9
   

THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

 
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 08:50 am
@ican711nm,
Actually it was two and it was two of the main ones. However, it does prove he was not turning a blind eye to the problem much less supporting or harboring them. Something of which even Pentagon finally admitted to.

Quote:
AP) Saddam Hussein's government did not cooperate with al Qaeda prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Defense Department said in a report based on interrogations of the deposed leader and two of his former aides.


source

In his book At the Center of the Storm, George Tenet writes:

Quote:
"...by the spring and summer of 2002, more than a dozen al-Qa'ida-affiliated extremists converged on Baghdad, with apparently no harassment on the part of the Iraqi government. They found a comfortable and secure envirnonment in which they moved people and supplies to support Zarqawi's operations in northern Iraq."[63]

According to Tenet, while Zarqawi did find a safe haven in Iraq and did supervise camps in northeastern Iraq run by Ansar al-Islam, "the intelligence did not show any Iraqi authority, direction, or control over any of the many specific terrorist acts carried out by al-Qa'ida."
(ref-92)

source

Quote:
The Army's Foreign Military Studies Office website translated a letter dated August 17, 2002 from an Iraqi intelligence official. The letter is part of the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents. The letter asks agents in the country to be on the lookout for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and another unnamed man. Pictures of both men were attached.

The letter issued the following 3 directives:

Instructing your sources to continue their surveillance of the above mentioned individuals in your area of operations and inform us once you initiate such action.

Coordinate with Directorate 18 to verify the photographs of the above mentioned with photos of the members of the Jordanian community within your area of operations.

Conduct a comprehensive survey of all tourist facilities (hotels, furnished apartments, and leased homes).

Give this matter your utmost attention. Keep us informed.


(from the same source as above)
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:24 am
@revel,
I agree our government concluded:

(1) There was no cooperative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and al-Qaeda;

(2) Saddam Hussein's government did not attempt to remove al-Qaeda from Iraq when our government requested it to;

(3) Saddam Hussein's government did attempt to capture Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10:31 am
@ican711nm,
You are wrong on count number two as Saddam did attempt to capture two of the members of AQ who the leaders of the AQ camp in Iraq, beyond that the camp was out of his control as reports from the CIA and Pentagon has reported. Ergo, no reason to invade.

I am off this merry go around for a while.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Aug, 2009 11:44 am
@revel,
An attempt to remove two al-Qaeda (one unnamed) out of 300 to more than 1000 does not equate to an attempt to remove al-Qaeda from Iraq.
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 07:05 am
@ican711nm,
It proves that Saddam did not turn a blind eye nor was he collaborating with AQ in Iraq, as subsequent reports have already said. AQ in Iraq was simply out of his control as reports also said.

We could have taken out that camp any time we wanted before the invasion (if we though important enough) after the invasion and the removal of central government in Iraq, the situation imploded and we had much more of AQ problem in Iraq but not more than just Sunni insurgents fighting our presence and Shiites and the rest of the factions fighting among themselves.

At least now we are fighting the enemy

Quote:
Security forces captured the Pakistani Taliban's top spokesman, and he acknowledged the death of the group's leader in a recent U.S. missile strike, officials said Tuesday " further signs the militants are in disarray since the American attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090818/ap_on_re_as/as_pakistan


ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:20 am
@revel,
revel wrote:
AQ in Iraq was simply out of [Saddam's] control as reports also said.

I agree! So the USA invaded Iraq to bring AQ in Iraq under our control.

revel wrote:
We could have taken out that camp any time we wanted before the invasion.

No! We had to invade at least northeastern Iraq to take out those AQ camps there.
Yes! Perhaps we didn't have to take out Saddam's government to take out those camps.

Wikipedia wrote:

Ansar-al-Islam
Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001.
Ansar al-Islam comprised about 300 armed men, many of these veterans from the Afghan war, and a proportion being neither Kurd nor Arab. Ansar al-Islam is alleged to be connected to al-Qaeda, and provided an entry point for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other Afghan veterans to enter Iraq.[/size]

...

At the beginning of the 2003 invasion of Iraq it controlled about a dozen villages and a range of peaks in northern Iraq on the Iranian border ...

0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 12:46 pm
@revel,
The aq problem grew after our invasion into the central part of Iraq that didn't used to exist before our invasion. The aq problem also grew around the world, and many countries outside the Middle East experienced bombings. Our invasion was an excellent recruiting tool for aq, and bin Ladin thanked allah for the US helping him.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 04:01 pm
@cicerone imposter,
After our invasion, the al-Qaeda problem grew into the central part of Iraq and then subsequently ceased growing only to eventually shrink. The growth of al-Qaeda outside the middle east was caused by the more than 10,000 al-Qaeda trained in Afghanistan, before we invaded it too late, migrating to countries outside of the middle east.

Both Clinton and Bush had solid evidence before 9/11/2001 that al-Qaeda would invade the USA. Al-Qaeda had declared such. Al-Qaed prior to 9/11/2009 had several times attacked and murdered Americans outside the USA. Yes, I have access to the evidence that supports that. So does everyone else.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Mon 24 Aug, 2009 06:40 am
Wasn't the bombing being blamed on AQ in the news last week?

Quote:
Iraq shows bomber's confession
Reuters
Published: August 23, 2009, 23:04


Baghdad: An Iraqi official yesterday showed a video of what he said was a supporter of late dictator Saddam Hussain's Baath party confessing to organising one of the truck bomb blasts last week in which 95 people died.

The man, who appeared oddly calm for someone accused of taking part in the bloodiest attack of the year in Iraq, said he had orchestrated the bombing together with a leader of a branch of the now outlawed Baath party who was living in Syria.

"A month ago Sattam Farhan ... called from Syria and asked me to conduct a bombing operation to shake the administration," said the bald and moustachioed man, described as a former police chief named Wissam Ali Kadhim Ebrahim.

"He said that if you can't do it, we have other factions that can."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Many Saddam loyalists fled to Syria after the fall of Saddam in 2003, and Iraqi officials frequently blame neighbouring countries for fomenting violence in Iraq.

Baghdad security spokesman Qassim Al Moussawi, who showed the video to the media, had previously announced the arrest of a group of Baathists he alleged were responsible for Wednesday's bombings, which devastated the foreign and finance ministries.

His office said yesterday shortly after the taped confession was aired that every police officer manning checkpoints on the day of the blasts between Baghdad and Diyala province, where the prisoner said the attack was put together, had been arrested.

The bombings, in which more than 1,000 people were wounded, many by glass from the ministries' shattered windows, dealt a blow to Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki's claim ahead of an election in January to have presided over a fall in violence.

They also shook public confidence in the Iraqi security forces, six weeks after US troops pulled out of urban centres and handed primary responsibility for defending the population against insurgent attacks to domestic troops and police.

It was difficult to ascertain the veracity of the confession and of the detentions connected with the bombings.

The government has often trumpeted the arrests of major terrorism suspects only to be proven wrong. The announcement that the culprits behind Wednesday's explosions had been arrested on the same day as the bombings was only made after two days of intense criticism of Iraqi security forces.

Al Moussawi said other confessions from the network allegedly behind the blasts would be shown to Iraqis in coming days after the conclusion of investigations by judges.

In the video, the man did not mention trucks or the foreign ministry. He hinted at collusion by someone in the security forces.

"I called someone in Muqdadiya (in Diyala province) to ease the passage of the car through checkpoints to Baghdad. He asked for $10,000," the man said.

"A person called Sattar called me from Baghdad and told me that a car had been prepared in Khalis (in Diyala). I sent this person (from Muqdadiya) to Khalis who brought the car to Baghdad ... and it exploded outside the finance ministry."



source
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 03:13 pm
@revel,
We better do what is required to exterminate al-Qaeda. If we don't we will be subject to additional al-Qaeda invasions.

Al-Qaeda, if not exterminated, will come to the USA just like any other travelers to the USA. After that they will purchase whatever ordnance they want and murder thousands again.

Our policy should be modified now to invade any country that allows al-Qaeda to base itself in it without trying to exterminate it. But we should not stay and occupy such countries any longer than necessary to exterminate al-Qaeda there. Then subsequently, we should re-invade those countries that again allow al-Qaeda to base itself in it without trying to exterminate it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 04:29 pm
@ican711nm,
ican, You never did answer my question; how will al Qaida invade our country?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Sep, 2009 05:43 pm
@cicerone imposter,
By getting their hands on Pakistan's nukes and turning you all into nervous wrecks everytime a ship comes in.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 11:18 am
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
ican, You never did answer my question; how will al Qaida invade our country?

I answered this question of yours more than once. Here's my answer again.

Al-Qaeda, if not exterminated, will come to the USA just like any other travelers to the USA. After that they will purchase whatever ordnance they want and murder whatever thousands they want.

0 Replies
 
McTag
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:18 pm

I see that a NATO-led strike on a hijacked fuel tanker killed 90 civilians in Afghanistan.
This was because the American aircraft dropped a 500 lb bomb.

Which made me think: we state that we are against terrorism, because terrorists want to use explosives or other means to kill us.
Then we go to their countries, and use high explosives on them. (Which affects, usually terminally, other people who might be nearby.)

This is logical how? Moral? Sensible? Who are the terrorists here?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:47 pm
@McTag,
There is no logic there, mate. It's obviously ridiculous to believe all our actions during war is honorable.

I think more Americans are beginning to think our war in Afghanistan is not justified. Better late than never, but I'm afraid the Obama administration will not leave until the generals tell him to - which is never.
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 03:58 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Afghanistan will be Obama's Vietnam.
Vietnamnurse
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:18 pm
@mysteryman,
I think you are right, mm.
0 Replies
 
hamburgboy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Sep, 2009 07:29 pm
@mysteryman,
... and a future u.s. president will be visiting afghanistan in later years to praise the friendship between the two nations !
as president bush did when visiting hanoi in 2006 - PEACE FINALLY !

  http://www.vietnamembassy-usa.org/images/user/news/Triet_Bush.bmp
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 04:08 pm
@McTag,
McTag, the declared objective and achievement of terroists is to murder Afghan civilians whereever they are in Afghanistan.

The declared objective and achievement of the military is to murder terrorists whereever they are in Afghanistan.

Achieving that objective of murdering terrorists too often costs the lives of too many civilians.

Failure to achieve that objective of murdering terrorists too often costs the lives of many more civilians.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 7 Sep, 2009 05:02 pm
@hamburgboy,
FWIW,
I read somewhere a few years ago that Vietnam was offering to give the Cam Ranh Bay navy base back to the US.
I dont know what happened with that.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/24/2024 at 06:34:00