Skip to comments.LINK FOUND BETWEEN BIN LADEN AND SADDAM HUSSEIN
Posted on 09/16/2001 10:33:34 AM PDT by Clinton's a liar
Vice President Cheney said today that there is "no doubt" that bin Laden was involved in the terrorist attacks last Tuesday. It is most important to prove connections to Saddam Hussein if we are to truly eradicate this terrorist threat.
The information I'm posting here is from the book: BIN LADEN: The Man Who Declared War on America, published in 1999 by Prima Publishing. The book can be found/ordered here: http://www.primalifestyles.com/books/book/2621/
The development of the Iranian-Saudi rapprochement back in spring of 1998 caused Turabi to revive his efforts to mediate between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden. Baghdad had been impressed by the anti-American zeal displayed by the Islamists during the U.S.-Iraqi crisis. Turabi was apprehensive about Tehrans promise to Riyadh to stop terrorism and subversion against Arab regimes and began looking for alternate support system should the need arise to confront the House of al-Saud. As a consequence two of bin Ladens senior military commanders, Muhammad Abu-Islam and Abdallah Quassim, visited Baghdad between April 25 and May 1 (1998)* for discussions with Iraqi intelligence. The importance of these contacts to Baghdad was shown by their meeting with Qusay Hussein, Saddams son, who is not responsible for intelligence matters and was personally involved in both the Iraqi contribution to the Somalia operation and later the intelligence cooperation with Iran. Both sides were very satisfied with the results of the negotiations.
One of the first concrete outcomes of these contacts was Baghdads agreement to train a new network of Saudi Islamist intelligence operatives and terrorists from among bin Ladens supporters still inside Saudi Arabia. Special clandestine cross-border passages were organized by Iraqi intelligence to enable these Saudis to make it to Iraq without passports or any other documents. The first group of Saudi Islamists crossed over in mid-June (1998)* for a four-week course in the al-Nasiriyah training camp. Most were trained in intelligence how to collect intelligence on American targets and plan and launch strikes. The other Saudis were organized into a network for smuggling weapons and explosives from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. This group has returned to Saudi Arabia and is operational, having smuggled in the first loads of weapons and explosives. Later in the summer, a second group of eleven Saudi Islamists received a month of training in the most sophisticated guerilla techniques. By then, Iraqi intelligence anticipated a marked expansion in the training of Saudi Islamists, for Iraqi intelligence took over two training camps they had previously used for training the Iranian Mujahideen-ul-Khalq.
Bin Laden moved to solidify the cooperation with Saddam Hussein. In mid-July (1998)*, Ayman al-Zawahiri traveled to Iraq clandestinely. He met senior Iraqi officials, including Taha Yassin Ramadan, to discuss practical modalities for the establishment of bin Ladens base in Iraq, the expansion of training for his mujahideen, and a joint strategy for an anti-U.S. jihad throughout the Arab world and North Africa. Baghdad could not have been more helpful, conditioning its support on bin Ladens promise not to incite the Iraqi Muslim Brotherhood into establishing and Islamic state in Iraq; in other words not to conspire against Saddam Husseins reign. While in Iraq, Zawahiri was also taken to visit a potential site for bin Ladens headquarters near al-Fallujah and terrorist training camps run by Iraqi intelligence. In al-Nasiriyah, he saw the training provided to Saudi Islamists, in the name of Osama bin Laden, Zawahiri assumed responsibility for a training camp in the al-Nasiriyah desert established by Iraqi intelligence in about 1997 for terrorists from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States. This largely symbolic event indicates Baghdads recognition of bin Laden as the local authority in the struggle against the U.S. presence in and influence on the Arabian Peninsula.
The strategic significance of bin Ladens improving relations with Baghdad, whether he decides to move there or not, lies in Saddam Husseins hatred of the House of al-Saud. If bin Laden decides to strike at the House of al-Saud rather than at American targets in Saudi Arabia, despite the positions taken by Tehran and Islamabad, Baghdad will surely provide him with all possible support. At present bin Laden shows no inclination to violate the strategy formulated with Tehran. The mere existence of an Iraqi-sponsored option, however, already alarms Riyadh. Meanwhile Baghdad will be only too happy to help bin Laden strike any American objective anywhere in the world, even with weapons of mass destruction.
*(1998) was added by me to remind the readers here of the dates the author is talking about.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Author Yossef Bodansky, in internationally renowned military and threat analyst, is the director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare. In addition he is the director of research of the International Strategic Studies Association (ISSA) and a senior editor for the Defense & Foreign Affairs group of publications. The author of seven books on international terrorism and global crises and a former terrorism and global crises and a former senior consultant to the U.S. Departments of Defense and State, Mr. Bodansky actively participates in international forums and conferences in the United States and abroad.
This is World War III, and we will win. God bless our president, our military, and our nation.
God bless you too, Connie!
On the other hand, there hasn't been a link found yet which ties Iraq into the planning of Tuesday's attack, and I doubt there will be. I think it caught Saddam Hussein by surprise, too.
Since Iraq is willing to use terrorists, and other means including weapons of mass destruction, it is just as much a part of the problem as bin Laden. As part of this war, we will have to take out Saddam. We have no choice. He will conduct similar attacks against the US using his weapons as soon as he can. Therefore, he must go. I think we have the renewed will to do it, and we don't have much time left.
And God bless you, KFP. Hugs.
As I recall, one thing he said that I found particularly interesting is that, while bin Laden is often described as being wealthy, in fact, bin Laden has been "cut off" from his family's money for quite some time now, and "no longer has a penny to his name." In other words, if true, bin Laden is not himself personally bankrolling these operations.
I didn't hear him say that, but if it is true that he said it, I wholeheartedly. Hussein, it would seem, has been hand in glove with bin Laden for at least two years. The author states here that there were even plans to move bin Laden's base of operations to Iraq. My best guess is that he didn't because the Afghanistan terrain provides safer "cover" for bin Laden's mujihadeen in the aftermath of the terrorist events they planned together and executed last Tuesday. There is also a psychological advantage in Afghanistan -- not a superior advantage, but an advantage over Iraq nonetheless.
Hussein was not caught by surprise. Not by a long shot.
I disagree. Re-read the last paragraph of this article post.
Anyone who conspires in the commission of any felony is guilty of murder when the eventual commission of the felony results in the death of any person. This is the essence of the "felony murder" statute that has been adopted in most of the states. It is punishable by life in prison.
Under the present circumstances, with over 5,300 dead or missing (and presumed dead) as a result of these felonies, I believe we should make an exception. This should be punishable by death. The sentence should be carried out immediately without benefit of trial. Any aid provided to Osama bin Laden after he declared "holy jihad" against America was an act of war, by the nations that knowingly provided aid and comfort to him and to his murderous thugs.
I would like to remind any military, intelligence, diplomatic and political personnel reading this thread that we fire-bombed dozens of German and Japanese cities during World War II. Then we used nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We killed at least one million civilians -- men, women and children.
We did this to destroy their means of making war -- the factories, railroad yards and oil refineries. And we did it to destroy their will to fight. After we killed enough Japanese women and children, their soldiers lost the will to fight and they accepted surrender terms. Unlike Germany, we did not have to invade their homeland. The samurai spirit can be compared to the philosophy of these mujahedeen.
At the beginning, the Japanese warriors were eager to die. Even toward the end, they were eager to die -- recall the kamikazes, and how very few of their soldiers surrendered on the tiny islands we invaded. But when they received word of two atomic bombs being used on their cities, they lost the will to resist.
We must learn these lessons well. The mujahedeen is just as eager to die as the Japanese soldier, sailor or airman was in 1941. We must extract a price that they are not willing to pay.
bin Laden cut ties with the royal family when they allowed American troops to remain in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War. bin Laden's father is very close to the royal family.
To the contrary, I've read about Saudi Arabia offering Usama bin Laden a construction contract after his successful efforts in Afghanistan fighting the Russians. UbL refused the contract and instead wanted to continue to fight. The contract was then given to Muhammed bin Ladin, his father, who then funneled the 90 million dollars to bin Ladin. This was prior to the public split between Usama bin Laden and the royal family.
Now, unless UbL did all of this, AND graduated college before he was 13, there's a question here. Hold on, I'm going back to the book to find that section.
I'd still like to see your source.
Read this book. It explains how the war with Iraq was never concluded.
The mujahadeeen might be very willing to die, but the experience in Desert Storm with wholesale surrender of Iraqi soldiers plus the present streaming into Iran of Afghanis after being exhorted to stay and fight by the Taliban shows that the typical "jo6pac_of _goat's _milk" in the Middle East might have some reservations about tripping off to Paradise with the jihadists.
I did, and it states precisely the same point I made. I haven't a clue why you disagree.
The bin Laden/Saddam alliance is based on a shared common enemy--the Royal family in Saudi Arabia and the USA. But that's as far as it goes. In reality, bin Laden hates Saddam, too, because Iraq is not an Islamic fundamentalist state. So, while they can cooperate on some things, bin Laden is no client of Iraq, and bin Laden is ultimately a threat to Hussein. It's clear that bin Laden operates independently, and that's why he could never flourish in Iraq.