I keep reading over and over through these threads how Iraq seems the obvious place to start the fight against terrorism because of their terrorist activities. People repeat that as if it's a fact, yet I can't find one shred of credible evidence that makes that a certainty.

There are three things that have become the cornerstone of that contention, yet I can find nothing to substantiate it. The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 has been attributed to Iraq. But why?

Instead of rehashing it, just read this. Personally, I think it borders on preposterous.

Then, there's the Bush #41 assassination attempt. It's been pretty much discounted by Rep. Ron Paul. Here's the link (that also discounts a few other things).

Lastly, payments to Palestinian homicide bomber families. This one seems absurd because every Arab nation around Israel does that. We would have to attack every country in that region, including countries friendly to us, if this were used as a standard.

So, my contention is, Saddam is/was a butthead, but he's not a terrorist. I believe we just turned a country that had nothing to do with terrorism into a terrorist state.

My questions to debate are, was Iraq a terrorist state before we invaded? Or have we just created one?

Saddam harbored terrorists, so IMO that does make Iraq a terrorist state. Abu Nidal lived there in safety for two decades, and Iraq maintained a very large terrorist training camp outside Baghdad at Salman Pak. The anti-Iranian Mujahedeen-e-Khalq also operated freely within Iraqi borders. Iraq did have links to terrorism, but any links to 9/11 or the WTC in '93 are tenuous at best.

Abu Nidal was a retired terrorist, similar to Idi Amin, who just died in Saudi Arabia! The biggest terrorist generator is Saudi itself, so most of the stuff about Iraq being a terrorist state is just spin and propaganda.

I agree completely there.

I would add that the reasoning behind Iraq being a part of the "War on Terror" is that no specific country in the Middle East is solely responsible for harboring and aiding terrorists. Every single country in the region is guilty to one extent or another.

Iraq was an easy "in". It gives us a foothold in the Middle East from which to focus on other countries. To bring pressure on them to conform to the international standards of conduct.

The reasons behind resuming the war against Iraq have been present for over a decade. George W. Bush did not make up new evidence. He presented the same case that Clinton presented years earlier.

Iraq may not be behind Al Qaeda, but they do (or did) back certain terrorist efforts. The events of September 11th, 2001 changed the way the President viewed the world. At that point, it was obvious that a major shift in the response to terrorist activity must occur. No longer would individual acts of terrorism against the US be handled as criminal cases. It became clear that the terrorists have declared war upon the US and her interests.

The appropriate response was not a criminal investigation, but to root out and kill the enemy. The enemy that declared war upon us. That enemy encompasses the entire Middle East region. In order to focus on that effort, we needed an example. One who had flouted the international will for over a decade. One who had used weapons (in both war and insurrection conflicts) which, in the hands of terrorists, could bring devastation to the US. One who showed fidelity with terrorists in Palestine. One Saddam Hussein.

Iraq is but a piece in the overall War on Terror.

Heaven help us then, because we are going to be going to war once a year until George W is either voted out of office, or ends a second term, whichever comes first.

Yes, Saddam used used horrible weapons on his own people. But there has been no credible evidence that he exported either those weapons or personnel to the terrorists cause.

We need to set up a viable government there, and start getting the Iraqi people on their feet economically. If we don't, in a few years, they will be exporting terrorists, as a direct result of our failure.

Amlord, you have done a tremendous job in explaining the terror connection to Iraq and the reasons we began our mission there. I applaud you!

True. But, Yemen had a few al-queda cells, but does that honestly make them a terrorist supporter? They could have had a possible idea they had terrorists, but weren't sure until the CIA Predator drone bombed a group of Al-Queda members in a car.

The same with Iraq. But i think Saddam had a pretty good idea and didn't care one way or another. Like Paladin said, Abu Nidal lived in Iraq for 2 decades and Saddam gave them a home. Abu Nidal, a branch from the PLO, have attacked against Western nations like France, the UK, the U.S., in Israel and in some arab states. Abu Nidal

Amlord: I also applaud your post

I'm sure the people of Iraq are thrilled to know that we picked their country to stage a war on terror. I'm sure they're happy we destroyed their entire infrastructure and began killing a few a day when we were done killing the bulk of them when we invaded.

I'm sorry, but that premise is ridiculous. You're claiming they've been marked guilty by association.

Why start with Iraq? Why not Iran? They've always had WMD, have used them, and according to the CIA website, are one of the 5 key suppliers of WMD in the world.

Why not Libya? Why not Syria? Why not Pakistan? Why not Kuwait? Why not Saudi Arabia? ALL these countries have been actively involved in terrorism. Iraq, in my opinion, was the only one that was NOT. And hence the reason for this topic.

There is not one shred of evidence that suggests Iraq had ANYTHING to do with terrorism, so the response has been "Well, they're as good as place as any to start". Yuck.

Two U.S. soldiers were killed in a firefight during a raid near Fallujah, a stronghold of Saddam Hussein’s supporters, the military said.
The Americans were killed during a shootout in Ramadi, 30 miles west of Fallujah. Seven other soldiers were wounded in what the military described as a raid.
The deaths raised to 72 the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in combat since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq. Since the war began in March, 295 U.S. soldiers have died in combat or non-hostile incidents.
The head of U.S. forces in Iraq said this week that there were an average of 15 guerrilla attacks a day.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?vts=091220032110&cp1=1

Well, if Iraq wasn't a terrorist state before it sure as hell is now.

Iraq's obvious connection to terror was that of supporting Palestinian terrorist activities in Israel. As far as anti-US terror of the 9-11 variety Iraq was not a state sponsor of terrorism. This was an unjust war and we had no business launching this preemptive strike. negotiation was possible on the issues we were worried about.


Now, today, Iraq is a terrorist state. But it wasn't at the beginning of the year.

Amlord's demonstration makes sense.

However, if the actions of the American government were so honest and true, then I still fail to understand why my country joined in that 'just cause'.

I still believe there is more than meets the eye about the reasons and the actions we're witnessing in Iraq. Something is shady about the whole thing.

I believe Iraq is not a terrorist state, or maybe only inside its borders then.

Please provide evidence of this. That was the point of this thread. We're very quick to point out how we've changed the regime in a terrorist state, but I can't find ANY evidence of what "it" is.

True, they backed the families of homicide bombers. The argument is, so does everybody in that region and that hasn't been a cause to invade every one of them. It is absurd to hold 50 million people in Iraq accountable for what every country in that region also does. Moreover, as much as I despise Palestinians, Iraq is not paying suicide bombers. Iraq, much like Saudi Arabia and almost everybody else, is paying families to recover from the losses because just like half the members on this board, they think the homicide bombers are justified.

But let's look at Iran. They are a key supplier of WMD technology and actually ARM homicide bombers.

And from what understand, it's true Iraq let Abu Nidal live there. But an argument can be made that it was actually helpful because his terrorist activities had stopped since being there. There is nothing that indicates Abu Nidal was given safe harbor in Iraq so he could continue to inflict terror in the world. The evidence points to the opposite of that. As far as not being in custody, we can't find Saddam or Bin Laden and we have all the resources we need at our disposal. It's possible Saddam had no more luck finding Nidal then we have of finding him. But in reality, why should he care? He has enough enemies reagrdless of what he does. Why invite terrorism into his country by coughing up a retired terrorist to the great Satan?

So, paying the families of suicide bombers (not the bombers) and letting a retired terrorist live there (assuming that's even the case) is not even on the radar screen in terms of who the terrorist states are. If the bar is that low, we are faced with world domination to rid the world of it. How much do you think Bush will ask for then?

But please, where is the evidence that Iraq was a terrorist state and/or was a sponsor of international terrorism? Where is the evidence they arm terrorists (Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia), sell WMD technology (Korea, China, Russia), or have attacked us directly (Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia)?

This was a claim, along with WMDs, made by Bush and repeated as fact. We know the score on WMD, but nobody has turned over the terrorism rock. However, I did, and from what I can tell, there is nothing under it.

How do we know that? How do we know that there were not terrorists already in their? Take Ansar al-Islam for example

DaytonRocker:

I mentioned Ansar al-Islam above and Abu Nidal

By my definition it is a little easier to discount Iraq as a terrorist state. Where are the documented Iraqi-sponsored acts of terrorism against the United States?

By this standard there were several countries to go after before we went to war with Iraq.

GoAmerica, what is a terrorist state to you? A state harboring terrorists (willingly or not) or a state promoting terror by using its own terrorists abroad?

If it's the first one, then France is a terrorist state for instance. If it's the second, then you have Lybia instead. Could you clarify your opinion for me?

I say it's both. So yes France and Libya could be considered terrorist states.

Alright, then we can assume that America is a terrorist state also (I'm putting it in the 1st category - see my last post for explanations).

I'm glad to see johnlocke & Horyok could come to a conclusion on this. Now, perhaps, we could get back to discussing the debate question:

Ok, what's your point?

Saddam had nothing to do with Ansar al-Islam. They were funded by Al-Quaida and the Taliban. They were located in Kurdish territory - an area Saddam has no control over. There is not so much as a hint of support from Saddam although they indicate they support him. This hardly constitutes a "link". Saddam did not fund this venture, so this is not any type of example of Iraq supporting terrorism.

Okay, so now you are saying there IS a connection to Iraq & Al-Queda, thus justifying the war in Iraq to get rid of terrorists, but not to saddam?

The allegations that Iraq was a terrorist state aren't simply spin and propaganda. Certainly Iraq's links to terrorism were over hyped in the run up to war, but it is true that Iraq not only shielded terrorists, but sponsored it as well. The Iraqi government operated a sizable terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, and Iraqi Intelligence was intimate with anti-Iranian terrorists. Of course Iraq wasn't the only nation in the Middle East to sponsor terrorism, and a bigger case could be made against other states. (Iran & Saudi Arabia for example)

Ansar al Islam operated in Iraq, but it had no connection to Saddam Hussein or the Baathist government. They are Kurdish seperatists, which also made them the enemy of the regime in Baghdad.

Oh, puleeze....

That's like saying the US sponsors terrorism because Timothy McVie operated out of here. Give me a break. That is the weakest of the weakest links between international terrorism and Iraq.

If Abu Nidel was a terrorist, then Bush would already put it as a reason to justify the Iraq war. Why he hadn't? US and Arafad has reached an agreement in Oslo meeting (? can't remember the exact agreement) that those whom had hijacked aeroplane or other activities won't be charged on committment they made before 89(? can't remember the exact year)if they wouldn't commit it again. Since then there was a silence period of hijack news in 90's. Maybe not much people knew it.

Of course Iraq was a Terrorist state. Saddam Hussein was the biggest WMD there is. It's the man behind the machine. with France, Germany, Russia and China ready to bail him out of any UN sanctioned pitfall he was able to make a fortune by stealing from the Oil-for-food programs and thumb his nose at the Americans AND the ridiculously useless UN.

So as far as I can see, not only was Iraq a terrorist state but France, germany, RU, China and Syria were the enablers. Saddam though he was safe as long as these idiots had majority voting AND some very lucrative contracts.

ahh the evil and hypocracy of the people we call "friends."

How about some evidence to support this?

which part would you need evidence on? The man behind the machine or how the above mentioned players enabled Saddam to siphone off money in exchange for contracts?

Both. Just be constructive

I've read them already Jaime, thank you.


I'll say one thing on Iraq/saddam (synonymous) as a terrorist state before listing linkage.

If one never thought of saddam as a threat, either past or present then one would disbelieve that he was could possibly ever be a threat in the future.

Those would basically be the sides of the war issue. Could one discount all that Saddam has done over the years and honestly claim him "rehabilitated" or at best contained. One would indeed have to, if one would declare, "no threat."

conversely, to be "for the war" one would have to consider all that he has done and conclude that, yes, this regime could definately pose a threat to the US and the ME region.

Did he possess wmd? yes. There is unaccounted for wmd, with no accounting of being destroyed, which is a stipulation of every one of the UN resolutions right up to 1441.

Did he support terror? yes. widely published was his support of HAMAS, who is also supported by AlQaeda. Is not Al Qaeda part of the vast Islamist Terrorist Network?

these two points are quite easy to dismiss if it is the opinion of the reader that Saddam DEFINITELY posed NO threat.

rather than going on I'll end here and attempt to recover some links I had at one time.

btw, the spellcheck feature is the shizzz!

I've heard all this rhetoric before, but I want sources. Everybody knows he's a tyrant. But he doesn't even make the top 5 of murderous thugs in the world. If we wanted to liberate a people and remove someone like Saddam, we could have went to Cuba.

I've asked for evidence of terrorism because as much as I hear about it, I don't see it. Only rumors, myth, and innuendo. And again, on this thread, only a link or two to Iraq and terrorism with at least one being completely discounted. The rest has been what can be found anywhere else. For example:

No sources


No sources


No sources

This isn't about making Saddam out to be a nice guy. It's searching for the truth. Maybe he is a great terrorsit leader and threat. Just show me where he fits in on this war on terror.

I usually don't make a big deal about sources because I'm not too lazy to look it up myself if I have doubts about something. But this is one area where I find very little evidence, but a whole lot of rhetoric. Please show me what I haven't been able to find.

SoCaliente, I will be delighted ( ) to check your evidence about France, Russia, Germany and China.

Salman Pak




Marines Capture Salman Pak








Abu Nidal

I'll preface this link by saying that info about the relationships and contracts france germany russia china had all during the 12 years of UN sanctions against Iraq and right up to the war had been trickling out. I think some, like me, were surprised at the depth of the dealings these countries had and how they so vehemently were against said "Serious Consequences" as per resolution 1441.

Some of us wondered why. Legitimately. Knowing that ALL countries have their own National interests to consider when there's a possibility of war, what was france's, then Germany's, etc. National Interest with Iraq?

this link is primarily on france. While we might delve into one country at a time but there was really no difference in the many contracts held with Saddam personally. In the case of Russia, there was Saddam's debt of 20billion to Russia that russia will not forgive the Iraqi people even now that the Baathist regime is gone.

Be that as it may, no, none of this proves that Iraq was a terrorist state. just serves as a factoid as to mindsets and motives. But if, as I suggested before, one were to want to totally dismiss "motive" one could. and vice versa.

I'll shut up now
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm

Well, the future showed that our diplomacy didn't actually get blows, but its position was quite reinforced. About the oil, I have already said a few times that if the contracts had been this vital to us, we would have moved along with the Americans to Iraq to secure our interests. Instead, we sacrificed years of negociation to access the oil fields... to have nothing but our pride in the end.

I'm not sure what you mean by pride, as that is subjective.

what I saw was a country blind to the torture and murder of the Iraqi people, blind to the oil-for-food money (brokered by france) which was NOT going to the Iraqi people but Saddam personal piggybank himself.

If UN "sanctions" are to work as a punishment to the regime and thus the people who if frustrated enough would revolt, sanctions agreed upon BY france, if these are to work, why then was France continually pushing for exceptions if not to sell their peugeots?

No, I don't see how France can be proud of anything. France also will not forgive the Iraqi people the debt incurred by Saddam prior to the war. France was willing to allow America to take the brunt in lives lost, money spent as well as REAL commitment to these people and France still to this day wants their share.

At the end of the day it's America's sacrifice not France's.

France is greedy and they knows it. They can't stand to see the U.S. getting it's piece of the pie and not sharing with France. Of course, they could just suddenly change their mind about the war and join the party.

GA,
Could you back that up with more than personal opinion?
Your statement is hard to debate without any facts.

SoCaliente and GoAmerica, if your intent is to bash my country with ill-founded appreciations, you're wasting your time. Since it would be off-subject anyway, I suggest you take your venom to another thread.

If you really insist on going on with this sterile discussion, send me a message instead. Should the two be willing to spend $500 on a plane ticket, me and my wife will be delighted to have you stay at our house, where you'll see that French people are far from being unpleasant folks.

Now, some of your assertions demand clarification.



So, we're blind you say? Prove it. Dig the diplomatic reports, the UN site, anything... prove it.



You wouldn't believe how many comments like these I read before. If you have such a problem with France, why don't you declare war to us? About the Peugeot business, once again, you'll have to prove to me that it was in breach with the limitations of the embargo.



I'm not surprised you don't!



Well, no we're not going to forget the money owed by the Iraqi state. What's wrong with that? I'd like to remind you that your republican administration did something comparable, by saying that the Iraqi oil would be used to pay the effort of war. At least, we French had trade deals. You came to Iraq and took what was there, without permission. What is that called? Theft.



We didn't allow America to go to Iraq and suffer in the war. There was a vote to decide if it was time to invade Iraq, since the Bush administration thought it was in material breach with its obligations. France said "No" to that, no to open war. We never said "Go America!". You are making a big mistake here.

Your president decided to go it alone (with his allies, let's not forget them). He and his administration bear the responsibility of their actions. If you're not happy with the number of victims, write a letter of complaint to the Pentagon.



I wonder what is the point you're trying to make here. Can you elaborate, please?

So far, I don't see any reasons to believe that France is responsible whatsoever for the current situation in Iraq.

I have to apologize for my fellow americans racism Horyok (the french being a race, and thier hatred of you, therefore, racism) - I am afraid they have believed to much of the propaganda of our goverment- there is so much it is hard to resist. France had legitimate contracts in Iraq, end of story. I don't think it affected thier foriegn policy however, certainly not to the degree that Haliburton was allowed to make policy in America LOL

As to Iraq being a terrorist state- anyone that believes that now is just a little niave- yes, they were opposing us, and yes they supported poeple that were our enemies, but that was thier perogitive. But terrorist? kinda pushing the definition to the outer limits there.

actually Horyok aside from the fact that you are incorrect about most everything else, you ARE correct that my previous post was indeed off topic. My apologies to the management of AD.

However, if a thread on French foreign policy happens to appear one day, I'll be more than happy to revisit this topic.

I'll pass on the invitation btw. thanks.

back to the topic.

Saddam Hussein gave aid in finance as well as the use of Iraq as training ground to members of the terrorist network for the purposes of learning to hijack a 707. This activity prior to the war was documented by intelligence. This DOES not mean to suggest that he was directly the fault of 911 (something pres. Bush never claimed) it merely supports the contention that the Baathist regime was aware and did nothing to curtail this activity.

The claim can be made, and always IS made that Saddam wasn't the only "bad guy" in the ME or they ALL support terrorism," no doubt! lol. Something to deeply consider about the ME isn't it. Suffice it to say, yes, they ALL do however, the US had not been engaged in hostile conflict with any of the others for the past 12 years. For all intents and purposes this war was a continuation of the '91 conflict.

The evidence of Iraq's complicity in terrorism has been repeated here ad nauseum. It is clear and convincing. Those who choose to ignore the evidence are in denial. That denial stems from many sources, a strong desire to see Bush fail at the top of the list.

France has chosen a path of opposition to the US mainly because they mistakenly believe that they can elevate themselves into world leadership by forging a EU to counterbalnce US power. Some Arab nations are trying to take advantage of this 'competition', but they will ultimately fail. Their cause is evil incarnate and sooner or later even the French will understand that.

This will NOT turn into yet another bash the French fest.

Get back on topic:

To SoCaliente :

Yeah, I love you too darling. By the way, don't forget to provide me with the evidence I asked you for in my last post.


To Passion51 :

Well, you could be right. I mean, we may not have chosen the proper path. But History is an ongoing game and there's no end to the debate. What's being wrong for a state? And wrong in what perspective, to what point?

If we are actually 'wrong' like you say, we shall change course, don't worry ; if we are right, we'll keep going our way. Ultimately, the appreciation of right or wrong doesn't belong to you in that matter.

On a personal level, I have to say that it's extremely difficult to voice out an opinion these days, since the situation in Iraq gets more and more complicated.

I suggest the two of you read the press conference of Blair, Schroeder and Chirac that was released this afternoon (European time). You may discover that our views are converging, in spite of our differences.

I fail to see where I claimed to love you.

as to your request of linkage of any of my accusations. If you prefer Iraq as terrorist state linkage, say so. If you require linkage as to Chirac's appeasement policies of a Murderous Dictator ie: Saddam Hussein, this isn't the appropriate thread.

I am doing my best to respect the rules.


How about YOU start a "France's Foreign Policy + Iraq" thread. I'll be MORE than happy to participate.

You didn't have to claim it. It was all over your last post!



That's an idea! I hope you're fluent in French then! More seriously, I don't think this will interest enough readers to actually bring something to the debate. But maybe it's worth trying... We'll see.

FINAL WARNING PRIOR TO CLOSING--

GET BACK ON TOPIC:

Terrorist training camps, financial support, home and medical care for terrorist leaders, full-blown terror camps withing its own borders. Weapons of mass destruction and the will to use them. And this is just some of what has been widely-proven. What about those items that are highly suspected but unproven as yet? Or those that are totally unknown? Or how about what we were able to eradicate before it became 'imminent'?

Why defend the indefensible?

Yes, what about them? What's your idea exactly, Passion 51?

we knew saddam had wmd. we knew because blix told us certain items went unaccounted for. we also knew because clinton in 2000 knew saddam had wmd.

we saw the wing of a fighter plane half buried, sticking out of the sand. we heard about the tunnels. we knew of saddam's ambitions to get wmd.

can we be sure that the wmd weren't transferred to Iran or Syria the way Israeli intelligence kept warning about? Should that intelligence be discounted? maybe, maybe not.

I think, at the end of the day, with all the history available about what saddam did have and what he so desired. what we knew about his aims of aggression within that region. That a branch of al qaeda trained inside Iraq with 707(?) airplane for hijacking purposes, albeit in the no-fly zone but still in Iraq. Knowing that saddam and sons had a hand in every goings-on inside Iraq. Should we not assume that he knew nothing of this?

12 years of sanctions which hurts the Iraqis while making saddam and sons wealthy by siphoning off money. should we assume he didn't purchase wmd?

continued hostilies with our airmen. did the '91 war ever really end?

did the american people really need the "wmd" as an excuse to bring this guy down? I may be a very lonely minority but i didn't need selling.

So why does he keep calling our accusations false? Maybe because he doesn't want to seem weak or something



We also heard of the centerifuge parts buried by a scientist, who unearthed them to coalition troops after the fall of Saddam



So that's what Iran is hiding! Makes ya wonder

First, let's get some things straight.

Saddam Hussein kicked Abu Nidal out of Iraq sometime in the very early 1980's under pressure from the USA. Abu Nidal then went to Syria then to Libya. In the 80's, Libya then kicked Abu Nidal out and he has been moving around the Arab countries since then. Only recently did Abu Nidal return to Iraq where he was killed by the Iraqi Security forces..

Ansar al Islam has no relationship to Saddam. Ansar al Islam is a Sunni Kurdish group, more or less supported by Al Qaida and operates in an area outside of Saddam's control.

Iraq hasn't had WMDs since mid-1990's. Hans Blix even confirmed this in a recent press release. He said that Iraq hasn't had WMDs for a long time and I believe this. In the last five months, all the scientists and government members have also held to their story, saying that all WMDs had been destroyed.

Anyone that says that Iraq shipped weapons to Iran or Syria has to be crazy. Syria and Iran hate Iraq. Iran is angry at Iraq for the eight year Iran-Iraq war. Syria hates Iraq because of Iraq's Ba'ath party and Syria's wish to be the leader of the Arabs. Ever since the Syrian Government (under Assad's father) came to power in the 60's, the Syrians have hated Iraq.

Supporting Palestinians groups are another thing, too. They are fighting for freedom from Israel. Saddam's donations of a few thousand dollars to families of those who died fighting for freedom is nothing compared to [especially] Saudi Arabia's support of 'real' terrorist groups.