Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Saddam link to terror group
The Daily Telegraph ^ | April 17, 2003 | Philip Smucker and Adrian Blomfield

Posted on 04/16/2003 5:03:42 PM PDT by MadIvan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last
So much for the argument that the likes of Bin Laden and Saddam had nothing in common and were not working together.

Regards, Ivan


1 posted on 04/16/2003 5:03:42 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: hoosiermama; MeekMom; Dutchgirl; Freedom'sWorthIt; Carolina; patricia; annyokie; ...
Bump!
2 posted on 04/16/2003 5:03:54 PM PDT by MadIvan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: MadIvan
I've said it before, I'll say it a thousand times:

This can't be true because Saddam Is Secular whereas Islamist terrorists are Religious.

Can't be true. Just can't.

4 posted on 04/16/2003 5:09:33 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: seamole; MadIvan; 11th_VA; Libertarianize the GOP; Free the USA; knak; sakka; lainde; PhiKapMom; ...
Thanks, Seamole!

Just think how much more we will know in 6 months!!!!

5 posted on 04/16/2003 5:12:05 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Where is Saddam? and where is Tom Daschle?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
How is this "the first hard link?"

What about the Ansar al-Islam training camps?

I realize the PLF training camp just uncovered wasn't "radical Islamist," but Palestinian Marxists (a fact that seems to elude many FReepers here), but Ansar al-Islam is "hard-linked" to al-Qa'ida.
6 posted on 04/16/2003 5:13:34 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: randita; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; okie01; socal_parrot; snopercod; quimby; John Jorsett; RonDog; ...
Big Ping here!
7 posted on 04/16/2003 5:14:22 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Where is Saddam? and where is Tom Daschle?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank
The only thing "religious" about the radical Islamist terrorists is their beards.

Most of them are illiterate, and know only what the "mullahs" tell them. Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs," in that they have never been accepted by and branch of Islam as having the required educational credentials, etc.

They're just their own little club.
8 posted on 04/16/2003 5:15:06 PM PDT by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
There are doubters out there !
9 posted on 04/16/2003 5:15:35 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (Where is Saddam? and where is Tom Daschle?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
The claims that Iraq had no evidence to terrorists was pretty much put to rest with the capture of Abu Abbas yesterday in Baghdad.

Those that still oppose what Britain, Australia, Poland, and the US did in Iraq are those who will never be convinced.

10 posted on 04/16/2003 5:18:07 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
BUMP...
11 posted on 04/16/2003 5:18:50 PM PDT by tubebender (?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs,"

Kind of like Jessie, huh?

12 posted on 04/16/2003 5:21:16 PM PDT by Diva Duck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
I haven't seen this report in the US media yet.

I'll check tomorrow's copy of the New York Times.

I'm sure it will be in there!

13 posted on 04/16/2003 5:25:04 PM PDT by Gritty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
The only thing "religious" about the radical Islamist terrorists is their beards. Most of them are illiterate, and know only what the "mullahs" tell them. Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs," in that they have never been accepted by and branch of Islam as having the required educational credentials, etc. They're just their own little club.

A point worth emphasizing, yes.

The constant refrain that because Saddam is "Secular" while those other gangs of armed thugs over there - who hate the same people (Americans) and have many of the same goals - are "Religious", and thus they'd never work together or help each other, has always cracked me up. :-)

If I were Saddam, and had observed that see-no-evil attitude, I'd think to myself, "sheesh, these people are so stupid and suicidal, that I can just kill tons of 'em on the cheap by handing some cash to this or that private army of (ha ha) 'Religious' warriors and letting them do my dirty work. American gets attacked and they'll bend over backwards trying to argue that I couldn't have been behind it because I'd never associate with any 'Religious' group....the perfect crime."

14 posted on 04/16/2003 5:26:11 PM PDT by Dr. Frank fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Some of the "mullahs" aren't even real "mullahs," in that they have never been accepted by and branch of Islam as having the required educational credentials, etc

So, they have "mail-order" Mullahs like we have "mail-order" Ministers.

15 posted on 04/16/2003 5:29:35 PM PDT by L`enn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan; CheneyChick; vikingchick; Victoria Delsoul; WIMom; one_particular_harbour; kmiller1k; ...
((((((growl)))))



16 posted on 04/16/2003 5:32:14 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MadIvan
When they keep saying Saddam had no links to terrorists, how do they discount the money he paid to the families of the "suicide bombers?"

Seems to me that letting it be known that you are going to pay the family of a suicide bomber after he blows himself up is encouraging terrorism and in effect, a link to terrorism?

Anybody know why these actions weren't considered a "link"?

17 posted on 04/16/2003 5:36:23 PM PDT by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; MadIvan
Thanks for the post and ping !
18 posted on 04/16/2003 5:44:40 PM PDT by MeekOneGOP (Bu-bye Saddam! / Check out my Freeper site !: http://home.attbi.com/~freeper/wsb/index.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Sabertooth; MadIvan
Just think how much more we will know in 6 months!!!!

You're absolutely right. I wonder what the Leftists would say then.

19 posted on 04/16/2003 5:45:54 PM PDT by Victoria Delsoul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Diva Duck
I've understood so far that "mullah" is more of an honorific title, that's how it was explained to me.
This is yet another article that makes the case for troops to secure these buildings so evidence can be gathered & preserved.
20 posted on 04/16/2003 5:45:58 PM PDT by 1066AD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson