I'm not saying that Saddam helped plan Sept 11, because I do not think that is the case, but whether their ties were made before or after Sept 11, there are still ties...and that means that Saddam is/was (if he's dead) a bigger threat than liberals like A_Black_Falcon will ever admit, because of personal vendettas.
This is a link to the entire transcript of Colin Powell's address to the UN security council.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.ir...ranscript/
This is a link to the section specifically about Saddam's ties to Al-Queda. I suggest that anyone who doubts there are any connections between Saddam and Al-Queda read the entire page. I'll just pull highlights out.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/05/sprj.ir...index.html
Quote:Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.
Quote:Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000 this agent offered al Qaeda safe haven in the region. After we swept al Qaeda from Afghanistan, some of its members accepted this safe haven. They remain their today.
Quote:Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.
During this stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.
OPERATING FREELIN IN THE CAPITAL FOR MORE THAN EIGHT MONTHS. Nobody can do anything in Baghdad without Saddam's permission. He runs a totalitarian society.
Quote:Going back to the early and mid-1990s, when bin Laden was based in Sudan, an al Qaeda source tells us that Saddam and bin Laden reached an understanding that al Qaeda would no longer support activities against Baghdad. Early al Qaeda ties were forged by secret, high-level intelligence service contacts with al Qaeda, secret Iraqi intelligence high-level contacts with al Qaeda.
We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s.
But, as you said, no proof that they had anything to do with 9/11... and that was what was supposed to be the centerpiece of the conviction -- that Sadaam helped in 9/11. We now know pretty well that he didn't... and that kind of invalidated a major point of Bush's...
Did they harbor some terrorists? I wouldn't be surprised. So does Lybia, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and most of the rest of the Gulf... he's hardly alone... Saudi Arabian princes helped fund Al Quaida. Does that mean we should go and attack them? No... it does mean we should look at them more carefully, and do something within the law to try to deal with the problem. Because going to war doesn't get rid of terrorism. Sure, you might take out some leaders... but the end result with wars like this? The Arab people will be more willing to be terrorists than ever... and more governments will like us less... so I'd say that while in the very short term it does reduce terrorism, in the medium term and long term it does the exact opposite.
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030404.html
Quote:Evidence found at the Ansar Al-Islam camp ties Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein.
On March 31, coalition forces raided the camp of Ansar Al-Islam, an extremist Islamic group based in Iraqi Kurdistan that is allegedly affiliated with Al Qaeda. After the raid, coalition leaders claimed to have found evidence demonstrating a link between the two groups. However, the Associated Press story ( http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...ilitants_3 ) about the raid specifically states that "there was no indication any of the evidence tied Ansar to Saddam Hussein as Washington has maintained."
Nonetheless, Rush Limbaugh simply asserted that the evidence found demonstrates an Al Qaeda-Iraq link, arguing that the very existence of the group in the Kurdish part of northern Iraq proves that Saddam is linked to Al Qaeda. The fact is, however, that Kurdish northern provinces of Iraq have been outside of Saddam's control since 1991 and that his possible knowledge of activities there is not in itself proof of anything. Rather than even making an argument to this effect, the Union Leader in New Hampshire brazenly headlined the AP story "HAVEN FOR TERROR: U.S.-led raid reveals Saddam's al-Qaida ties," ignoring the contradictory conclusion in the text below.
Suddam is rumoured to be dead , as all military activity in Baghdad has stoped, the people are looting and cheering the "tyrant is dead".So it will be over very shortly if all goes well.
Unlike Syria and saudie Arabia they have never admited openly to be supporting Islamic terrorism like Suddam Hussein.
infact the Saudie Monarchy is a target of Al'qeada as well as the Egyptian goverment.
Unlike the rest of the middle east Suddam praised thee attack on 9/11, Unlike the rest he has used chemical weapons in the past and is a violent man to begin with .
Misoivc did mass genocide and is now in Jail so did Suddam and he is still free whats the justice in that.
[B] Unlike Syria and saudie Arabia they have never admited openly to be supporting Islamic terrorism like Suddam Hussein. [B/]
Wrong-o. Syria has openly expressed it's support for the Iraqi regime against America...it just hasn't done anything. That was on Fox News.
Yeah, Syria said something along the lines of "we support the Iraqis against the American invaders"... they haven't done anything though, as you said, so we can't exactly invade them too...
Well, we could, but it'd be even harder to "justify" and make the rest of the world swallow than this war is...
Heck, the United States has closer ties to Saddam Hussein than Al-Qaeda does.
We backed him during the Iran-Iraq war with weapons, money, and such. The CDC was even nice enough to send anthrax to Iraq.
And while we're at it, the United States supported Osama Bin Laden and other Arab resistance movements when they opposed the USSR. So the United States also has "close" ties with Al-Qaeda.
Let's not forget that the United States is not innocent of supporting tyrants or making friends with shady characters (Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden being only two in a group that spans across the globe) in the face of what we see as bigger threats. From Saddam's twisted point of view, the United States is/was his #1 threat. If the United States is allowed to make friends with shady characters in the face of a perceived greater threat, why is it all of a sudden a terrible thing when someone else does it, other than the fact that we're biased against our enemy?
You might not see a difference, but there is one. A very important one at that.
When we help Saddam it wasn't illegal to do so. Was it morally wrong? Probably, but it wasn't against international laws. What Russia, France, Germany, ect were doing was illegal, because it went against U.N. sanctions against Iraq.
Are you sure? I don't know if they withdrew from the sanctions...
Anyway, it being morally reprehensible should be enough, in any of these cases... not that, as has been mentioned many times, that has ever stopped anyone...
Quote:Are you sure? I don't know if they withdrew from the sanctions...
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say...
Quote:Anyway, it being morally reprehensible should be enough, in any of these cases... not that, as has been mentioned many times, that has ever stopped anyone...
Right. I never said it was right morally to do what we did, but it wasn't going against any international laws.
Rumbler- I'm not sure if the sanctions were "international law." If you could find where that is, I'd agree, but my miniscule knowledge of sanctions tells me that France, Germany, and Russia we'ren't breaking any international laws.
Syria haisnt done any worse then Pakistan, Thousands of Pakistanies fought for the taliban and Al'qeada yet were not going for them.
Isreal has the most WMD in the middle east that we know of and they are not restricted in anyway about having nukes and chemical weapons as the U.S gave it to them and supplied them with fresh platunium.
Isreal has done many crimes agaist humanity ,Their Soldiers have fired on foreign activist from sweden un provoked.They have done terrible criminal acts such as rape and castration of Palestinian civilians.
I admit that hamas terrorist have killed hundreds of jews .
But it reality Isreal existence was wrong taken away palestinians homes and forcing them agiast their will to relocate.The jews lost their right to their lands when the Romans invaded it they also lost the family cronology books to prove claim to the land.
What happen in Isreal was as bad as what the european settlers did to the native Aboriginals in this continent.
No, it wasn't. Israel didn't take over the whole Middle East like we took over all of the US. They took one small country.
And you know what? If the Arab nations had WANTED to make this problem (the Palestinians) go away it would have been VERY easy. What do you do? Disband the "refugee" camps. Help the Palestinians integrate into their societies. There is plenty of space for them... but they don't want that. The Arab nations want the Palestinians to be seperate and and perpetually angry at Israel... and of course it's worked perfectly.
Israel is harsh sometimes, and does almost certainly have some nuclear weapons, but it seems ok to me because if they weren't as tough they would have been overrun (or would be flooded with suicide bombers and hijackers) many years ago...
I do wish they would intergrate , But I just feel it was a mistake to create that nation in the first place in 1949.
Quote:Originally posted by Nintendarse
Rumbler- I'm not sure if the sanctions were "international law." If you could find where that is, I'd agree, but my miniscule knowledge of sanctions tells me that France, Germany, and Russia we'ren't breaking any international laws.
I'm pretty sure that the kinds of things they were selling to Iraq were against the U.N. sanctions. But, I don't know a whole lot about what exactly the sanctions say. I might look that up sometime.