UK aid worker may have been killed by US forces

[Renton 21627]

"Genuinely interested in Saddam's contact and financial support of terror groups around the world, I've never seen a shred of evidence for this and it doesn't particularly fit the profile of him from what I know. Got any credible links to back this statement up?"

 

 

 

His financial support for elements of Hamas is well documented.

 

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Aziz, announced at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002, Reuters reported the next day.8

 

 

As I wrote in another post 'Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who was one of the Al Quaeda higher-ups at the time - now dead - went to Baghdad in 2002'.

 

 

Saddam granted shelter to several well known terrorists.

 

Muhammad Zaydan (December 10, 1948 - March 8, 2004) also known as Abū ‘Abbās http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Zaidan

 

"Despite American requests for the extradition of Zaidan from Yugoslavia, he was not extradited due to Yugoslav relations with the PLO. He then flew to Aden, South Yemen and from there to Baghdad where Saddam Hussein sheltered him from extradition to Italy. He remained in Iraq and commanded the P.L.F. (reunited in 1989) until Saddam was deposed by coalition forces in 2003."

 

 

"This is Abu Abbas, former secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Front. He masterminded the October 7-9, 1985 hijacking of an Italian cruise ship whose name, sadly, is now synonymous with terrorism. The Achille Lauro was on a voyage across the Mediterranean when four Palestinian terrorists seized it on the high seas. They held some 400 passengers hostage for 44 hours.

 

At one point, they segregated the Jewish passengers on board. One of them was a 69-year-old New York retiree named Leon Klinghoffer. He happened to be confined to a wheelchair. Without mercy, Abu Abbas’ men shot Klinghoffer, then rolled him, wheelchair and all, into the Mediterranean."

 

I'm eating my breakfast so I'll refrain from dredging up any further material, it's all out there though.

 

Fair enough, not convinced that his relationship with the PLO was any reason to go to war with him or that Iraq was different from many other middle east countries in that respect either. Do you concede Saddam had bugger all to do with 9/11 despite insinuations from Washington, seemingly lapped up by the US public?

Edited October 13, 2010 by Renton

[Happy Face 29]

"This was treated as the tip of an unseen iceberg of cooperation"

 

One should not underestimate the potential deadly force of this iceberg, given that Saddam had displayed he had no qualms about funding/training/sheltering terrorists whatsoever.

 

 

".... it fell far short of anything that resembled significant cooperation in the eyes of the counterterrorism community"

 

Who I think are the best placed people to quantify the potential deadly force.

[Renton 21627]

I might add that as far as I am aware there were no terrorist camps found in Iraq along with the absence of WMDs. Also begs the question should we invade the likes of Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria, and Iran, of course. Iraq was an idiotic war.

[Guest alex]

There may well be a lot of Kurds happy at his removal. However, in 20 years of power Saddam was responsible for almost 2 million deaths....100,000 a year.

In 7 years since his removal it's been reported the Iraq situation has created 1.36 million excess deaths....almost 200,000 a yea

You don't get an omlette without breaking a few eggs....but that's probably what Saddam would have said too.

 

As I said the cost has been too high. The incompetence that has marred this conflict has been truly shocking, perhaps forseeable if you look at Bush's cabinet. He was surrounded by a swamp of inept and unscrupulous characters.

Justification for not invading right there, no?

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"This was treated as the tip of an unseen iceberg of cooperation"

 

One should not underestimate the potential deadly force of this iceberg, given that Saddam had displayed he had no qualms about funding/training/sheltering terrorists whatsoever.

 

 

".... it fell far short of anything that resembled significant cooperation in the eyes of the counterterrorism community"

 

Who I think are the best placed people to quantify the potential deadly force.

 

It is implied in the source you cited that these meetings would lead to significant cooperation. If you believe that Saddam's continued meetings with Jihadists and senior members of Al Quaeda did not have the potential to lead anywhere dangerous - given his support for other terrorist groups - then you have a long way to go before you're naiive.

[Renton 21627]

"This was treated as the tip of an unseen iceberg of cooperation"

 

One should not underestimate the potential deadly force of this iceberg, given that Saddam had displayed he had no qualms about funding/training/sheltering terrorists whatsoever.

 

 

".... it fell far short of anything that resembled significant cooperation in the eyes of the counterterrorism community"

 

Who I think are the best placed people to quantify the potential deadly force.

 

It is implied in the source you cited that these meetings would lead to significant cooperation. If you believe that Saddam's continued meetings with Jihadists and senior members of Al Quaeda did not have the potential to lead anywhere dangerous - given his support for other terrorist groups - then you have a long way to go before you're naiive.

 

Naaah, I think you're the naive one here, lapping up US justification that things that could have happened (but probably wouldn't). Iraq was and could have remained contained, it was no threat to the West.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I might add that as far as I am aware there were no terrorist camps found in Iraq along with the absence of WMDs. Also begs the question should we invade the likes of Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria, and Iran, of course. Iraq was an idiotic war.

 

Saddam had no qualms about deploying chemical weapons; he had no qualms about invading sovereign states and slaughtering their citizens; he had no qualms about supporting terrorist groups; he was responsible for the death of millions. He was a far more significant threat on many levels to the likes of the countries you mentioned, and Rwanda.

 

@ alex: I have stated that I didn't support the invasion and still do not.

 

@ Renton again: "Do you concede Saddam had bugger all to do with 9/11 despite insinuations from Washington, seemingly lapped up by the US public?"

 

I already covered that in a previous post on this page or the one before it.

[Happy Face 29]

"This was treated as the tip of an unseen iceberg of cooperation"

 

One should not underestimate the potential deadly force of this iceberg, given that Saddam had displayed he had no qualms about funding/training/sheltering terrorists whatsoever.

 

 

".... it fell far short of anything that resembled significant cooperation in the eyes of the counterterrorism community"

 

Who I think are the best placed people to quantify the potential deadly force.

 

It is implied in the source you cited that these meetings would lead to significant cooperation. If you believe that Saddam's continued meetings with Jihadists and senior members of Al Quaeda did not have the potential to lead anywhere dangerous - given his support for other terrorist groups - then you have a long way to go before you're naiive.

 

I don't think it is....

 

"The administration pressed its case for war most emphatically by arguing that U.S. national security was imperiled by Saddam's ties to al-Qaeda. The argument had the obvious virtue of playing to the public's desire to see the war on terrorism prosecuted aggressively and conclusively. Yet, scant proof of these links was presented. The record showed a small number of contacts between jihadists and Iraqi officials. This was treated as the tip of an unseen iceberg of cooperation [by the administration], even though it fell far short of anything that resembled significant cooperation in the eyes of the counterterrorism community—as it always had. No persuasive proof was given of money, weaponry, or training being provided."

 

The point being Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Cheyney, Feith et al insisted the scant evidence that existed would lead to more, while the intelligence community were saying exactly the opposite but being ignored.

 

Feith in particular has been called out by a report from the inspector general because his "briefing to the White House in 2002 "undercuts the Intelligence Community" and "did draw conclusions that were not fully supported by the available intelligence."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7020802387.html

 

Bob Woodward's books on Bush at War are generally understanding of the position the administration were in and sympathetic....but on this score he's damning.

 

Tommy Franks told him of Douglas Feith "I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2099277/

Edited October 13, 2010 by Happy Face

[Guest alex]

@ alex: I have stated that I didn't support the invasion and still do not.

What point are you actually making then?

[Renton 21627]

I might add that as far as I am aware there were no terrorist camps found in Iraq along with the absence of WMDs. Also begs the question should we invade the likes of Pakistan, Yemen, and Syria, and Iran, of course. Iraq was an idiotic war.

 

Saddam had no qualms about deploying chemical weapons; he had no qualms about invading sovereign states and slaughtering their citizens; he had no qualms about supporting terrorist groups; he was responsible for the death of millions. He was a far more significant threat on many levels to the likes of the countries you mentioned, and Rwanda.

 

@ alex: I have stated that I didn't support the invasion and still do not.

 

@ Renton again: "Do you concede Saddam had bugger all to do with 9/11 despite insinuations from Washington, seemingly lapped up by the US public?"

 

I already covered that in a previous post on this page or the one before it.

 

You're correct but I ask again what was the significance of him using chemical weapons? Why is it worse to gas someone than mow them down with a machine gun?

 

Saddam was impotent, he posed no military threat to us or his neighbours, and did not pose a terrorist threat - this is a smke screen you've fallen for. In fact, arguably US allies like Saudi, Pakistan, and home grown nutters from the UK pose a much greater terrorist threat than he did. I just can't see the justification in the enormous expense of the war in terms of lives or money, and don't think it has made the region any more stable.

[Happy Face 29]

Saddam was impotent, he posed no military threat to us or his neighbours, and did not pose a terrorist threat - this is a smke screen you've fallen for. In fact, arguably US allies like Saudi, Pakistan, and home grown nutters from the UK pose a much greater terrorist threat than he did. I just can't see the justification in the enormous expense of the war in terms of lives or money, and don't think it has made the region any more stable.

 

Which have grown in number and nutterness much more over the last 9 years.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"that things that could have happened (but probably wouldn't)."

 

What would it take for your conservatism to be broken? I assume you are part of the 'give Saddam another chance' brigade after his invasion of Kuwait? That was enough for me to recognize the seriousness of the threat he posed to the world. His relationship with Al Quaeda would have only grown, it is silly to pretend otherwise. He had the potential to reobtain chemical weapons. He did not - despite his claims - cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors. Any Iraqi offical who spoke to inspectors without Saddam's approval could expect to be killed along with his family.

 

As I have said I don't support the invasion (for reasons previously stated on this/previous page) but I do recognize the merit in some of the arguments for Saddam's removal in 2003. When you take the balance of good/bad in the arguments for/against I believe the arguments against outweigh those for the current conflict in Iraq. As I have also stated I believe this is something that should have happened (Saddam's removal) after his invasion of Kuwait.

[Guest alex]

"that things that could have happened (but probably wouldn't)."

 

What would it take for your conservatism to be broken? I assume you are part of the 'give Saddam another chance' brigade after his invasion of Kuwait? That was enough for me to recognize the seriousness of the threat he posed to the world. His relationship with Al Quaeda would have only grown, it is silly to pretend otherwise. He had the potential to reobtain chemical weapons. He did not - despite his claims - cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors. Any Iraqi offical who spoke to inspectors without Saddam's approval could expect to be killed along with his family.

 

As I have said I don't support the invasion (for reasons previously stated on this/previous page) but I do recognize the merit in some of the arguments for Saddam's removal in 2003. When you take the balance of good/bad in the arguments for/against I believe the arguments against outweigh those for the current conflict in Iraq. As I have also stated I believe this is something that should have happened (Saddam's removal) after his invasion of Kuwait.

So what should have been the course of action then, in your opinion? Not allowing for time machines to take us back to the early 90s.

Edited October 13, 2010 by alex

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

'You're correct but I ask again what was the significance of him using chemical weapons?'

 

A couple of points: he had also displayed a willingness to attack other countries. This with his willingness to use chemical weapons were the two main ingredients in a potent cocktail; a cocktail I like to call Death and Destruction. It has obvious implications for the stability of the region, moreso given the arsenals of surrounding countries. Now the discussion is in danger of becoming convoluted (and probably already has done so) because we are talking about two different periods in the same discussion, namely the early 90s directly after Saddam's aggression towards the Kurds and seperately in 2003.

 

"Saddam was impotent, he posed no military threat to us or his neighbours, and did not pose a terrorist threat"

 

Tell the Kurds he posed no threat to his neighbours, tell the people killed by suicide bombers - directly funded by Saddam - in Israel/Palestine that he did not pose a terrorist threat.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"that things that could have happened (but probably wouldn't)."

 

What would it take for your conservatism to be broken? I assume you are part of the 'give Saddam another chance' brigade after his invasion of Kuwait? That was enough for me to recognize the seriousness of the threat he posed to the world. His relationship with Al Quaeda would have only grown, it is silly to pretend otherwise. He had the potential to reobtain chemical weapons. He did not - despite his claims - cooperate fully with the weapons inspectors. Any Iraqi offical who spoke to inspectors without Saddam's approval could expect to be killed along with his family.

 

As I have said I don't support the invasion (for reasons previously stated on this/previous page) but I do recognize the merit in some of the arguments for Saddam's removal in 2003. When you take the balance of good/bad in the arguments for/against I believe the arguments against outweigh those for the current conflict in Iraq. As I have also stated I believe this is something that should have happened (Saddam's removal) after his invasion of Kuwait.

So what should have been the course of action then, in your opinion? Not allowing for time machines to take us back to the early 90s.

 

My first course of action would have been to direct all spare funds (allowing for the defecit) into the construction of a time machine to take us back to the early 90s

 

Well I think the situation pre-invasion in the early 2000s was stable enough to persist with in the short-term, and given the negative consequences another war had on the mission in Afghanistan it may have been wise to do so. In that short-term future further diplomatic ends would have had to have been explored; long-term it is impossible to say really as it is not possible to predict the path such a volatile society/regime would have taken. It would have probably lead to an intervention at some point anyway.

[Guest alex]

Seems a bit of a cop out tbh.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

Seems a bit of a cop out tbh.

 

Really it is a cop out to say I cannot predict the long-term future? The cop out is to say 'it's all about oil'; 'Saddam was completely impotent and posed no threat to the world' etc.

 

'Let's just leave it, it'll sort itself out'

 

'nothing to see here'

 

'Saddam doesn't seem like such a bad guy, I'm sure he'll take care of all this'

Edited October 13, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[Guest alex]

You were just saying things should have been left as they were though.

[Renton 21627]

'You're correct but I ask again what was the significance of him using chemical weapons?'

 

A couple of points: he had also displayed a willingness to attack other countries. This with his willingness to use chemical weapons were the two main ingredients in a potent cocktail; a cocktail I like to call Death and Destruction. It has obvious implications for the stability of the region, moreso given the arsenals of surrounding countries. Now the discussion is in danger of becoming convoluted (and probably already has done so) because we are talking about two different periods in the same discussion, namely the early 90s directly after Saddam's aggression towards the Kurds and seperately in 2003.

 

"Saddam was impotent, he posed no military threat to us or his neighbours, and did not pose a terrorist threat"

 

Tell the Kurds he posed no threat to his neighbours, tell the people killed by suicide bombers - directly funded by Saddam - in Israel/Palestine that he did not pose a terrorist threat.

 

You haven't really convinced me about a link to Al Queda or any direct link to other terrorist atrocities for that matter. Saddam was an irreligious megalomaniac, not a religous zealot, I don't think he would have been a natural ally with the islamic extremists, far from it in fact.

 

As for the use of chemical weapon, I just don't see the significance of this. They are relatively useless as weapons of mass murder compared to conventional bullets and explosives. Gassing an immobilised civilian population doesn't prove the efficacy of them except in very limited circumstances. In any case, he had scrapped them, hadn't he?

 

Apart from these points I think I largely agree with you. The war was a botch up rather than stitch up imo.

[Renton 21627]

Seems a bit of a cop out tbh.

 

Really it is a cop out to say I cannot predict the long-term future? The cop out is to say 'it's all about oil'; 'Saddam was completely impotent and posed no threat to the world' etc.

 

'Let's just leave it, it'll sort itself out'

 

'nothing to see here'

 

'Saddam doesn't seem like such a bad guy, I'm sure he'll take care of all this'

 

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the embargoes and political pressures should have continued, to ensure he remained no threat. Which is more or less what you are suggesting. And at no point have I, or anyone else, said he wasn't a 'bad guy'. You'd do well avoiding straw men arguments, it's so fucking boring.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

"You haven't really convinced me about a link to Al Queda"

 

I'll put it like this: Iraq was not an easy place to travel to, particularly Baghdad. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi going to Baghdad without Saddam's knowledge is unlikely, in fact there is evidence to show Saddam had meetings with him and other Jihadists/Al Quaeda. As HF's source displays, this did not amount to a relationship that involved cooperation, but it is not at all unlikely that this relationship would have grown to that point had it gone unchecked.

 

" any direct link to other terrorist atrocities for that matter"

 

The most prominent example I know of is his diplomatic support of Abu Abbas following the Achille Lauro hijacking and his funding for suicide bombers in Palestine/Israel

 

"Saddam was an irreligious megalomaniac, not a religous zealot, I don't think he would have been a natural ally with the islamic extremists, far from it in fact."

 

Your first statement is true with regard to Saddam, however after the first Gulf conflcit he tried to appeal to the religious element in Iraq to gain favour in the face of rumblings from the religious elements in Iraq (I think he put a religious motto on the flag or something of this description, and he also started to make allusions to his newfound 'faith' in public appearances). As for being a natural ally with Islamic extremeists he rewarded Hamas suicide bombers, gave cash rewards to their families. He may not have been a natural ally with them but we have to remember Saddam was legitimately an insane person. Not much he did was consistent or made sense.

 

"In any case, he had scrapped them, hadn't he?"

 

This is why I refer to the discussion becoming convoluted. I am sometimes referring to a different time period given my support for his earlier removal.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[tooner 243]

Seems a bit of a cop out tbh.

 

Really it is a cop out to say I cannot predict the long-term future? The cop out is to say 'it's all about oil'; 'Saddam was completely impotent and posed no threat to the world' etc.

 

'Let's just leave it, it'll sort itself out'

 

'nothing to see here'

 

'Saddam doesn't seem like such a bad guy, I'm sure he'll take care of all this'

 

 

thing is, It IS all about the oil. Lets say for the sake of argument that there was no oil in Iraq or at the very least not enough to matter.

do you think that the west (in particular the US who's VP was a former board member of one of the biggest US based oil companies) would have been ready to commit 100000's of troops to take down an effectively toothless (in military capability) dictator?

after the first gulf war Saddam's military was obliterated (and was a shell of its former self)there was essentially no Air force anymore, none of the SAM sites that existed in the first conflict were around. There was little or no resistance when the tanks finally did roll in the spring of 2003.

 

No one has said he didn't seem like a bad guy, he was a maniac (who used to be in the employ of the US), but he was a bit like an angry old man shaking his fist at the world after the first gulf conflict.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I'm not saying that. I'm saying the embargoes and political pressures should have continued, to ensure he remained no threat. Which is more or less what you are suggesting. And at no point have I, or anyone else, said he wasn't a 'bad guy'. You'd do well avoiding straw men arguments, it's so fucking boring.

 

Those comments were meant to be a piss-take. Regardless I am not referring directly to you or any group of posters here. There are some individuals who claim that this is all about oil and nothing else though.

Edited October 13, 2010 by Kevin S. Assilleekunt

[ChezGiven 0]

Seems a bit of a cop out tbh.

 

Really it is a cop out to say I cannot predict the long-term future? The cop out is to say 'it's all about oil'; 'Saddam was completely impotent and posed no threat to the world' etc.

 

'Let's just leave it, it'll sort itself out'

 

'nothing to see here'

 

'Saddam doesn't seem like such a bad guy, I'm sure he'll take care of all this'

 

 

thing is, It IS all about the oil. Lets say for the sake of argument that there was no oil in Iraq or at the very least not enough to matter.

do you think that the west (in particular the US who's VP was a former board member of one of the biggest US based oil companies) would have been ready to commit 100000's of troops to take down an effectively toothless (in military capability) dictator?

after the first gulf war Saddam's military was obliterated (and was a shell of its former self)there was essentially no Air force anymore, none of the SAM sites that existed in the first conflict were around. There was little or no resistance when the tanks finally did roll in the spring of 2003.

 

No one has said he didn't seem like a bad guy, he was a maniac (who used to be in the employ of the US), but he was a bit like an angry old man shaking his fist at the world after the first gulf conflict.

 

I think saying its about 'oil' underplays what its all about. Its much more sinister than that iyam.

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

The fact that huge oil reserves were coerced from an insane crime family isn't a damning inditement of the invasion.

 

Chez are you referring to the neo-cons desire for control of the mid-east region when you talk of 'sinister' motives?