Al Qaeda operatives received flight training in Florida. Does that mean Florida trains or harbors terrorists?
Fact is, there is as much a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq as there is between Al Qaeda and Florida. You don’t understand Islamic nor Middle Eastern politics if you think otherwise. I wouldn’t be surprised if Iraq was on Al Qaedas long term hit list, they weren’t a big fan of the regime.
Wait until he has to ask for another $50 billion later this year. After the election, of course.
OBL also took arms and training from the United States to push the USSR out of Afghanistan. Then he attacked the United States because it represents the great Satan. He will fuck a goat if it helps his cause.
He has been breeding people for the express purpose of attacking Western Civilization. Whether he uses talaban students, Hezbola, or SH it’s all the same. He isn’t going away because we capitulate. SH and OBL share the same dream.
Saddam’s dream was self-aggrandizement and making all the money he could. Osama’s is ruling the world and killing in the name of Allah. Neither is good, but there are some huge differences.
Yeah, I’d agree they are operating on a different plane, but they would use each other in a heartbeat if it furthered their agenda.
I would disagree that Saddam was in it for the money. He strikes me as a power mad sadist. Money just made his world go round. He was more Mafia then anything else. If someone got in his way, then they were tortured, raped or murdered.
[QUOTE=Beagle]
… the attacks are decreasing. I’d call that an improvement.
QUOTE]
“Hope springs eternal within the human breast.”
After the first WTC bombing there were not terrorist attacks within the US for a number of years even though we didn’t create a new Cabinet level department or go to war. Isn’t this evidence that a calm and reasoned response is effective?
Even though it was over before I was born, from the history books I read, this sounds like another military debacle the US got itself caught up in, where it was long, drawn out, and fought against an elusive enemy in a country where not everyone necessarily wanted them there. Too bad that George W. hasn’t noticed those similarities to the Vietnam War yet.
The difference is, this time, the enemy has the resources to strike at the US outside of the country where the conflict is taking place, and the US isn’t the only country that is putting its military in harm’s way.
Magiver: OBL also took arms and training from the United States to push the USSR out of Afghanistan. Then he attacked the United States because it represents the great Satan. He will fuck a goat if it helps his cause.
I completely agree that bin Laden’s scruples about the company he keeps are nonexistent, but I think this phrasing distorts the history a bit. When the mujahedin were being trained in Afghanistan, from ObL’s point of view the real enemy was the Soviet Union. They were dominating Afghanistan and preventing the establishment of Islamist theocratic rule. It wasn’t until February 1998 that he “issued his fatwa” (which, not being a cleric, he is not authorized to do) against the US, on the claim that the first Gulf War constituted an anti-Muslim “crusade” on our part.
It is safe to say that ObL probably never liked the USA to any significant extent, but there is no reason to think that he had targeted it as an alleged major enemy of Islam until after the end of the mujahedin/Soviet struggle.
*I would disagree that Saddam was in it for the money. He strikes me as a power mad sadist. Money just made his world go round. He was more Mafia then anything else. *
(And the Mafia are in it for the money—what else?) Being an evil brutal dictator is bad, but as Marley noted, it doesn’t make you identical to a religious fundamentalist terrorist revolutionary. ObL is fostering hatred and aggression between the West and Muslim populations precisely in order to inspire fundamentalist Islamist revolutionary overthrow of secular or West-friendly Muslim governments. Saddam Hussein knew that perfectly well, and knew that his own secular regime was one of the ones that ObL thought had to go (and that Shi’ite Islamists in neighboring Iran would have supported efforts to overthrow it).
It’s one thing to say that Saddam would have used ObL or al-Qaeda in any way he could; who doubts it? But to argue that he would have supported al-Qaeda’s efforts, which are aimed precisely at removing him (and other non-fundamentalist regimes) from power, requires a lot more supporting evidence than anybody has been able to dig up.
Just a nitpick, but are you suggesting that the U.S was the only military involved in attacking Vietnam? I hope not, because Australians were both drafted to fight in Vietnam, and died. The U.S was by no means the only country that suffered casualties.
Arguably, the whole point in being in Iraq is to have Al Qaeda there. To make it debatable, consider two options.
The US should try to stop terrorist organizations from attacking the US. The US should search every plane, boat, and car that comes into the US. The US should secure every inch of its borders. The soldiers on the front lines should be civilians and law enforcement agents, such as baggage screeners. The battle should be fought on US soil.
The US should fight a counter-terrorist war on foreign soil using its military. The US should place troops in Iraq, provoke terrorist organizations to attack them, and then fight those forces with its military. The soldiers on the front lines should be soldiers and intelligence operatives.
I hate option two as it basically turns a bunch of 18 year old kids into walking targets. Option, one, however, is not winnable.
I concede that the argument suffers from faulty reasoning, an either / or fallacy. Obviously, a combination of both options is most likely.
Al Qaeda has many so-called goals.
The “call” (al Qaeda issues so-called fatwahs) is to all Muslims. Most terrorist groups, including ones sometimes favored by our European allies like Hezbollah, unite under the radical Islam long funded by Saudi Arabia for the most part, but many other nations also. I personally think it’s pretty funny that my quoting Hezobllah or al Qaeda means I hate Muslims. Actually, given all the Muslims that live and work around here, I’m OK with the average Mohammed. But, that name comes up in other contexts too often to ignore certain trends in organized violence.
Basically, if you don’t spin it into some revolutionary progressive philosophy – which it’s the exact opposite of – they want to destroy Israel, the United States, and eventually all secular goverments in the world. Along the way they want to unify the Arab Nation under strict Islamic law. That involves toppling all the goverments in the ME, especially the Saudi Royal family. UBL has a hard on for all that oil.
Obviously, no leader – even a pan-Arabist like Saddam – would trust bin Laden enough to meet with him personally. UBL would take Iraq’s reserves in a second. Saddam would rightly suspect an envoy from bin Laden to blow himself up in any face-to-face meeting. UBL thrives in failed states and chaos. Saddam thrived in Stalinist, statist, paranoia. They do have the cult of personality in common.
OTOH, they both want to destroy Israel, the US, and to take over the whole region. Much like Stalin and Hitler split Poland, and cooperated militarily (while syping like crazy on each other) Saddam and al Qaeda’s interests converge exactly and conflict directly.
What was the so-called reasoning behind al Qaeda being upset to the point of wanting to kill “civilians” from the US?
The original gripe was troops in Saudi Arabia. Of course, without Saddam, there was no need for troops in Saudi Arabia or an excuse for Usama to turn himself into a cult hero. Now that the US has moved troops out of Saudi Arabia, it makes not one bit of difference.
Now, the “call” is still to kill Americans “both military and civilian”. He still wishes “all Muslims” would listen to him.
That’s what he – Usama, and his co-signers – say. The thousands of terrorists trained in Afghanistan that obviously agreed with this reasoning were, insofar as I know, all Muslims.
If you would like to generalize that to the once Pakistani guy that always drives us to the airport, and owns his own fleet of limos, feel free to do so. That would be your stereotyping, not mine.
As for more evidence of Saddam and al Qaeda cooperating, from what I understand, there is a great deal of secret information that has been released to some senators. So, I’m going to just wait before I go back over the Czechs, Mukhabarat, whatever.
If Saddam and Usama did cooperate, obviously it would be kept in utmost secrecy, nor would their people trust each other.
The evidence of a “non-aggression” agreement between the two of them, and Usama’s own statements about operating in Iraq should have clued us in a bit before we captured this last guy.
It seems hard to believe that Usama has been recruiting from Chechnya, the Phillipines, to Marin County, CA, USA – but, only now, since the cowboy imperialist actually overthrew Saddam, al Qaeda is interested in Iraq.
Which, by the way, borders Saudi, funded terrorism, harbored terrorists, once also had designs on the Saudis, floats on oil, and possessed nuclear technology and know how, chemical, and biological weapons capabilities. Even the best case scenario involves Saddam doing all he can to evade the UN and keep his programs in embryonic form.
The most interesting thing is that the inspections probably did a better job of keeping the programs hidden or inoperative than anyone thought. Unless, of course, there is evidence of whatever somewhere yet to be discovered.
…like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.
Did you write this yourself, or did you crib this from a 1950s comic book? Sheesh, talk about wild-assed hyperbole.
Ye gods, not the old “sooper-secret intel” garbage again. This is the same ultra-secret information that proved conclusively that Saddam had 500,000 tons of anthrax hidden in his palaces, right? :rolleyes:
It doesn’t take a political genius to know that if George W. Bush had any credible evidence that Saddam and Osama were working together, he’d be trumpeting it on the 6:00 news in a heartbeat. Probably with a patrotic soundtrack and a “Bush/Cheney 2004” banner in the background, too.
And if dreams were horses, then maybe you can take this fantasy scenario of yours somewhere. But this is the SDMB; come back when you’ve got a cite or three, son.
No, the most interesting thing is that you continue to believe this nonsense, even without any credible evidence to support it.
Kimstu
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, and I certainly opposed the invasion of Iraq, but the notion that there were terrorist operatives in Iraq without Saddam’s knowledge and consent is patently absurd. Few dictators have ever held a tighter grip on every aspect of citizen’s lives than he.
OK, it is the US government indictment against Bin Laden, but it beats obtuse 1950s references.
I’d like to point out that some of that is documented by looking at who signed what fatwah. This is not rocket science.
rjung, excellent use of smartassedness without making much in the way of sense. Usama actually said, from his own mouth, that operations were to be carried out in Iraq. Just like operations are to be carried out in NY, Washington DC, and a crater in Pennsylvania.
If we station troops in the White House, that’s fair game. I know it’s easy to skate past years and years of floated intelligence information, sketchy details, and more. That’s fine. To draw conclusions either way, especially with your evident lack of manual dexterity, is quite underwhelming.
Not really. It would be patently absurd to think that any man, super-dictator or not, would have complete knowledge of all visitors over a 20 year span. YMMV.
Beagle, are you making some point? I seem to be missing it utterly (unless it’s ObL doesn’t like America, that I get).
They “both” want to destroy the U.S.?
Spoken of bin Laden, this is probably true.
Spoken of Hussein, it is arrant nonsense. Hussein is a bully. He wants to build himself up by picking on and destroying those smaller or weaker than he is. He has never launched an attack unless he thought that he already had overwhelming odds to succeed. His invasion of Iran coincided with the destruction of most of Iran’s military hierarchy. Unfortunately, for him, Iran’s people were willing to put up a spirited defense despite their lack of a high command. (It did not hurt Iran that, initially, they had a lot of U.S. equipment in which they had already been trained.) In his invasion of Kuwait, he acted on the misunderstanding that the U.S. would stay out of the fracas. His periodic swipes at Israel have always been in the nature of harrassment, not actual warfare, designed to garner good PR among Israel’s enemies rather than actually conquering Israel. Other than that, all his actions have been aimed at quelling his own citizens.
All of his bluster against the U.S. was also intended as Middle Eastern propaganda. The only “evidence” we have of Hussein plotting to “destroy” the U.S. comes from rumor mills and minor league terrorists trying to ingratiate themselves with credulous Neo-Cons. This was as true in the fall of 2002 as it is now. Hussein was never a threat to the U.S. either in reality or in his own imagination.
That’s what I had thought too until comments from David Kay within the last day or so. Apparently, Saddam was losing his grip in more ways than one before the war began. I wish I could provide you with more concrete information. I think his comments were made in an interview with Tom Brokaw on NBC News.
Beagle, do you consider Osama bin Laden a reliable source of information? Do you consider U.S. intelligence sources to be reliable?
If, by any chance, the U.S. was wrong about a pre-emptive war on Iraq, what would being wrong look like? How could we tell? How would we know?
Beagle, excellent example of ducking the issue. Your argument remains ungrounded in reality.
Beagle, I think you need to be a little bit more reasonable here. You’re buying into some spin which is probably not worthy of your consideration. I know this because in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 I, too, thought that Hussein had to have a hand in Osama’s.
But there is a much simpler explanation.
First of all, “Iraq,” Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, hasn’t effectively included the areas of Kurdish insurgency since 1991. If Hussein didn’t control that area, then if al Qaeda operatives contacted al Ansar folks in Kurdish-dominated territory it’s not sensible to assign complicity to Hussein.
The borders of the country were probably porous virtually everywhere else, too. Anyone could walk in or out of the place, particularly, I would think, along the Saudi Arabian border.
With little border control in Iraq, even if you did prove that an al Qaeda guy was somewhere within the territory you’d have a hell of a time proving he was invited.
Now think for a minute about how the Taliban got into power. First, the original Afghani government got knocked over by the Soviets. Next, Muslim fighters, including the Arabs which eventually became al Qaeda, moved in and helped fight a guerilla war. Finally, after the Soviets pulled out, the fundamentalists basically started a civil war and toppled the shaky puppet government left behind. (But they had to be patient about it–Mohammad Najibullah managed to hold off the fundamentalists for over two years, and chaos reigned for another four years after that before the Taliban finally gained control of a significant part of the country.)
Remember how a year before the invasion of Iraq, when the President had “no plans on his desk” to invade, how clear the writing was on the wall about what was gonna happen? We all knew it here, or at least we had a good idea.
Al Qaeda is in the business of killing Americans, and installing fundamentalist Islamic governments. And then they see us getting ready to do them the favor of knocking over Iraq. Two birds with one stone. I’ll bet money there were al Qaeda people in Iraq in 2002.
But I’ll also bet they weren’t cozying up to Saddam Hussein. My bet instead is that they were setting up the contacts they needed to run a guerrilla war hot enough to make sure the Americans would leave, and then start a civil war destined to put their new Taliban in place.
If they weren’t clever enough to start early, they’ve had nine months since then to get to work on it.
There is little reason to suspect that al Qaeda and Hussein were cooperating on any meaningful level before the war. There is every reason to suspect that the overthrow of the new Iraqi government is now al Qaeda’s primary objective.
The most important thing is this: the presence of al Qaeda people in Iraq now does nothing to prove that they were playing tiddlywinks together then.