Gravitymaster 0 #1 May 26, 2005 IRAQ: FORMER PM REVEALS SECRET SERVICE DATA ON BIRTH OF AL-QAEDA IN IRAQ Baghdad, 23 May (AKI) - The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably entered Iraq in the same period. "Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri – then deputy head of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim countries," Allawi said. According to Allawi, important information has been gathered regarding the presence of another key terrorist figure operating in Iraq - the Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi entered Iraq secretly in the same period," Allawi affirmed, "and began to form a terrorist cell, even though the Iraqi services do not have precise information on his entry into the country," he said. Allawi's remarks come after statements to al-Hayat by King Abdallah II of Jordan over Saddam's refusal to hand over al-Zarqawi to the authorities in Amman. On this question Allawi said: ''The words of the Jordanian King are correct and important. We have proof of al-Zawahiri's visit to Iraq, but we do not have the precise date or information on al-Zarqawi's entry, though it is likely that he arrived around the same time." In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he said. The former prime minister claims that Saddam's regime sought to involve even Palestinian Abu Nidal - head of a group once considered the world's most dangerous terrorist organisation - in its terrorist circuit. Abu Nidal's organisation was responsible for terrorist attacks in some 20 countries, killing more than 300 people and wounding hundreds more. He added that Abu Nidal's refusal to cooperate with Islamist groups was the reason for his death in Iraq, in the summer of 2002. http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0.169852178&par=0 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jkm2500 0 #2 May 26, 2005 That can't be....there aren't any terrorists in Iraq. We had no reason to think that Saddam was harboring terrorists! It is all a big lie!! The primary purpose of the Armed Forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 May 26, 2005 QuoteThat can't be....there aren't any terrorists in Iraq. We had no reason to think that Saddam was harboring terrorists! It is all a big lie!! Yep, CNN and MSNBC said so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #4 May 26, 2005 Yaaaawwwnnnnnnnnnnnn!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... Grfxzpmythf... OK. Stop the press..!... What were you saying? Did I hear right? You cracked the fact that there is a terrorism problem in Iraq? Good for youWake me up when you have news....... "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #5 May 26, 2005 QuoteOK. Stop the press..!... What were you saying? Did I hear right? You cracked the fact that there is a terrorism problem in Iraq? Not HAS, HAD...Like BEFORE the invasion they were supporting and working with terrorists. So much for them not huh?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #6 May 26, 2005 QuoteYaaaawwwnnnnnnnnnnnn!!! Hmmmmmmmmmmm.... Grfxzpmythf... OK. Stop the press..!... What were you saying? Did I hear right? You cracked the fact that there is a terrorism problem in Iraq? Good for youWake me up when you have news....... Or you could wake up and actually read the story before commenting. Duh.... I think you've been spending too much time in the Bonfire. All that talk about whose farts are the best is rotting your mind. . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mikki_ZH 0 #7 May 26, 2005 Yes, I'm sure there are terrorists in Iraq, but as you all know so are in: - France - Germany - USA - Spain - England - Indonesia - and so on, bla, bla, blaMichi (#1068) hsbc/gba/sba www.swissbaseassociation.ch www.michibase.ch Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #8 May 26, 2005 Calling all Saddam apologists...... Calling all Saddam apologists...... Where are you?Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #9 May 26, 2005 QuoteYes, I'm sure there are terrorists in Iraq, but as you all know so are in: - France - Germany - USA - Spain - England - Indonesia - and so on, bla, bla, bla You missed the point. If this story is true, it confirms that SH was supporting terrorism before the US invasion. This was one of the main reasons given for the invasion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #10 May 26, 2005 QuoteCalling all Saddam apologists...... Calling all Saddam apologists...... This will be one of those "quiet" threads for the usually noisy liberals on the forum. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #11 May 26, 2005 I'll bite, even though I'm not a liberal. This really is scraping the bottom of the barrel in the search for an acceptable justification for invading Iraq. Even if this were true it doesn't go anywhere near proving that SH had anything to do with 9/11, which was the bullshit Bush and Rice were peddling. If it is acceptable to invade a nation based on it allowing 'terrorists' onto its soil, what should be done to nations that go even further and supply cash and arms to them? However you want to spin it, the following are facts: 1. Bush & co mislead in an attempt to get support for the Iraq war, claiming we were in danger from WMD. 2. They didn't get the support from the UN. 3. They invaded anyway, like they were always going to do. 4. US inspectors confirmed there were no WMD after all. 5. The post invasion period has been an utter fuckup from the start. If you guys want to console yourselves with scraps of half-information from questionable sources like this then knock yourselves out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #12 May 26, 2005 you guys crack me up.....all this time has passed and now one guy is claiming this all happened. You guys must be pretty hard up for justification if you are taking this guys allegations for gospel. Does this mean that the US will now invade all countries that have allowed terrorsists on their soil? When is Saudie Arabia on the list, or Indonesia? Since the US did some big business with Iraq before, does that mean you will be invading yourself? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #13 May 26, 2005 QuoteHowever you want to spin it, the following are facts: Sorta Quote1. Bush & co mislead in an attempt to get support for the Iraq war, claiming we were in danger from WMD. Do you have ANY *evidence* that they mislead? Do you have PROOF they knew there were no WMD? If they were wrong so was Clinton, Kerry and Berger...Oh and almost all of Congress and the UN. Quote"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003. In case you forgot the UN thought Saddam had WMD as well. UN resolution 1441: QuoteDeploring further that Iraq repeatedly obstructed immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to sites designated by the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), failed to cooperate fully and unconditionally with UNSCOM and IAEA weapons inspectors, as required by resolution 687 (1991), and ultimately ceased all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA in 1998, So you could say Bush screwed up saying Saddam Still had WMD (There is no doubt he had them...He did gas the Kurds). But then Kerry, Clinton, Berger, the UN and Congress all were also wrong. Quote2. They didn't get the support from the UN. Thats more of an issue of the UN being a waste than anything else....If the UN had done its job in the first place there would have been no problem...But to support the invasion after you failed to even TRY to do your job was to admit you are worthess. The UN fails to act, thats not Americas fault....But some want to blame the US for not acting in Darfur...Can't win or lose in the minds of some. Quote3. They invaded anyway, like they were always going to do. Well we DID invade...You can't claim we would have anyway. If Saddam HAD complied, or the UN made him there would have been no need. Again show me proof. Quote4. US inspectors confirmed there were no WMD after all True, but see they were supposed to do it BEFORE we had to invade...The inspectors failed. Also, remember the Hundredes of Tons of explosives that were taken after the invasion....? What makes you think that HUNDREDS ofTONS of explosives could be stolen, but not a few tons of barrels of WMD? Quote 5. The post invasion period has been an utter fuckup from the start You thought it was gonna be easy? It would be easy if terrorists didn't move to Iraq to be a pain in the ass. You got two out of five right. Please bring some PROOF to the table to back your claims."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydyvr 0 #14 May 26, 2005 QuoteEven if this were true it doesn't go anywhere near proving that SH had anything to do with 9/11, which was the bullshit Bush and Rice were peddling. The long, long list of what both liberal and conservative politicians were saying about how we should deal with Saddam (mostly in agreement with Bush) has been published here and elsewhere many times. I'm not going to post it again, but take a look sometime. Bush wasn't alone in believing that Saddam needed to be removed. QuoteHowever you want to spin it, the following are facts: 1. Bush & co mislead in an attempt to get support for the Iraq war, claiming we were in danger from WMD. 2. They didn't get the support from the UN. 3. They invaded anyway, like they were always going to do. 4. US inspectors confirmed there were no WMD after all. 5. The post invasion period has been an utter fuckup from the start. If you guys want to console yourselves with scraps of half-information from questionable sources like this then knock yourselves out. If you want to see great examples of "half information", see opinions 1-5 above. "Facts" they are not. . . =(_8^(1) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 May 26, 2005 Wasn't there something about Saddam providing training camps and money to AQ? I remember reading something about it a while back, but can't find the link now...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #16 May 26, 2005 Ah yes - Allawi. The guy who claimed that the Iraqi WMD arsenal could be deployed in 45 minutes. How'd that claim turn out? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 May 26, 2005 QuoteAh yes - Allawi. The guy who claimed that the Iraqi WMD arsenal could be deployed in 45 minutes. How'd that claim turn out? Good thinking. Bill. Lets just ignore everything he has to say from now on. Maybe we should also apply your standard to everyone on this site including you. Sound fair? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,145 #18 May 26, 2005 It is so funny to see the same crowd be upset about Newsweek and then wave this guy around going: see, see, see. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Frenchy68 0 #19 May 26, 2005 QuoteYou missed the point. If this story is true, it confirms that SH was supporting terrorism before the US invasion. This was one of the main reasons given for the invasion. The point is, I doubt this comes as a shock to too many people. Saddam more than likely was indeed, in one form or the other, supporting terrorism. So is Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, etc... Sad indeed, but not news. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,434 #20 May 26, 2005 >Lets just ignore everything he has to say from now on. You trust people who lie 100%? I prefer a recent president's approach to known liars - "trust, but verify." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #21 May 26, 2005 QuoteThe point is, I doubt this comes as a shock to too many people. Saddam more than likely was indeed, in one form or the other, supporting terrorism. So is Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Sudan, etc... Sad indeed, but not news. then you will agree it was a good idea to go in a clear them out of Iraq and not stand by and do nothing but talk like the UN, or make millions in the oil for food sham like the french and germans..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #22 May 26, 2005 QuoteThis will be one of those "quiet" threads for the usually noisy liberals on the forum. No such luck I knew once they had their morning coffee,they would start their rather predictable US bashingMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Frenchy68 0 #23 May 26, 2005 Is the world a better place without Saddam in charge? More than likely. However, I have strong concerns as to whether the world will be a better place once the dust settles in Iraq. The Shah of Iran was certainly not a model of a democratic leader and defender of freedom. However, his replacement was certainly a much worse evil. As for the "clear them out of Iraq" bit, I wonder if you have read the news in the passed, say... 2 years? Quotemake millions in the oil for food sham like the french and germans..... I didn't get my share yet, but it must be in the mail. I'll buy you a bouquet of flowers when I get it. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites bodypilot90 0 #24 May 26, 2005 QuoteAs for the "clear them out of Iraq" bit, I wonder if you have read the news in the passed, say... 2 years? well better to fight them in the sreets of baghdad than the streets of NYC. QuoteI didn't get my share yet, but it must be in the mail. I'll buy you a bouquet of flowers when I get it. keep the flowers (I'm not a metrosexual) and let's go do a few skydives together, or just send it to the GOP You're alright in my book LOL Heard any good french jokes lately Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites crozby 0 #25 May 27, 2005 QuoteDo you have ANY *evidence* that they mislead? Do you have PROOF they knew there were no WMD? There is plenty of evidence for all the points I made, but you choose to ignore it. Anyway, why do you hold me to a higher standard than your own President? You don't complain that he invaded a country without proof, yet you shout about it when I post some text on a forum on the internet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 Next Page 1 of 3 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Frenchy68 0 #23 May 26, 2005 Is the world a better place without Saddam in charge? More than likely. However, I have strong concerns as to whether the world will be a better place once the dust settles in Iraq. The Shah of Iran was certainly not a model of a democratic leader and defender of freedom. However, his replacement was certainly a much worse evil. As for the "clear them out of Iraq" bit, I wonder if you have read the news in the passed, say... 2 years? Quotemake millions in the oil for food sham like the french and germans..... I didn't get my share yet, but it must be in the mail. I'll buy you a bouquet of flowers when I get it. "For once you have tasted Absinthe you will walk the earth with your eyes turned towards the gutter, for there you have been and there you will long to return." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bodypilot90 0 #24 May 26, 2005 QuoteAs for the "clear them out of Iraq" bit, I wonder if you have read the news in the passed, say... 2 years? well better to fight them in the sreets of baghdad than the streets of NYC. QuoteI didn't get my share yet, but it must be in the mail. I'll buy you a bouquet of flowers when I get it. keep the flowers (I'm not a metrosexual) and let's go do a few skydives together, or just send it to the GOP You're alright in my book LOL Heard any good french jokes lately Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
crozby 0 #25 May 27, 2005 QuoteDo you have ANY *evidence* that they mislead? Do you have PROOF they knew there were no WMD? There is plenty of evidence for all the points I made, but you choose to ignore it. Anyway, why do you hold me to a higher standard than your own President? You don't complain that he invaded a country without proof, yet you shout about it when I post some text on a forum on the internet. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
