification to offer proof. All you have done is cloud another issue with your hatred for the left.

[rykpa]

No, your people of the mass media cartel muddle the facts to convince you people what to hold true.

It must be nice to be unencumbered with having to make effort to think. Ignorance is what???

[rykpa]

Indeed you have no choice with leftists. I used to grow weary with their willful ignorance, but now I am numb to their plight. I just take a jab at them now and then (if they realize it), just for kicks. I love to see the vacuous look in their eyes when they are caught in a lie or holding a faulty truth as gospel.

[Ialdoboath]

How is this even a debate?

Saddam ran a secular regime.

Bin Laden had called for his ouster and death because Saddam had turned his back on Islam and had embraced secularism.

I just do not get how people are saying there was a connection. It's weird to me that you keep thinking there was. Bin Laden hated Saddam and wanted him dead. How much clearer can this be? That any member of Bin Laden's group went to Iraq is irrelavant. They were diametrically opposed to each other.

[Mucho Dinaro]

So i guess what you are saying is that I should believe anything on the internet even though it has no concrete evidence to substantiate its claim and relies on an incestuous amplification to offer proof. All you have done is cloud another issue with your hatred for the left.


I don't have hatred.............only humor.

[maxc64]

Hi, nice meeting you all.

In consideration to your posts, its a little suspicious the relationship between ossama bin laden`s father and former president george Bush. Also that the only one who profit from this war was Haliburton, vicepresident Dick corporation.
If Al qaeda 2nd in command Al zawahiri visited iraq and that proves that Saddam Hussein commited the 11/9 in New York. Then the visit of the Talibans chiefs to Governor Jeb Bush, proves that Florida is guilty of terrorism.
International politics are far more complicated than that.
For instance knowing than iraq borders are not so well defined and mostly runs through a desert. If the USA finds difficult guarding his South Border with Mexico, you cant blame Iraq for not guarding a border with absolutely no population.
The relationship between the talibans and the cia is not in discussion. Of course the CIA assisted the talibans in Afhganistan against the Soviet Union. It was during the cold war, and the obvious path to take. Also The USA assisted Saddam against the Iranian regime, the Usa felt Saddam ran a secular regime that clearly opposed the fundamentalist Ayattolah regime in Iran.
But the real thing is that 15% of the USA economy is in Saudi Arabian`s hands. Difficult to hear but true. When a soldier mother buys a Coke in Texas, a Saudi corporation gets some cents of it. So it was dangerous catching Ossama Bin Laden; or the right path to take, Invading Saudi Arabia. Trouble is that invading Saudi Arabia is bad for the USA economy, so lets invade someone else cause in America nobody can distinguish friend from foe anymore.

Best Regards,
Max