Saddam gives WMD to terrorists?

“Other than a quickie, meaningless homosexual tryst caught on tape, the CIA has nothing on Osama and Saddam.”

“Or other sources saying that this link is actually a probability?”

“C bat, I would say that yes, there is a link between AlQuada and Saddam Hussein, the link being they are both being hunted down by US military (and G-d knows who else.)
The question is was there a link prior to 9/11, and that doesn't implicate Iraq in the WTC attack anymore than our own past associations with Osama.”

“Stories come and go, but I have no new proof. But my question was "you think that there in no link..?". 2 smart guys with similar hatred for the US, they arent gonna make it really obvious. I dont see how they wouldnt get together at some point.”

“Saddam: "No I am too proud, I want to hate America all by myself. I do not care that these powerful terrorist networks also want to destroy my enemy, I will work alone!"

Yeah right.”

“I can not provide any proof of my links with Paris Hilton (just to be topical) - though I don't see how we wouldn't have got together at some point.”

“"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"”

“My point is not based on proof, as particularly on this message board "proof" is only so-called and often refuted. I am looking at it from a logical prespective. My original question:

"Do you believe that there is no link between Saddam and Al Queda?"
c bat
01:01:47 PM
12/04/03”

“That's a lot of oversimplification, C Bat. The fundamentalist Islamists in Al Qaeda saw Saddam as a bad muslim, making him a grade or two better than "the great Satan", but not someone with whom they would deal regularly, or on any friendly basis.

The factions of the Middle East should not be construed solely as "them against us", because it just isn't that simple.

I personally would be very surprized if they were found to have been in contact, let alone been in cooperation for anything.”

“C bat, I would say that yes, there is a link between AlQuada and
Saddam Hussein, the link being they are both being hunted down by
US military (and G-d knows who else.)
The question is was there a link prior to 9/11, and that doesn't implicate
Iraq in the WTC attack anymore than our own past associations with
Osama.”

“So after Gulf War I, we were buddy-buddy with Tehran.”

“Al Queda has shown itself to be hypocritical, making exceptions to their values where it suits them. Dealings with someone they consider "spiritually" beneath them (Saddam) would be justuified if they were able to deal a blow thier common enemy”

“And on the other side, Saddam would have little to gain as a baathist making nice-nice with islamists. It just doesn't make sense.”

“There's only one problem with the ties the White House alleges between Saddam and al-Qaeda. According to most experts on Iraq , those ties barely exist, if they exist at all.

"While there are contacts, have been contacts, there is no co-operation. There is no substantial, noteworthy relationship," said Daniel Benjamin, former terrorism adviser to the U.S. National Security Council.

Experts point out that Saddam, a secular Iraqi nationalist who refuses to rule by the Muslim religious law of Sharia, is a natural enemy of Osama bin Laden.

As for bin Laden, he has vowed to topple Arab leaders like Saddam who don't embrace Islamic fundamentalism.

"Osama bin Laden hates Saddam Hussein and considers him an infidel," said Bari Atwan, editor of the London-based Arabic newspaper Al Quds . He says bin Laden was even ready to help liberate Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq in 1990.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2002/11/01/bushiraq021101”

“Sure it makes sense. They hate us, I doubt they "hate" eachother. Would you team up with a guy that you disliked based on fundamental values if he could help you hunt down the guy that raped your sister and his sister?

Im not saying that we raped their sisters, Im just trying to convey the personal hatred that both Saddam and Osama seem have for us. I would think that they would certainly be willing to put some fundamental differences aside in order to help eachother hurt America”

“C Bat, one of the major beefs that islamsts have against western society is the secular modernity of them. The Baathists are a mainly secular movement.

They do, indeed, hate each other.”

“This book gives a good perspective on the relationship between the two totalitarian movements of baathism and islamism.

It's not the easiest read, and Berman irritates me with his scattered approach, but it is good for a general background, with a light on recent events.”

“C bat, just for the sake of argument....
On a scale of 0 - 100, how culpable would you say Iraq was on the WTC attack?


(cul-pa-ble, adj, 1: guilty, criminal 2:meriting condemnation or blame esp. as wrong or harmful)”

“If Osama hated Saddam's Baathist regime so much where were the attacks? Iraq would be far easier to launch an attack on than US, but it never really happened. Just a bunch of declared and vowed "hatred" which could have also been a cover. I could see having problems trying to link Saddam and the Taliban, but Osama is a punk Ismalicist not a true Islamicist. You cant place Osama ib the bracket of Fundamental Islam. He plays his own game however it suits him, he just does it in the name of Islam.”

“I dont think that Iraq was much culpable at all in the 9-11 attacks.I think that Al Queda was capable of pulling that off and did pull that off with little or no help from Iraq. Im not arguing the idea that Iraq was involved in 9-11. They may have been, but I dont see why Osama would need Saddam for that particular plan.”

“"I dont think that Iraq was much culpable"
c bat

Can you quantify that on a scale of 0 - 100?”

“Since (as I said above) I belive that Al Queda was capable of pulling 9-11 off WITHOUT the help of Iraq, I will answer zero, nada, zilch, donut to your 0-100 scale demand. Once again, I am not arguing the link between Iraq and 9-11. I think that Saddam was pleased to say the least that 9-11 happened, but I cant reason out what he would have contributed”

“I can, however, reason out that despite the vows of Osama to topple infedels like Saddam, the fact that it never went past talk between those two (while al queda and other terror networks certainly follow through with attacking their avowed enemies)is very suspect.”

“What are liberals* trying to tell us here:

When in doubt regarding unaccounted for Weapons Of Mass Destruction, question the President of the United States of America and trust Saddam Hussein.

*does not apply to "all" liberals and is a gross stereotype.”

“As for this nonsense about Baathists hating Osama and vice-versa, Saddam not only constantly invoked the name of Allah, but the country of Iraq was infested with murals and huge images of Saddam praying to Allah. 95% of Iraq is Muslim. Iraq and Iran were at war, yet Iraq flew its fighter jets to Iran during the Gulf War. Do you fly your air force to a country you hate? Obviously when it comes to the United States and Israel, Muslim and Arab countries who are supposed bitter enemies often unite to fight their perception of a greater evil. Of course Saddam would support terrorist acts against Israel and the United States. To say Saddam wasn't gleeful about 9/11 would be ridiculous. Whether Saddam directly supported terrorists is perhaps yet to be seen, but an argument can't effectively be made AGAINST Saddam not supporting terrorism because of ideological differences with terrorist, that's ludicrous.”

“No one trusted saddam hussein, that I am aware of. Most of the liberals were calling for ramped up inspections to ensure that he was not a threat to the United states or its allies.

If Osama hated Saddam's Baathist regime so much where were the attacks? Iraq would be far easier to launch an attack on than US, but it never really happened.

Yes, it did! Kurds fought a guerrilla war with elements of Ansar Al-Islam in the early days of the war, you might recall. These guys were staging raids on both the Iraqis and the Kurds, according to many reports. This is the Islamist movement (note: Islamist, not Islamic), associated with Bin-laden's vision of eutopian mulsim society.

Al Qaeda as a group might not have been in Iraq doing the dirty work, but the ideologies between islamism and baathism are opposed, and at war with each other.”

“Is·lam·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-lämzm, z-, sl-, z-)
n.
An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.

Buck, you're muddying the water again. You are confusing Islamic with islamist.

The term islamist is generally used to describe the totalitarian, literal movement to impose Allah's will on society.

Obviously when it comes to the United States and Israel, Muslim and Arab countries who are supposed bitter enemies often unite to fight their perception of a greater evil. Of course Saddam would support terrorist acts against Israel and the United States.

I sincerely doubt there is a parallel between Iraq and Al Qaeda in this instance.

Whether Saddam directly supported terrorists is perhaps yet to be seen, but an argument can't effectively be made AGAINST Saddam not supporting terrorism because of ideological differences with terrorist, that's ludicrous.

No, the burden of proof in this debate is firmly on the shoulders of those who would use a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda as a motive for action. To this point there has been no substantive proof.”

“Iraq has ahd a concrete connection with the PLO's nasty little groups. Why would a connection to Al Kita be such a stretch? Israel possesses the greatest bulk of the PLO's records and I believe some shlt could be revieled there.”

“On this, I agree, Nigal. Iraq did have a vested interest in the Pali terrorist movement.

Al Qaeda is a different bird, though.”

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

That is not such a generalization as you say, Phaedrus, the term friend being used loosely.

Asked who their greatest enemy is, do you have any doubt what both Saddam and Osama would answer?”

“Seems pretty simple to draw an obvious conclusion. You say that I am over simplifying the situation. I think that you are over complicating it.”

“On the flip side...even though I believe there could be a link we should have had proof before using the link as a reason to go into Iraq.”

“And I'm not arguing that it couldn't happen. I'm arguing that the odds were against it, and there is no compelling proof.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

Why weren't China and the USSR allied against the United states During the cold war? It's irrelevent to this argument, but it's a parallel example of a three-way standoff.”

“Was Saddam capable of obtaining/developing WMDs? Clearly he was at some point in the recent past. With no proof to say he was still developing WMDs is specuation. But we know that the knowledge, capability and motive was there. To me that was justification enough to go into Iraq.

Or we could have sat on our hands, letting the UN go through their motions and wait for a product of Iraq to reach our soil. Then there would be screaming that Bush didnt prevent it of course.”

“The Alternative, of course, being inspections.”

“The inspectors had no real power in Iraq. It was a runaround.”

“Proven by all the WMD and banned weapons we've found since?”

“Buck, you're muddying the water again. You are confusing Islamic with islamist.
- Phaedrus

Hmmm... I'm confusing Islamic with islamist? I was unaware that I mentioned either? I thought I simply used the word Muslim? Oh wellzies.

sincerely doubt there is a parallel between Iraq and Al Qaeda in this instance.


That's okay if YOU "doubt" any links, or "doubt" about ANY evidence whatsoever. One thing for sure that there was absolutely no doubt over... that Saddam had unaccounted for WMD's and we NEEDED to verify that Saddam didn't have access to these unaccounted for WMD's, not now, and not tomorrow. And we succeeded in accomplishing this mission. You can "doubt" all the evidence, but some of us didn't trust Saddam with unaccounted for WMD's and we voted in a President who didn't wanna have "doubts" about Saddam with WMD's either. Doubt the evidence, or doubt Saddam. I, along with the President, chose to doubt Saddam.
He gave us every reason to do so.

No, the burden of proof in this debate is firmly on the shoulders of those who would use a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda as a motive for action. To this point there has been no substantive proof.

I guess we just have differing standards on who needs to prove what. Saddam, per UN Resolutions, needed to prove he didn't have unaccounted for WMD's. Saddam failed to prove he didn't still have them. We verified what Saddam wouldn't do himself. And we didn't invade simply because Saddam had links with Al Qaeda. The fact remains that Saddam had WMD's and many of them were still unaccounted for and we were concerned about where and how those might be used.”

“Was Saddam capable of obtaining/developing WMDs? Clearly he was at some point in the recent past. With no proof to say he was still developing WMDs is specuation. But we know that the knowledge, capability and motive was there. To me that was justification enough to go into Iraq.

c bat
03:08:06 PM
12/04/03


I cant say if there are still any WMDs in Iraq. But obviously there were at some point, and they knew how to do it again. All Im saying is that the motive and know-how was there. That was good enough for me, obviously not for you.”

“I can see it now...

Saddam (thinking about Osama) - Man, I love the fact that Osama rams jet airliners full of civilians into American sky scrapers, and I love how Osama is fighting this Great Satan in Afghanistan and in Saudi Arabia and all over the world. It's great to see American blood shed. Osama is doing a great job in that regard. Kudos to Osama and Al Qaeda. Buuuuut, if that Osama bastard and his freaking Al Qaeda group ever set foot in this great country of Iraq, especially to ask for more money to blow up American interests, woe to Al Qaeda and may Osama burn in hell. Far be it I associate with that jerk in any way, shape, or form."

Osama (thinking about Saddam) - Sure, it's pretty cool the way Saddam doesn't back down to the Imperialist American pressure, and I love the way Iraq tried to launch missiles against Israel during the first war, and I love the way Saddam supports terrorism in Israle through the Palestinian movement, and I hope Saddam continues to defy and buckle under the pressure of the Great Satan America, and I know Saddam is wealthy from oil and builds luxurious palaces all over his land, but far be it from me to ever ask Saddam for a penny in my crusade against Israel and America. My religious principles and outstanding morals wouldn't allow for me to take one lousy penny from Saddam in my fight through terrorism. I'd hafta be low as a snake to wiggle up to Saddam and ask for any support or intelligence or for a place to hang out while I'm hiding. What kind of low-life terrorist would I be if I asked Saddam for any help whatsoever? SADDAM, I HATE YOU AND YOU ARE GONNA GO DOWN, SUCKER!"”

“Why weren't China and the USSR allied against the United states During the cold war?
- Phaedrus

Yaaa, you tell 'em, Phaedrus! And why weren't the United States and Russia allied against Hitler during WWII! Wait... okay, bad example, sorry, carry on.”

“As for this nonsense about Baathists hating Osama and vice-versa, Saddam not only constantly invoked the name of Allah, but the country of Iraq was infested with murals and huge images of Saddam praying to Allah. 95% of Iraq is Muslim.

If you weren't confusing islamist with islamic, then you were making no point at all. We'll move on.

"That's okay if YOU "doubt" any links, or "doubt" about ANY evidence whatsoever. One thing for sure that there was absolutely no doubt over... that Saddam had unaccounted for WMD's and we NEEDED to verify that Saddam didn't have access to these unaccounted for WMD's, not now, and not tomorrow. And we succeeded in accomplishing this mission. You can "doubt" all the evidence, but some of us didn't trust Saddam with unaccounted for WMD's and we voted in a President who didn't wanna have "doubts" about Saddam with WMD's either. Doubt the evidence, or doubt Saddam. I, along with the President, chose to doubt Saddam.
He gave us every reason to do so"

In hindsight, would you say that inspections have worked in keeping these weapons out of his hands?

I guess we just have differing standards on who needs to prove what. Saddam, per UN Resolutions, needed to prove he didn't have unaccounted for WMD's. Saddam failed to prove he didn't still have them. We verified what Saddam wouldn't do himself. And we didn't invade simply because Saddam had links with Al Qaeda. The fact remains that Saddam had WMD's and many of them were still unaccounted for and we were concerned about where and how those might be used."

Pre-emptive warfare goes against many things I stand for, and if it is necessary, I would like to think that our leaders have a very solid case for it being so.

I believe there was a humanitarian and economic justification for this action, but not a self-defense justification.”

“Yaaa, you tell 'em, Phaedrus! And why weren't the United States and Russia allied against Hitler during WWII! Wait... okay, bad example, sorry, carry on."
Buck
03:38:48 PM
12/04/03

Of course it can happen. I already admitted that it is possible. I have given evidence of it being improbable, however.”

“Saddam did not have the technology to reach us with his weapons, and to flaunt them to the point that self defense (by your standards) was justified would have been foolish. Better to be low key and get the weapons into delivery systems that could reach his enemy. Under that circumstance the self defense justification would have only come after another attack, and then only after a bunch of partisan fighting about whether or not Saddam was really involved. He never would have left a clear trail.”

“I cant say if there are still any WMDs in Iraq. But obviously there were at some point, and they knew how to do it again. All Im saying is that the motive and know-how was there. That was good enough for me, obviously not for you."
c bat
03:24:31 PM
12/04/03

No, because there are a number of countries that meet the same criteria, and I would hate to see the United States pulled by a doctrine of pre-emptive war into other countries on the same grounds (not that I see this happning right now).

I hate seeing this precedent set by the country I fought for, and my friends and shipmates died for.

There are alternatives besides pre-emptive warfare that need always be explored first, and if warfare is called for (which I believe in this case it might have been, on humanitarian grounds), a leader who is capable of building consensus is necessary. Yes it is possible, and no it was not done.”

“Saddam did not have the technology to reach us with his weapons, and to flaunt them to the point that self defense (by your standards) was justified would have been foolish. Better to be low key and get the weapons into delivery systems that could reach his enemy. Under that circumstance the self defense justification would have only come after another attack, and then only after a bunch of partisan fighting about whether or not Saddam was really involved. He never would have left a clear trail."
c bat
03:47:45 PM
12/04/03

The problem here is that this is imaginative fiction. There is no evidence that Saddam HAD weapons to give to terrorists, even if he DID have links to them, which is also unproven.

Too many leaps in evidence to be conclusive.”

“If you weren't confusing islamist with islamic, then you were making no point at all. We'll move on.

I wasn't confusing the two, and the point still stands. I agree, we'll move on.

In hindsight, would you say that inspections have worked in keeping these weapons out of his hands?

Not at all! The inspection was a big joke and a big dodge game that only bought Saddam time. It was knowing Bush was serious that made him do something drastic and serious about WMD's.

And let's face it, Phaedrus, we wouldn't even be in the position of knowing about Saddam's WMD program and discussing this unless we went in and verified it. Fact remains, even the UN admitted, that Saddam had unaccounted for WMD's. You don't let a madman get away with unaccounted for WMD's, period.

Pre-emptive warfare goes against many things I stand for, and if it is necessary, I would like to think that our leaders have a very solid case for it being so.


That's okay if you don't think preemptive warfare is bad. Some of us think, under certain circumstances, the best defense is a good offense. You don't "wait around and see what happens" when a madman has unaccounted for WMD's. Often action is better than reaction, especially when so much is at stake.

believe there was a humanitarian and economic justification for this action, but not a self-defense justification.

That's cool. To me it doesn't matter if someone is for this war in Iraq or not. We all have our own ideas of whether military force is necessary or not. I respect your view about the war, and obviously many others feel as you do. A great many of us feel this war was more than justified and long overdue. I accept the fact that you don't think there was any risk involved, but please realize that many of us are uneasy about the notion of a madman running a country with internationally-recognized unaccounted for WMD's who continually played games with, and mocked, the UN Resolutions for over a decade. The risk of unaccounted for WMD's was real, and still is (who knows exactly where they are, hopefully time will tell), and Saddam had sons who were waiting in line after Saddam so there was no real end to the Hussein dictatorship and proven history of developing and using WMD's.

Anyway, hi.”

“the problem here is that this is imaginative fiction. There is no evidence that Saddam HAD weapons to give to terrorists, even if he DID have links to them, which is also unproven. - Phaedrus

I'm sorry to be repetitive, but you're being repetitive as well. Perhaps you are missing the gist of the argument here. The argument is that Saddam had WMD's, no doubt. Everyone agrees. Saddam also was forced to identify and destroy all these WMD's through the international inspection process. Saddam did indeed destroy many WMD's as witnessed by the UN. BUT, Saddam had many more WMD's that Saddam himself had previously stated he had, through UN records, but they are now unaccounted for and Saddam refused to account for them. That's a big concern, no? There was no doubt that Saddam had unaccounted for WMD's, that's not just Bush, but the UN knew this. Whether it was right to go to war over it is an honest question and an understandable debate, but whether Saddam had unaccounted for WMD's was not in question.”

“Not at all! The inspection was a big joke and a big dodge game that only bought Saddam time. It was knowing Bush was serious that made him do something drastic and serious about WMD's.

And let's face it, Phaedrus, we wouldn't even be in the position of knowing about Saddam's WMD program and discussing this unless we went in and verified it. Fact remains, even the UN admitted, that Saddam had unaccounted for WMD's. You don't let a madman get away with unaccounted for WMD's, period

I agree that it was hugely important to get inspectors back into Iraq, and I applauded the Bush administration's stance on this before it became apparent that they would not allow the inspections time to regain ground lost during the period of no inspections.

Weapons being unnaccounted for does not mean in possession of, however. Many of these were estimates given by the UN that could have been wrong. I put much more faith in the inspections than I did in the pre-war estimates, and at this point, it would appear that I was right to do so.

please realize that many of us are uneasy about the notion of a madman running a country with internationally-recognized unaccounted for WMD's who continually played games with, and mocked, the UN Resolutions for over a decade. The risk of unaccounted for WMD's was real, and still is (who knows exactly where they are, hopefully time will tell), and Saddam had sons who were waiting in line after Saddam so there was no real end to the Hussein dictatorship and proven history of developing and using WMD's

I understand your point, Buck, but at the same time, I cannot abide the rush to war that we rode. There was plenty of time to ramp up military presence in the ME, gain more international support, and let inspections take place. We didn't do that - and despite the years of previous inspections, we were making good progress.”

“if warfare is called for (which I believe in this case it might have been, on humanitarian grounds), a leader who is capable of building consensus is necessary. Yes it is possible, and no it was not done."

*sigh* Phaedrus, you're still trying to hawk this inanity? In your world, if Bush had been all humble and nice, France would've been a strong ally. In your world, the war was devoid of strategic geopolitical goals. In your world, if WMD aren't found, then the war served no purpose. In your world, oh never mind.

You have a good head on your shoulders, but when it comes to foreign policy, you're a complete duffer.”