In one of the other discussions, a new topic was starting to branch off of the original. That was of the link between 9/11 and Iraq. I have my own ideas, I believe that there are some links to terrorism there. But my overall question is that of:

Is there a link between 9/11 and Iraq, and if so what is it?

-WP

I do not believe there are any links between Iraq and 9-11, except perhaps that Saddam's regime was broadly sympathetic to anyone who could give America a bloody nose.

The few tenuous links that there may have been between IRaq and al-Quaeda seem to have originated in the semi-autonomous Kurdish north, which was only outside Saddam's sphere of control because of the no-fly zones imposed after Gulf War I by US and British air power. To me, even these links seem most likely to have involved a sharing of intelligence from AQ to Iraqi rebels hoping to cause Saddam trouble.

Saddam, like most totalitarian dictators, was mistrustful of relgious zealotry as it could have upset his power, and for most of his time in Baghdad he ruthless crushed all hints of Islamic fundamentalism - his regime was completely secular until after Gulf War I, when he played at worship - always in front of TV cameras - to try to gain popular support in the wider Arab world (with some limited success).

There are somewhat stronger links to groups like Hamas or Islamic Jihad - groups more defined as anti-Israel than their anti-America or pro-Islam - but even these would not alone be justification for an American led invasion. A couple more bombing runs, perhaps, but not full-scale war.

From HeatherRob on another thread:


Well, since this almost derailed another thread, this post is directed to HeatherRob as a follow up.

First, aside from rumor, there has been nothing to show that this mysterious meeting actually happened. As I said, nobody - including anybody in the Bush administration - has given that any credibility. Furthermore, even if it were an Iraqi Atta met, that doesn't necessarily mean it was either approved or condoned by Saddam.

So, please provide your overwhelming evidence as to why the mainstream is wrong and you are correct. Please conclusively tie Iraq to 9/11.

Secondly, name me one country surrounding Israel that has NOT funded the families of homicide bombers. Don't hold Iraq to a double standard, so I assume we should invade all the countries in that area.

Thirdly, I thought Turkey was a democratic ally and selling oil to them was not "black marketing" under the food for oil program (or whatever it's called).

Finally, please provide one credible source that shows Saddam funneled money to Bin Laden. Please state your source to back up your claim and to show that direct link of Iraq and 9/11.

And lastly, I am NOT convinced taking Saddam out was the right thing to do. Iraq was a secular society who kept all their violence inside their own borders. They did not export terrorism and were not part of international terrorism. When a person thinks of Muslim extremists, you don't think of Iraq. Please name for me ONE international terrorist from Iraq that has attacked anyone on an international scale. Careful of your answer here and do some research. Hint: WTC 1 and the Bush 41 assassination attempts were NOT perpetrated by Iraqis.

Furthermore, 1000's of terrorist attempts have been thwarted by the CIA and FBI since 9/11. At least, according to Ashcroft. Please name for me one Iraqi.

There are three groups of people vying for control of Iraq - the Baathists, Shiites, and Kurds. Saddam did a good job of keeping Iraq in civil war. He once said that if the US took over, they would need 7 presidents to accomplish what he's done. So far, he appears to be right (as well as everything else he's said).

It's an easy argument to make, whether you agree or not, that taking Saddam out was the wrong thing to do.

In my opinion there was no link..you can theorize there was, and throw up stones to say there wasen't..not much proof.

Nor do i believe iraq was a threat, BUT iraq was unfinished business for the united states. If my memory serves correct, no dictator has invaded a country, was kicked out, and gets to stay in power. The Bush Sr. Admin only let iraq stay because they were the only true counter balance of power in the middle east to iran.

Your neighbour is beating his wife. He is a nasty man, brutish and cruel, and he has taken it out on his wife for years. He has few to no redeeming qualities.

So you creep into his house in the middle of the night and murder him.


Few people will argue that the fact that this man is dead is a bad thing, most will say he probably deserved it.

That does not alter the fact that what you did was illegal and you will go to jail for it.

Now make the man not your neighbour, but some guy who lives three or four streets away, and also include the fact that you are great friends and supporters of other wife beaters.

Now maybe you see the problem. Hawks keep saying 'Opponents of the war loved Hussein, and wanted to see him in Office!" For the most part that is a complete fabrication. I personally am quite pleased that Hussein is out of Office. That does not alter that what the US did was wrong, hypocritical and based on (at worst) outright lies and deception, or (at best) willfull credibility, half known, unverified information, and enormous error.

Now it seems the walls are starting to crumble.
-Colin Powell comments that had he known there were no WMD, he would not have supported the war.
-Kenneth Pollack, the writer of the bible for those who wished a war in Iraq before invasion, publishes a lengthy mea culpa in the Atrlantic, saying he was completely wrong.
-Populatity for Bush hits the lowest point of his presidency (though this may also have a lot to do wth his attempt to bankrupt the US)


Hussein is gone, and it is yet to be determined if that is an improvement for the people of Iraq (so far it is not at all).

Gladly.

The following are the stated reasons for the attacks of 9-11.

1. American troop presence in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia).
2. American terrorism against Muslims, with one prime example being the effects of the sanctions imposed against the Iraqis.
3. The common belief that America was a paper-tiger, unwilling to commit to potentially bloody conflicts, and could therefore be persuaded to action with the threat of such actions. This was observed through several prior incidents (Somalia, African embassy bombing, etc), but was definitely exemplified by Saddam's ability to continue to thwart UN resolutions and American will regarding the end of the Iraq war.

There were other reasons, but these are three prominent ones, and all are tied to the situation that existed in Iraq prior to our invasion.

1. American troops were required in Saudi Arabia to contain Saddam Hussein.
2. The sanctions cited were only in place because of Saddam's refusal to comply with UN resolutions regarding the end of the Gulf War.
3. Saddam's ability to continue to refuse to comply gave full credence to the paper tiger theory, encouraging additional action by terrorists and other regimes.

I could add other links, but they are not as direct or as compelling. I believe these three are indisputable, and provide firm and conclusive evidence of the relationship between the attacks of 9-11 and Iraq. Note that this does not include direct participation in the attacks. However, I think it is quite clear that the situation in Iraq was having a major negative influence on the attitudes of Muslims towards America, and that there was no way to change that with Saddam Hussein still in power in Iraq--and the only way to change that was to invade and physically remove him from power.

As I stated in many other posts, there is room for argument as to the solution chosen. However, to fail to include these items as root causes of the attacks of 9-11 and Muslim extremist sentiment against the US is ignoring many of the underlying factors. This will inevitably lead to false or incomplete conclusions as to the actions necessary to resolve the situation.

That is not tying Iraq to an attack. You've tied Iraq policy to 9/11.

Of course, the policy could be disputed. I give you that. But the same policy problems exist with Israel. So, the same could be said for the Palestinians. If not them, it could be anybody else.

In my opinion, Bin Laden tying Iraq policy into 9/11 was baiting Saddam to join in the "fight against infidels".

Which didn't work by the way.

True. I by no means am trying to imply that Iraq or Iraqis took direct participation in the attack. Rather, I think the situation in Iraq had a major influence on negative attitudes amongst Muslims towards the US in general, and was certainly a major factor in UBL's motivations leading up to the attack. These factors would only increase with time. Also, and this is certainly just my conjecture at this point (but I strongly believe it to be true), I think these were amongst the factors leading to the decision to invade Iraq. I think after 9-11, as it became apparent who the perpetrators of the attack were, GWB received many briefings about what might have led to the attack. I think at the root of many of these would have been the situation in Iraq, and that this is what led to the decision to invade. WMD was then simply yet another factor, or perhaps the final straw. Also, I think that these factors were what ruled out most non-aggressive reaction to the WMD threat, as these were exactly the policies that had led to the current situation. This is why I feel so strongly that these factors must be taken into consideration when discussing alternatives.




Hmmm. Interesting point, which I couldn't disagree with currently. Interestingly, I saw the Saudi ambassador explaining UBL's choice of so many Saudi's in the attack team explained exactly the same way--as UBL's attempt to instigate unrest between the Saudi gov't and the US.

You are the leader of a country that you rule by oppression.
You have ordered to kill thousands of your own people with gas poison because they tried to create an opposition.
You have begun two wars and used gas poison in one of it.
You have refused to comply to international sanctions.

Now your country is being attacked by an overwhelming foreign force. Your soldiers still fight for you, but your support in the population is dropping.
Their forces close in on you and you know that you don't have a chance of winning that war.

Why would you not use all of your weapons in your arsenal?

- When the US invaded Iraq and Hussein didn't use his stockpiled WMD that the US said they knew were there, wasn't it obvious that he did not possess any of them?
- PS: Never trust your government on anything.

Another thing:
Hussein and bin Laden have very different perspectives and behave totally different. Hussein was running a socialist one-party dictatorship. He wanted power and dominance in the Middle East.
Laden is a rich religious fanatic. He wants to challenge the West and defeat it.
Bin Laden was actually a threat for Husseins plans to gain more power.
I therefore do not believe Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or terrorism. Except against his own people to control them.

Can we get back on the topic of:
Is there a link between 9/11 and Iraq, and if so what is it?

This isn't about why 9/11 happened. It's about Iraq's involvement as claimed in another thread. Inquiring minds wanna know...

Brings us back to the major point. Did he indeed have and Weapons of Mass Destruction at the time of the United States invasion? We gave him god knows how much time to destroy them and or move them or hide them even better.

Regardless, I believe that he had ties to terrorism.

Click me!


And...

o0o0o0o

I don't think they were training flight attendants on that bad boy...


-WP

Let's see, one link that's only a week old, telling about current insurgent activity that may be linked to Al-Qaeda. After we've been told for six months now, that Al-Qaeda and other, independent terrorists are going to be "flooding across the borders" to attack our troops, and that they should "Bring 'em on".

The second link to a story told by a guy who said he worked at this "terror training camp" in an administrative capacity, yet all he has is his story. No notes, no documents, no proof at all other than his say-so. Well, you've certainly convinced me!

C'mon. The fact remains that even Colin Powell and George Bush have said there are no credible links between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 hijackers, or even Al-Qaeda as a larger entity. None.

Conservatives are always quick to point out that Bush and Powell are honorable men who would never knowingly mislead (or, God forbid, lie) to the American public about such things as national security. After all it was their steadfastness about Iraq that got us into the war to begin with. Why do you now doubt their word?

Salman Pak is the most direct tie to terrorism. I don't think Saddam was training people to hijack planes so that they could terrorize Iraqis.

Salman Pak / Al Salman

Salman Pak is not in Kurdish territory, either. It is just outside of Baghdad (~35km).

Hobbes did a nice job summarizes why the Iraq situation needed to be resolved, regardless of terrorist ties. The administration never said 9/11 and Iraq were linked, only that 9/11 changed our view on the threats facing America.

Were these the same Iraqi defectors that claimed that Iraq had reconstituted their WMD programs? Those same defectors that the CIA wants to blame for why the Administration thought a threat was imminent? Could it be that these defectors LIE in order to secure a new wonderful life in our great country?

Here’s a transcript of Dubya’s press conference on March 7, 2003, prior to the Iraqi war (after reading this again it turns my stomach).



A cleverly implied connection.



Another cleverly implied connection.



If I heard this out of the context of this thread and didn’t know anything about who made this statement then I could easily make an argument that whoever said this was trying to make a connection.

Face it, if there was a connection then we would have heard all about it PRIOR to the war.

All true. However, keep in mind the famous truism: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Both groups had the same goal--thwart the US. Having a common objective can be a powerful unifying force.



Niteguy--exactly which of my points are you disagreeing with? Please be specific and explain your reasoning for disagreeing. If you aren't disagreeing, then you can clearly see the linkages. I think the confusion lies in differentiating between cause-and-effect vs. actual involvement. No one (well, at least not me) is saying Iraqis were directly involved. That doesn't mean that their actions had no effect, or that the situation in Iraq wasn't directly related to the attacks.

Also, let me add an additional factor which I think had significant impact.

4. American intelligence, prior to 9-11, was too focused on Saddam and efforts to determine his compliance or lack thereof with UN Resolutions. This drained valuable resources from other activities, which had a significant impact on our inability to prevent 9-11 before it happened.

Has anyone missed the fact that Osama Bin-Laden has referred to Saddam as a socialistic infidel?? What does it say when the man criticizes the leader of the fourth largest army in the world(at least awhile ago, but hey-even the administration uses 10 year old evidence) and who has a viable web of guerilla fighters who are still fighting us? Politics may make for strange bedfellows(i.e.-Hitler and Stalin) but it's quite telling that these two couldn't even get together over their hatred for us to get along together.

I thought GWB made a good case in his interview with Russert yesterday regarding this 'link'. No, there is no direct clear-cut series of dots to be connected. Things are rarely that simple. Rather, there is a big picture that was re-configured on 9/11.

Prior to 9/11 we avoided an all-out confrontation with the forces of terror. To think this aversion didn't serve to enbolden the terrorists is naive. After 9/11 we needed a new direction or else we were going to suffer an even greater attack. The terrorist elements in the world viewed us as a nation that would not take them on in any meaningful way, even in the face of direct attacks on our own. This is why they had the nerve to bring those attacks right into the very hearts of our cities.

A clear and forceful message had to be sent. America would no longer sit back and hope for the best. Removing Saddam presented the best opportunity for us to convey that message to the world. Removing him before he acted against us was neccessary and prudent. Again, doubting he would do so is pure naivete. Containment is not viable. Embargoes only hurt the common man in countries with brutal dictators at the helm.

Time to face it folks. This really is a different world after 9/11. We must take decisive and forceful actions to protect ourselves. In most cases, hopefully in all cases, those actions will be pre-emptive.

The alternative to pre-emptive action is a re-active response. I leave it to you to ponder the scenario we would be re-acting to.

The problem with pre-emption, which everyone sees now, is that the intelligence must be 100% accurate or else you end up looking like the town bully. Which is now, obviously, our problem with the world. Eventually, the town will figure out a way to gang up and put down the bully. Be careful what you wish for here.

Do you believe that if we had continued on the previous path we'd be safer today? Do you believe the terrorists would fail to see us as a weak nation unwilling to defend itself? Do you believe we wouldn't haven't fallen victim to an even more horrifying attack by now had we not went on the offense?

What can I say? Yes, yes, and yes.

How does this relate to a thread concerning itself with the nonexistent links between 9/11 and Iraq?

Well, 15 of the 19 terrorists were Iraqis... oops, I mean Saudis.

Yeah, but in the days immediately following 9/11, over two dozen members of the Hussein family were allowed to take jets around the US, picking up family members... oh wait, those were members of the bin Laden family!

I was thinking, if 15 of the terrorists had been Iraqis, would the headlines have read "Iraq attacks America?" Probably. Just an interesting what-if...



That's true, but the same could once have been said for the US and the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, yes? And yet, there has been no evidence of this link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Do you beleive in the Easter Bunny?

Because the Easter Bunny had as much to do with international terrorism as Saddam did.

Here's what you are missing. I do not know ONE person - not even one - that is opposed to kicking a little Muslim <insert your favorite term 3 letters long starting with an "a" and ending with the 19th letter of the alphabet representing the part of the body which you use to sit in front of the computer and argue with complete strangers the merits of issues most people don't give two you-know-whats about> to rid the world of terrorism.

Had Bush decided we were going to invade and occupy Libya after diplomatic efforts failed, there are a couple things outstandingly different. Libya did export international terrorism and has been a supplier of WMD technology. Or Saudi Arabia. Or Korea. Unlike Iraq, all these countries have a true history.

But that's not what he did. If a dog were chewing on Laura Bush's leg, he'd have shot the cat because the cat's the one he really hated. That's the problem we have. It's not against the war on terror. I would suggest that most are in favor of making every effort to win that war if it were possible.

But Iraq had nothing to do with international terrorism and you are in denial. Saddam wasn't a saint and most countries in the middle east suck. But Bush diverted our efforts from fighting real terrorism to deposing despots.

This is what some of you can't understand. It's not against the war on terror. It's for fighting the real war. And this one wasn't it.

By taking down SH we also changed the direction being taken by Libya, North Korea, Saudi Arabia among others. They are all intertwined to some degree and were the recipients of a very clear and determined message,

"America will no longer sit back and hope that nothing bad comes to it. America will stand up and confront any gathering threat before it reaches the point where America is facing an imminent attack".

Clear-thinking Americans realize the need for decisive action in today's climate. If you wait til it starts raining, you're going to get all wet.

Umm... no we didn't.

Libya has been negotiating for over 2 years to resolve the issues from their terrorist forays in the late '80's - early '90's. Resolving Pan Am 103 was one point of contention. The Bush Administration -- to their credit -- also threw in the issue of developing WMDs. Had little to do with Iraq.

North Korea actually got MORE feisty once they saw we couldn't attack them any time soon. They quieted down when China got involved, not us.

Saudi Arabia started changing after 9/11, not after we invaded Iraq 18 months later.

But the conservative pundits want to tie the two together to cobble together some rationale for invading Iraq. It doesn't hold up under scrutiny. Like most talking points from conservative pundits.

Diplomacy almost always requires the ultimate threat of force and the certain knowledge that there's a willingness to use it. Libya was finally pushed to terms by that knowledge, after we entered Iraq.

North Korea made noise but that's all it was. China was nudged to the table because they knew we meant business. Again, the result of our intervention in Iraq.


Saudi Arabia began changing its tune when they understood we would no longer need them to base our forces in the area. Again, after we entered Iraq.

These things didn't happen in a vacuum and happen solely because of Iraq. But it did play a major role.

There is no evidence of that, yet we have evidence to the contrary. Anybody paying attention knows this process with Libya started well before Gulf War 2.0. In fact Muammar Gaddafi's son, Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, has come out and said this is completely false:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...d=564&ncid=1480

Again, this is twisting the end to justify the means. It's bad enough Bush gambled and lost, but this borders on coverup and flat out lying. I voted for a fiscal conservative who would put principle over politics. This is not who I voted for and this is not what America got. Bush is no less a liar than Billy Jeff - he's just better at it.

Grand Moff Tarkin ( Star Wars )

For some reason at times I see strong resemblance in tactics between The Empire and the Bush Administration. But what did Princess Lea say in retaliation?



All fear and bombing campaigns will do is produce even MORE American hatred, and ultimately more Al Queida.

Personally I find it ridiculous there is even a DEBATE about this topic. Bush and his lapdogs stated months ago there is no direct connection. Of course that is quite the opposite of the image he was creating before the war.

But I've also realized there is no convincing those who do not leave even the slightest chance of being convinced. Like the germans in the time of Hilter supported every atrocity without question so will some here in America with the Bush Administration no matter what is revealed or who comes forth.

I mean George Tenett(CIA Director of mistelligence)basically called David Kay a liar on his "Iraq Survey Group is 85% finished" comment by stating "Contrary to what some believe we are no where near 85% finished", and no one even questioned it. I'm even surprised Mr. Kay didn't make a press statement on that. Or is that the reason why he participated in the CSpan Interview with the authors of the Carnegie Report on WMD? hmmm?

Is it really that important to be 100% right that you pass over any wrongs that might be done in your name?

just because al qaeda may in fact be streaming into iraq shows no connection. it is an easy way to conveniently attack american targets in the area.

fully agree with the complete difference in ideologies of SH and UBL. makes no sense...