Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein?

by Original Quill Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:18 pm

Ironically, Republicans are now beginning to say, yes! Of course, the Republicans were the ones who spearheaded the second Iraq War, in 2003, so it's difficult for them to admit.

by Eilzel Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:15 pm

I was always against the Iraq war, though never due to any positive effect I thought Saddam had. Turns out the region was better off with him too, a sad shame that it seemd the only way to keep religious lunacy on a leesh is to have a blood thirsty dictator in charge.

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:21 pm

Depends how you look at this.
Were the hundreds of thousands Iraqis both directly and indirectly butchered through genocide, persecutions and war better off? How about the the hundreds of thouands of Iranians killed through the Iraq and Iranian war?
The reality is would he have ended up staying in power anyway, what with later the Arab springs?
So was Syria instability down to Iraq?
No, what happened there was what happened soon after Iraq fell to the allies. Weapons, money and fighters were brought into the region to create mass conflict and destruction, after the Arab spring in Syria, just as happened in Iraq, by the Iranians and Saudis behind a a take of supremacy of Islam in the region..
With the arab spring there is absolutely a huge proability you would be seeing the same problems as seen in Iraq. No doubt with Saddam in power and the west even possible propping him up in power with a continued civil war.
So I am not sure how it can be claimed the region was better off under a dictatorship and mass genocide as well.

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 3:30 pm

I would also add it will differ greatly on each religious and ethnic group.
For example the Kurds suffered genoicde under Saddam and they rose up with shias in 1991, to only see this crushed by Saddam, with a top extimate of 200.000 killed. So one could say very easily with now shia Muslims basically now running the country and semi independence for Iraq kurds, say both as being far better off. Christians, well after the first Iraq war, the persecution under Saddam was increased dramatically, though this again pails into comparrison to how they were treated after the second Iraq war. So you would say they were worse off as you could of the Sunni Iraqi's. As you can see it will be dependent on how each have faired after each situation.

by Original Quill Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:00 pm

I was prompted by this article which extrapolated from an interview of Ted Cruz on Morning Joe (the Joe Scarborough show), on MSNBC:

Yahoo Politics wrote:Ted Cruz says Middle East was safer with Saddam Hussein: ‘That’s not even a close call’

Ted Cruz during a news conference Tuesday on Capitol Hill. (Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)

Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said that the Middle East was more stable before the United States helped topple dictators Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Moammar Gadhafi in Libya.

The Texas senator went into detail about his foreign policy strategy in an interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He said the United States should be concerned primarily with defending its vital national security interests — not overthrowing brutal regimes in the Middle East.

From Cruz’s perspective, it is the lesser of two evils to have stable, though cruel, tyrants in charge of Muslim-majority nations than vacuums for ISIS and other jihadis to exploit.

“Now, what has been a mistake — and we’ve seen a consistent mistake in foreign policy — is far too often, we’ve seen Democrats and a lot of establishment Republicans in Washington get involved in toppling Middle Eastern governments. And it ends up benefiting the bad guys. It ends up handing them over to radical Islamic terrorists,” Cruz said.

In response, show host Joe Scarborough asked if the Middle East had been more secure when Hussein and Gadhafi were in power and Syrian President Bashar Assad was not fighting for his life in Syria.

“Of course it was,” Cruz said. “That’s not even a close call.”

He said that Assad is a “bad man” and “a monster” but that if he were ousted, ISIS terrorists would take over even greater swaths of the region than they already control — a far worse alternative.

“My view, instead of getting in the middle of a civil war in Syria, where we don’t have a dog in the fight, our focus should be on killing ISIS. Why? Because ISIS has declared war on America. They’re waging jihad,” he said.

Instead of backing anti-Assad moderate rebels — whom he described as “mythical” and “a purple unicorn” — the U.S. should focus on doing everything possible not to degrade or weaken but to “utterly destroy ISIS.”

Cruz characterized his approach to foreign policy as “peace through strength,” an ancient phrase most associated today with his political hero President Ronald Reagan.

Back in the ’70s and ’80s, according to Cruz, the Great Communicator understood the shortcomings of his predecessors’ approach to foreign policy, notably Jimmy Carter’s strained relationship with the shah in Iran, which set the stage for the Islamic Revolution and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

The GOP candidate accused President Obama and Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton — and many of his fellow Republicans — of not learning this lesson from history, as evidenced by the United States’ role in toppling Gadhafi.

“We killed him, and he was actually cooperating and hunting down and stopping radical Islamic terrorists,” Cruz continued. “And what happened instead was Obama and Hillary led NATO in killing Gadhafi and, by the way, with the support of a whole lot of Republicans in Washington, who were wrong to do so. And the result is now Libya is a chaotic war zone ruled by radical Islamic terrorists.”

You can see him trying to duck the blame himself, even while laying the original blame on the Republicans. Of course, he quickly shifts to talk about Obama and Hillary Clinton. Look over there...don't look over here! Lol.

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:04 pm

Its an interesting topic Quill but how do any of us guage something we have never lived?
Only the people of Iraq can really answer this question.
Like I say some groups have benefitted whilst others have become even worse off.

by Victorismyhero Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:19 pm

Well, I dont know about the middle east.....but the west certainly was...

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:37 pm

Lord Foul wrote:Well, I dont know about the middle east.....but the west certainly was...

Again I beg to differ, as he was certainly hoarding Al-Qaeda operatives
If he had remianed in pwer and with his oil backed weath which many neglect to understand many US oil industries wnated the sanctions lifted. How more dealy could have there been attacks of the west with such open funding by saddam of not only weapons, money etc?

Now no diret link was found he actually organised anything but at this point before the second Iraq war he was getting desperate, so there is no telling what he could have done.
Again even if he had stayed in power, the arab spring would have come to Iraq and it is very probable that you would have seen to two civil wars in tandem, one in Iraq and one in Syria. The west would have tried to help based off trying to oust saddam, so there is little to say that actually anything would have ended up any different.
The extremists would have still as they have always done used blaming the west and casting the US as the great satan as its far easier to recruit and cast blame onto others.

Not only this you would have still had the assisted help to the Northern alliance to defeat the taliban

So even if he had stayed in power would today be any different?

Not by the hair of your chinny chin chin

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:50 pm

Bush Acknowledges Absence Of Al Qaeda In Pre-Occupation Iraq With A 'So What?'

Reality-based observers have long known that the Bush administration's attempts to connect al Qaeda with pre-invasion Iraq have been nothing more than a campaign of misinformation. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, and even afterward, the so-called "al Qaeda in Iraq" never amounted to anything more than a "microscopic terrorist organization" with "850 full time fighters." But regardless of the facts, one theme has been constant from this administration. The presence of al Qaeda, terrorists, "special groups," and foreign fighters (typically from Iran) is sold as justification for the invasion and occupation, when it is actually the result of the invasion and occupation.
That's what makes this part of the interview between President George W. Bush and ABC News' Martha Raddatz, highlighted by Ali Frick at Think Progress, so extraordinary.

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take-
RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.
BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.

Wow. "That's right. So what?" That's how he admits that the repeatedly mentioned links between the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda, and Iraq were just manipulations?
I believe President Bush just threw both his shoes at our intelligence. Duck!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/15/bush-acknowledges-absence_n_151144.html

They were not there before the invasion, and when the invasion allowed them an opening and they got a foothold, the Sons of Iraq were the ones who got rid of them initially.

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:54 pm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_link_allegations

Oh yes they were sassy no matter you arr an islamist supporter and support such regressive groups but they were operatives there.

Sorry your bullshit apologist copy and paste from other people is not debating.

May I suggest the recreation thread where people can just laugh at you

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 7:59 pm

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

Saddam 'had no link to al-Qaeda'

Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein? _41743162_bush_203afp

Democrats say the report weakens Mr Bush's case for war

There is no evidence of formal links between Iraqi ex-leader Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda leaders prior to the 2003 war, a US Senate report says.
The finding is contained in a 2005 CIA report released by the Senate's Intelligence Committee on Friday.

US President George W Bush has said that the presence of late al-Qaeda leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq before the war was evidence of a link.

Opposition Democrats are accusing the White House of deliberate deception.

They say the revelation undermines the basis on which the US went to war in Iraq.

The BBC's Justin Webb in Washington says that the US president has again and again tried to connect the war, which most Americans think was a mistake, with the so-called war on terror, which has the support of the nation.

The report comes as Mr Bush makes a series of speeches on the "war on terror" to coincide with the fifth anniversary of the 11 September attacks.

Requests rejected

The report is the second part of the committee's analysis of pre-war intelligence. The first dealt with CIA failings in its assessment of Iraq's weapons programme.

Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support, Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein? End_quote_rb

Senate report
Senate report 6.8MB
Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need to download Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download the reader here
Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein? Inline_dashed_line

War rationale laid bare
'Terror war' loses direction
Quick guide: Al-Qaeda

The committee concluded that the CIA had evidence of several instances of contacts between the Iraqi authorities and al-Qaeda throughout the 1990s but that these did not add up to a formal relationship.

It added that the government "did not have a relationship, harbour or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates".

It said that Iraq and al-Qaeda were ideologically poles apart.

"Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaeda and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaeda to provide material or operational support," it said.

The Senate report added that the Iraqi regime had repeatedly rejected al-Qaeda requests for meetings.

It also deals with the role played by inaccurate information supplied by Iraqi opposition groups in the run-up to the war.

'Devastating indictment'

Democrats said the White House was still trying to make the connection between the former Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda in an attempt to justify the war in Iraq.

Less than three weeks ago Mr Bush said in a speech that "Saddam Hussein...had relations with Zarqawi".

Democrat Senator Carl Levin described the report as a "devastating indictment" of these attempts.

White House spokesman Tony Snow told the Associated Press news agency the report contained "nothing new".

"In 2002 and 2003, members of both parties got a good look at the intelligence we had and they came to the very same conclusions about what was going on," he said.

HAVE YOUR SAY
Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein? Start_quote_rb

Terrorists are winning and Mankind as a whole is losing Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein? End_quote_rb

Sandor, New Jersey, US
Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein? Inline_dashed_line

Send us your views

Zarqawi, who is believed to be responsible for numerous killings and kidnappings in Iraq since the war, was killed in a US raid in June.

Saddam Hussein and several close associates are standing trial for the killings of Shias in the village of Dujail in the early 1980s and of more than 100,000 Kurds in 1988.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5328592.stm

It's you they are laughing at dodge.

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:01 pm

Yes we all know you can copy and paste, but he did allow operatives and very high up Al Qaeda to hide within his nation.
Did you read my post?
I said he would no doubt get desperate based on the fact the sanctions were hitting the nation hard?
Now again do you understand this?
If not run along because we all know you can read but your ability to understand anything is shockingly poor

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:03 pm

So a CIA report in wrong and you are right Dodge. You do have delusions of grandeur don't you.

by Guest Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:04 pm

Where did I say anything was wrong.
Again what did i say?
The report could not find a link, which does not mean there was not a link.
They knew that high up operatives were being allowed to hide there.

Do you deny this?

Take your time because you know naff all about history

by Original Quill Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:54 am

sassy wrote:Bush Acknowledges Absence Of Al Qaeda In Pre-Occupation Iraq With A 'So What?'

Reality-based observers have long known that the Bush administration's attempts to connect al Qaeda with pre-invasion Iraq have been nothing more than a campaign of misinformation. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion, and even afterward, the so-called "al Qaeda in Iraq" never amounted to anything more than a "microscopic terrorist organization" with "850 full time fighters." But regardless of the facts, one theme has been constant from this administration. The presence of al Qaeda, terrorists, "special groups," and foreign fighters (typically from Iran) is sold as justification for the invasion and occupation, when it is actually the result of the invasion and occupation.
That's what makes this part of the interview between President George W. Bush and ABC News' Martha Raddatz, highlighted by Ali Frick at Think Progress, so extraordinary.

BUSH: One of the major theaters against al Qaeda turns out to have been Iraq. This is where al Qaeda said they were going to take their stand. This is where al Qaeda was hoping to take-
RADDATZ: But not until after the U.S. invaded.
BUSH: Yeah, that's right. So what? The point is that al Qaeda said they're going to take a stand. Well, first of all in the post-9/11 environment Saddam Hussein posed a threat. And then upon removal, al Qaeda decides to take a stand.
Wow. "That's right. So what?" That's how he admits that the repeatedly mentioned links between the September 11 attacks, al Qaeda, and Iraq were just manipulations?
I believe President Bush just threw both his shoes at our intelligence. Duck!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/15/bush-acknowledges-absence_n_151144.html

They were not there before the invasion, and when the invasion allowed them an opening and they got a foothold, the Sons of Iraq were the ones who got rid of them initially.

George W. Bush was one of the most intellectually incurious presidents we have ever had. He dealt less in reason and more in urges (I call them bowel urges, because they are in the gut). Reading that brief exchange, I can see the counsel of Dick Cheney written all over it. All of Bush's confidence came from the Neo-Cons.

Bush did not apply simple tests of logic to the advice he was given, such as 'cause-effect' or 'before after' or 'if-then'. That al Qaeda came after Saddam was taken out, was a thought too far for him. It's like: Uhhh...both bad. Oppose both. He never challenged thoughts that came to him from others. Easily manipulated.

by Tommy Monk Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:01 pm

Al Qaeda were not in Iraq until well after 2003... they were then driven out by the local Iraqi tribal malitias.

by Guest Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:28 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Al Qaeda were not in Iraq until well after 2003... they were then driven out by the local Iraqi tribal malitias.

Wrong

http://www.weeklystandard.com/wikileaks-the-iraq-al-qaeda-connection-confirmed-again/article/558271

by Tommy Monk Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:34 pm

http://www.britannica.com/topic/al-Qaeda-in-Iraq

by Guest Sat Dec 12, 2015 10:42 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:http://www.britannica.com/topic/al-Qaeda-in-Iraq

How does that disprove my point operatives were allowed to hide within Iraq?
Can you actually follow the debate, or do you want me to dumb it down again for you to understand Tommy?

by Tommy Monk Sat Dec 12, 2015 11:32 pm

Read the link... it confirms what I said before...

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:45 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Read the link... it confirms what I said before...

You said they were not in Iraq, they were before 2003
So again you are still wrong

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:06 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Al Qaeda were not in Iraq until well after 2003... they were then driven out by the local Iraqi tribal malitias.

The link I posted confirms this...

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:09 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Al Qaeda were not in Iraq until well after 2003... they were then driven out by the local Iraqi tribal malitias.

The link I posted confirms this...

Which I have posted evidence to prove you are wrong.
Again Tommy you know very little about a great many things.
I am sure the view you claim the earth has tilted was actually just you lifting your own head off your chin for the first time in a decade

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:13 am

I trust the britarnica encyclopedia more than your dodgy waffle...

http://www.britannica.com/topic/al-Qaeda-in-Iraq

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:15 am

You link does not take into account operatives being allowed to hide in Iraq, for the tenth time. It is going on about operations it carried out in Iraq.
Which shows how far removed you are from understanding the point

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:21 am

Read the link... is very clear... and backs up exactly what I said...

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:22 am

Yes its very clear you fail to grasp the point and the debate so far that has been made on this.
Stop wasting my time Tommy with your repetitive inane drivel

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:23 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Al Qaeda were not in Iraq until well after 2003... they were then driven out by the local Iraqi tribal malitias.

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:25 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Al Qaeda were not in Iraq until well after 2003... they were then driven out by the local Iraqi tribal malitias.

Wrong

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:31 am

Yes... you already said that ages ago... I have shown what I said to be true.

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:33 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Yes... you already said that ages ago... I have shown what I said to be true.

And I have proved you are wrong, so best you move on.
Its you that has the issue and cannt accept facts or understand what has been said

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:35 am

Proof? ? ?

Where?

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:38 am

Tommy Monk wrote:Proof? ? ?

Where?

Was the Middle East Better off with Saddam Hussein? 3489511464

Some people need to go to specsavers I guess

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:42 am

From one of my links:

In March 2008, a Pentagon-sponsored study was released, entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, based on the review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 US invasion. The study "found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda."^[108] It did note that in the early 1990s "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden’s deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda’s stated goals and objectives."

The abstract states that, "while these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely... This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a 'de facto' link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust."Further:

[size=40]“[/size]

Saddam's security organizations and bin Laden's terrorist network operated with similar aims, at least for the short term. Considerable operational overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the regional groups involved in terrorism. Saddam provided training and motivation to revolutionary pan-Arab nationalists in the region. Osama bin Laden provided training and motivation for violent revolutionary Islamists in the region. They were recruiting within the same demographic, spouting much the same rhetoric, and promoting a common historical narrative that promised a return to a glorious past. That these movements (pan-Arab and pan-Islamic) had many similarities and strategic parallels does not mean they saw themselves in that light. Nevertheless, these similarities created more than just the appearance of cooperation. Common interests, even without common cause, increased the aggregate terror threat.

[size=40]”[/size]

The report also stated that "captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to co-opt or support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda." In July 2001, the Director for International Intelligence in the IIS had ordered an investigation into a terrorist group called The Army of Muhammad. The investigation revealed the group "threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests" and was working with Osama bin Laden. According to the report, "A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established. The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that 'this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization.'"
The report goes on to point out that while both Saddam and al-Qaeda had a common enemy in the United States, "the similarities ended there: bin Laden wanted - and still wants - to restore the Islamic caliphate while Saddam, despite his later Islamic rhetoric, dreamed more narrowly of being the secular ruler of a united Arab nation. These competing visions made any significant long-term compromise between them highly unlikely. After all, to the fundamentalist leadership of al Qaeda, Saddam represented the worst kind of "apostate" regime - a secular police state well practiced in suppressing internal challenges."

As to Saddam's intentions toward the United States, the report states:

[size=40]“[/size]

One question remains regarding Iraq's terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes.

[size=40]”[/size]

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam's ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's "coercion" toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. ... Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

However, the evidence is less clear in terms of Saddam's declared will at the time of OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM in 2003. Even with access to significant parts of the regime's most secretive archive, the answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive.
ABC News noted of the report that "The primary target, however, of Saddam's terror activities was not the United States, and not Israel. "The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq." Saddam's primary aim was self-preservation and the elimination of potential internal threats to his power

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:45 am

The other link:

A former Guantanamo detainee “was identified as an Iraqi intelligence officer who relocated to Afghanistan (AF) in 1998 where he served as a senior Taliban Intelligence Directorate officer in Mazar-E-Sharif,” according to a recently leaked assessment written by American intelligence analysts. The former detainee, an Iraqi named Jawad Jabber Sadkhan, “admittedly forged official documents and reportedly provided liaison between the governments of Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Sadkhan’s al Qaeda ties reached all the way to Osama bin Laden, according to the intelligence assessment. He reportedly received money from Osama bin Laden both before and after the September 11 attacks.

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:48 am

Richard B. Myers, MBA, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on Sep. 18, 2002 stated the following in testimony before the US House Armed Services Committee:

"The Iraqi regime has also allowed its country to be a haven for terrorists. Since the 1970s, organizations such as the Abu Nidal Organization, Palestinian Liberation Front and Mujahadeen-e-Khalq have found sanctuary within Iraq's borders. Over the past few months, with the demise of their safe haven in Afghanistan, some al Qaida operatives have relocated to Iraq. Baghdad's support for international terrorist organizations ranges from explicit and overt support to implicit and passive acquiescence."

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:51 am

So... still no al qaeda. ..

They didn't appear in Iraq until after 2003... as confirmed by the britarnica encyclopedia!

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:53 am

Tommy Monk wrote:So... still no al qaeda. ..

They didn't appear in Iraq until after 2003... as confirmed by the britarnica encyclopedia!

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:10 am

Richard The Lionheart wrote:From one of my links:

In March 2008, a Pentagon-sponsored study was released, entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, based on the review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 US invasion. The study "found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda"...

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 2:14 am

Tommy Monk wrote:
Richard The Lionheart wrote:From one of my links:

In March 2008, a Pentagon-sponsored study was released, entitled Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, based on the review of more than 600,000 Iraqi documents captured after the 2003 US invasion. The study "found no 'smoking gun' (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda"...

Context again, as that is in regards to a link between saddam and al-qaeda terrorism and not him allowing operatives to hide

Again you really need to go to

by eddie Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:23 am

By the by, didn't they bomb Iraq and find NO weapons of mass destruction?

Just saying

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 10:42 am

eddie wrote:By the by, didn't they bomb Iraq and find NO weapons of mass destruction?

Just saying

I love how people say bomb Iraq.

Did the Bush and Blair administrations falsify the claim of weapons of mass destructrion as a pretence to invade Iraq?
Yes
Was Saddam Hussein a genocidal maniac that caused hundreds of thousands of more deaths than any allied bombing attacks in Iraq?
Yes
Had previously Saddam used weapons of mass destruction against the Kurds?
Yes

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:07 pm

There was no al qaeda in Iraq before 2003.

Saddam hussein did not allow them to hide.

And there is no evidence that they were there.

The encyclopedia britarnica link confirms this and there are many others who confirm this to be true.

They were driven out by local Iraqi tribal malitias in what is known as the 'awakenings'...

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/awakening.htm

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:21 pm

Yes there was operatives allowed to hide again for nthe tenth time

You are confusing yet again al-qaeda attacks within and aimed at the country after the ousting of saddam.

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:49 pm

As I said... AFTER the 2003 invasion...

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 12:55 pm

You seriously are an idiot, operatives were allowed sanctuary in Iraq before 2003, so you are again utterly wrong.
Only after control was in the power of the allies did they then turn to attacks in Iraq itself.
Seriously its embarressing have to debate with such an idiot who refuses to recognise he is wrong.

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:00 pm

They were not there before...

Why do you continue to claim that they were.?

by Guest Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:02 pm

Yes they were and the evidence has been given, you are cleary feeling left out of some many debates of late and so want to stamp your feet to gain attention.

Now you can have the last word for all I care, but it just proves further you will never ever learn in life, because you never research anything. This way I weill stop you seekking any further attention lol

You are wrong full stop

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:14 pm

I've not been here much lately...

But as usual, you think you are right and all the evidence I have shown is wrong...

by Tommy Monk Sun Dec 13, 2015 1:26 pm

http://www.britannica.com/topic/al-Qaeda-in-Iraq

Al-Qaeda in Iraq first appeared in 2004 whenAbū Muṣʿab al-Zarqāwī, a Jordanian-born militant already leading insurgent attacks in Iraq, formed an alliance with al-Qaeda, pledging his group’s allegiance to Osama bin Laden in return for bin Laden’s endorsement as the leader of al-Qaeda’s franchise in Iraq.

by Sponsored content