Terrorist Trained in Iraq

[Simon W. Moon]

Simon,
You assign some subtle mischeivous intention to Hayes' choice of the term 'operatives',

Actually, no. He didn't choose the word. It's a quote from the Senate report. Mr. Hayes chose to omit the first two sentences of the paragraph he quoted in the article "What the Senate report really says about Iraq and al Qaeda."

The choice of the word "operative" has very little, if anything to do with it. Mr. Hayes stuck the paragraph in there in such a way to bolster his case that Hussein and aQ were hugger-mugger plotting

Given their [radical Islamists'] presence and support of Saddam (if Newsweek is correct), is it not logical for Saddam to form alliances with these Islamic radical groups and pursue training of both IIS agents and radical Islamic terrorists at the same time, or more precisely, following Gulf War I, when the radical Islamists seem to be rallying to Iraq's cause (for example, bin Laden's fatwa)?

What's 'logical' doesn't seem that relevant. I mean what seems logical to me, given my extremely limited understanding and access may not seem logical to the actual actors in question.
Further, even if certain groups did work out agreements of various sorts, it does not necessarily mean that other groups, even if they are similar groups, did or would be likely to the same as well.

For the record, I have argued repeatedly that Hussein was indeed supporting terrorists and terrorist organizations in pre-war Iraq. I have also provided ample evidence from varied quarters to support the assertion that he did so.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

And, as always, or67, it's a pleasure.

 

[tecoyah]

What changing explaintions. They have been the same from the get-go. And one of the more important was the Saddam was allowing and supporting terrorist training camps inside of Iraq. Seems the government is turning over even more evidence of just that everyday.

Might I recommend, that in your support of Mr. Bush....and the policies he puts forward, as well as the obvious lack of thought used in your rebuttals of differing opinion, you at least try to glimpse a piece of Data on occasion:

Reason #1) Went to War As a Direct Result of 9/11

Bush: “The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001 Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war.” [Bush, 6/28/05]

Bush: “We went to war because we were attacked.” [Bush, 6/18/05]

Reason #2) WMD

Bush: “This is not about inspectors; this is about a disarmed Iraq. He has weapons of mass destruction — the world’s deadliest weapons — which pose a direct threat to the United States, our citizens and our friends and allies. He has been told to disarm for 11 long years. He’s not disarming.” [Bush, 1/21/03]

Reason #3) Links to Al Qaeda

Bush: “This is a man who, in my judgment, would like to use al-Qaeda as a forward army.” [Bush, 10/14/02]

Reason #4) Reform the Greater Middle East

Bush: “A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all of the Middle East. Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that needs both. [Bush, 2/20/03]

Reason #5) Liberate the Oppressed

Bush: “In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near.” [Bush, 3/17/03]

Reason #6) Protect Integrity of the U.N.

Bush: “We are enforcing the demands of the United Nations.” [Bush, 3/28/03]

Reason #7) Fight Them Abroad So We Don’t Face Them At Home

Bush: “We will be unrelenting in our defense of this country, by finding the enemy before they find us. Listen, we want to whip them in Iraq before we have to face them here at home.” [Bush, 7/9/04]

Reason #8) Pursued Policy of Previous Administration

Bush: “Like the previous administration, we were for regime change.” [Bush, 1/12/04]

Reason #9) Removed a State Sponsor of Terror

Bush: “Because America and our allies acted, a state sponsor of terror was put out of business.” [Bush, 3/18/04]


I recommend this to you in all honesty, as there seems to be a pattern forming in your attempts at debate, which makes your opinion less than worthy of respect.

 

[DivineComedy]

Reasonably, this deliberate attempt at deception might tarnish Mr. Hayes credibility in your eyes. But, it's possible his credibility is protected from oxidation by eyes tight shut.

“Since the quote is presented w/o any useful context it's hard to say for sure; however, it seems as if Saddam's referring to the Palestinians.
Would you care to offer some more context for the quote?”
(Simon W. Moon http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2947 )

I assume that you still reading your mail and think those that were “isolated from their natural milieu“ or “ignored deliberately,” or mis-appreciated, and who “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings” were Palestinians and not Al Quacka in Taliban surroundings?

Immediately following the bombing of Iraq, when Saddam’s web site went down on the first night, I had to post the entire letter in question on a message board for contextual discussion. Google gives no excuse for eyes tight shut now, or when I quoted it in the other topic. I will just assume you still haven’t read your mail, and add the sentence right before the quote you thought was referring to “Palestinians:”

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.) {That is all the information required to find the letter.}

I could care LESS about Mr. Hayes’ credibility!

 

[Simon W. Moon]

“Since the quote is presented w/o any useful context it's hard to say for sure; however, it seems as if Saddam's referring to the Palestinians.
Would you care to offer some more context for the quote?”
(Simon W. Moon http://www.debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?t=2947 )

You have lost me. There're a number of pronouns w/o a clear referent.
I don't understand what you're saying or what you're getting at.
Sorry.
Perhaps it would help if you typed more slowly - I don't read so fast.

I could care LESS about Mr. Hayes’ credibility!

I suspect you mean that you could NOT care less about it.

 

[robin]

"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials."

And the article goes into much more detail, what more do you need and with all that we already know where does the doubt come from and why? Seems you simply do not want to believe what has been known for quite some time.

8000 terrorists trained in Iraq yet they have't been terrorising anyone outside of Iraq !
You could look at a satellite picture of Salisbury Plain in UK & think it was a terrorist training camp when in reality it's a training area for regular marines & paratroopers. How can you tell the difference from space whether it's regular army training or terrorist training ?
The CIA would interpret a picture from space of a dustbin as a picture of a skud missile component if it suited them to.
It all depends on what you want to see comes into it doesn't it.

 

[DivineComedy]

You have lost me. There're a number of pronouns w/o a clear referent.
I don't understand what you're saying or what you're getting at.
Sorry.
Perhaps it would help if you typed more slowly - I don't read so fast.

I suspect you mean that you could NOT care less about it.

I am not surprised, I hear that quite often.

It is somewhat accepted that Saddam apparently wanted Iran to believe he had WMD. Considering that, is it all that ridiculous to believe he wanted the terrorist milieu to believe he supported Al Quacka? In all the documents in Iraq do you think we will find proof that Saddam rejected the February 23, 1998 fatwa? {OH, I forgot, Simon W. Moon on 08-16-2005, 06:23 PM didn’t know what fatwa that was. Tough!)

Now we know Saddam did not have the WMD, that we thought he had:

“Anyhow, this and other things show that weapons of mass destruction become a burden on their owners and on humanity, if they were not absolutely necessary for self-defense and defending their countries.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

And, we know that he knew in his response to 911 that WMD was a burden! Saddam had no reason whatsoever to believe that the United Nations would come to remove him for his support for terrorism, or any other reason, as the United Nations had no definition of the word “terrorism” on their website on that day! A cursory inspection of the debates on the UN website about what is “terrorism,” where Israel cried, and the world body ignored, was interesting reading back then.

I think Saddam was speaking to the natural milieu in the vernacular of terror, as in deliberating being vague, but Saddam wanted us to know it, he wanted you to claim you do not understand, and he miscalculated the power of those waiting in the shadows to replace the rulers:

“The danger that may threaten any people or nation, does not call upon the people in charge to lead the way against this danger only, but also to analyze its reasons in view of abating them, or treating those reasons radically, to eliminate them so that they would never surge again.
I am sorry to say that the general approach in this direction is still weak, so far. Western governments are the first in this phenomena of weakness. Some voices have risen on the part of some peoples, journalists, writers, and, in a very restricted way, the voices of those who are preparing themselves, in the shadow, to replace the rulers there.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

On October 29, 2001 Iraq was not being debated, as the first time I quoted Saddam it was the above part (starting with “some voices”), and it was in response to a “liberal” attacking the war against Afghanistan and George Bush, and those who debated endlessly back then remember the “liberals” saying there was no proof Osama did it, even after the “December 13, 2001 TRANSCRIPT OF USAMA BIN LADEN VIDEO TAPE” several “liberals” still doubted that Osama did it. I still remember the Bush hating “liberals” saying the war in Afghanistan was for oil. Yet that pipeline wanted through Afghanistan was brought up by then President Bill Clinton in a speech he gave in China: that oil was for China, not us. {How much do you want to bet that speech will never make it into the presidential library?}

“The victory of the US and its allies over Iraq would conceal the opposing attitude and analysis, and would not allow it to emerge again for a long time.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

Was that a conceited thing to say? Obviously it was, just ask any “liberal.“

If we did find documents that Saddam‘s regime was deliberately training some Al Quacka prior to 911 his conceited attitude would take on a new meaning. How many reams of documents do we have that prove Hitler officially ordered the extermination of the Jews? I expect that this search will produce the same results, if any: history is a teacher. The “liberals” that had their eyes wired shut when looking at the February 23, 1998 fatwa will still claim that Saddam was no threat to us, and that containment was working: no matter what we find.

PS. As far as I know, Mr. Hayes is not here, so I could care less about his credibility. But, your credibility is here. “Who do you serve, who do you trust?”

Now, debate it endlessly, I have other things to do.

 

[oldreliable67]

8000 terrorists trained in Iraq yet they have't been terrorising anyone outside of Iraq !

That is conjecture. It is unknown how many, if any, participated in terror operations outside of Iraq.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

That is conjecture. It is unknown how many, if any, participated in terror operations outside of Iraq.

I suspect that many Iraqi aided/sponsored folks did engage in acts of international terrorism. It just wasn't in the US or against the US. Iraq was dirty player. There's no doubt about it.

Hussein devoted considerable resources to making things in the region decidedly unpleasant, especially for Iran.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
That is conjecture. It is unknown how many, if any, participated in terror operations outside of Iraq.

Why don't you answer my question instead of running away with you tail between your legs?

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

Looks like I missed something...what question is that?

 

[Stinger]

8000 terrorists trained in Iraq yet they have't been terrorising anyone outside of Iraq !

And you have documentation that none of the terrorist trained in Iraq during Saddams tenure did not terrorize outside of Iraq?

 

[oldreliable67]

I could say the same thing about your inference that I was crazy for saying we started the war back in April of 2002.

Scrolling back thru the thread, I found this...is this what you're referring to?

We've been thru this before, quite a while back, and I really don't see much point in rehashing it. But, since you seem a bit more sober, er, coherent at the moment, here we go...

IIRC, you're accusation was that our increased bombing in the no-fly zones prior to the actual invasion constituted the 'real' start of the war in Iraq. You further alleged that it was some kind of impeachable offense. But being an f**t, thats about as far my memory takes me on your allegations...how 'bout a refresher or even just a link to the thread where we discussed it previously?

From what I remember of my response, and my impressions about the bombing to which you referred, I think I said something like...remember that the first Gulf War ended with only a cease fire, a cease fire that was predicated upon certain promises and conditions agreed to by the Iraqis. Subsequent to that cease fire, the Iraqis continually abrogated and violated the terms of the cease fire. Under the terms of the cease fire, we were within our rights to engage in the bombing activity.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Scrolling back thru the thread, I found this...is this what you're referring to?

We've been thru this before, quite a while back, and I really don't see much point in rehashing it. But, since you seem a bit more sober, er, coherent at the moment, here we go...

IIRC, you're accusation was that our increased bombing in the no-fly zones prior to the actual invasion constituted the 'real' start of the war in Iraq. You further alleged that it was some kind of impeachable offense. But being an f**t, thats about as far my memory takes me on your allegations...how 'bout a refresher or even just a link to the thread where we discussed it previously?

From what I remember of my response, and my impressions about the bombing to which you referred, I think I said something like...remember that the first Gulf War ended with only a cease fire, a cease fire that was predicated upon certain promises and conditions agreed to by the Iraqis. Subsequent to that cease fire, the Iraqis continually abrogated and violated the terms of the cease fire. Under the terms of the cease fire, we were within our rights to engage in the bombing activity.

You've got things ass backwards. We ran over 2000 sorties, dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets just to provoke Hussein into violating the cease fire agreement when we were telling the world we were enforcing the no-fly zone requirements. That is an act of war. Enforcing no-fly is air-to-air combat. If a plane is on the tarmac, there is no flying going on. Therefore, there is no reason for our involvement. I've said this before, and I'll say it again, you drop that many bombs in my backyard, I would be shooting at you too. It takes a very sick individual to think that we can do this to a country and they don't have a right to defend themselves.

 

[oldreliable67]

We ran over 2000 sorties, dropping over 600 bombs on over 300 pre-selected targets just to provoke Hussein into violating the cease fire agreement when we were telling the world we were enforcing the no-fly zone requirements.

Saddam had been violating the no-fly zones and the cease fire agreement since day one. We didn't need to do anything to 'provoke' him into violating the cease-fire, he was already doing it big time.

It takes a very sick individual to think that we can do this to a country and they don't have a right to defend themselves.

Where did I say anything remotely resembling that?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Saddam had been violating the no-fly zones and the cease fire agreement since day one. We didn't need to do anything to 'provoke' him into violating the cease-fire, he was already doing it big time.

If the punishment should fit the crime, prove to me what Hussein did deserved that much illegal ordinance.

 

[oldreliable67]

Nah, you made the assertion. You prove that he didn't deserve it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Nah, you made the assertion. You prove that he didn't deserve it.

The assertion in question was the breakage of UN Sanctions. You are the one who introduced that into this discussion. So present your facts. What are the sanctions he broke that would preclude that much illegal ordinance?

 

[oldreliable67]

Nope, the assertion in question is one that you broached: the 2002 bombing campaign was illegal and an impeachable offense. The number of bombs is merely incidental to your assertion.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Nope, the assertion in question is one that you broached: the 2002 bombing campaign was illegal and an impeachable offense. The number of bombs is merely incidental to your assertion.

First of all, were talking apples and oranges. Secondly, you're avoiding the question because you don't have the balls to defend it. Thirdly, the number of bombs is not incidental. Not that many bombs. That's a lot of ordinance. It was illegal because it was not sanctioned by the UN. Nor was it done in concert with any UN resolution. Fourthly, it was immpeachable because it was done nine months before Congress authorized the use of force.

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

Your last post contains a comment that is way out of line and completely uncalled for. If you want to get personal, I suggest that we get up close to do it, as in face-to-face. You up for it?

 

[RightinNYC]

Mod Mode

Lets all take a break and step back. Alright? Good.

/Mod Mode

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Billo,

Your last post contains a comment that is way out of line and completely uncalled for. If you want to get personal, I suggest that we get up close to do it, as in face-to-face. You up for it?

I did as you requested. I defended my position. Does the door swing both ways? Are you now going to address my question? I addressed yours. Now it is your turn in the hot seat.

You brought up the breakage of sanctions. I am now asking you a direct question. What sanctions did he break that would justify being bombed back to the stone-age in violation of any UN Resolution?

Or just tell me you'd rather not answer that and I'll let the issue die. But I don't like hypocrits. I'm not calling you one, I'm just saying people like that are disgusting.

 

[oldreliable67]

No, Billo, you have been insulting and personal. You've been getting more and offensive and culminated in a grossly personal remark for which there is no excuse. Completely out of the bounds of any debate.

You want to get personal? I invite you to do so face-to-face.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
No, Billo, you have been insulting and personal. You've been getting more and offensive and culminated in a grossly personal remark for which there is no excuse. Completely out of the bounds of any debate.

You want to get personal? I invite you to do so face-to-face.

If that's what you think, then I apologize.