1) Fact: Abu Nidal was given safe haven for many years by saddam.
2) The fact that he was killed show clearly that saddam would take out terrorists when he wanted to. It turns out Abu Nidal refused to help him in something related to training Fedayeen. That and post 9/11 inconvenience of harboring a man who killed americans in a terrorist incidence made him a liability ... and YET ... Zarqawi *wasnt* killed. Back in 2002 Zarqawi was planning ricin attacks on Europe. And later Zarqawi just happens to be the point-man in Iraq for AQ and the suicide-bombers.
This was a part of saddam’s plan from the get-go.
3) The idea that baathists cant cooperate with islamic Iran is so horribly disproven by recent history its hilarious you even bring it up.
Did you not notice how islamicist-shiite hezbollah in lebanon is sponsored by *both* baathist syria *and* shiite theocratic Iran? Or that Iran is helping the baathist-insurgents, which in turn have links to al qaeda.
These are happening now, today, and they were happening before we invaded under saddam.
“What will we find when we examine your Palestinian and Algerian groups? Islamic terrorists of the al Qaeda variety?”
You will (a) find both and (b) find that Saddam supported all kinds of terrorist groups. Algerian were islamicist. Saddam’s aid in 1995, training Al Qaeda in bomb-making, what category is that? Does it matter?
“Or more secular Arab terrorists of the sort the world was full of in the 80s?”
Again, with this myth that they are so far apart. These multiple terrorist groups have different agendas but a COMMON ENEMY ... which is us.
You really think Fatah and Hamas are that much different? When Arafat was using Islamic propaganda the whole time? When Fatah uses leftist/radical ideology as well? When their political agenda is pretty much the same? They are about as different as Howard Dean vs John Kerry.
That you buy into this ‘secular v islamic’ BS shows
how little you understand. Saddam himself put an islamic insignia on his flag after the gulf war. He sponsored very anti-american mullahs in his country, who after our liberation of Iraq became the “Association of Muslim Scholars” - you can read IraqTheModel for the particulars on that saddam-friendly muslim cleric group - they are friends of the terrorist insurgents.
Saddam had his agenda, but sponsored anti-Western terrorists as a part of his ongoing war against both Israel and the west. He supported all sorts of terrorists including islamicist ones, and including Al Qaeda.
"The idea that baathists cant cooperate with islamic Iran is so horribly disproven by recent history its hilarious you even bring it up."
I reread my post because I couldn't recall making any such claim. I didn't. Please keep your hilarity confined to comments I actually make. It's more work to engage strawman arguments.
Did you not notice how islamicist-shiite hezbollah in lebanon is sponsored by *both* baathist syria *and* shiite theocratic Iran?
And Saddam and Iraq are where in all this? Not there, but it looks good to suggest there is a connection.
Again, with this myth that they are so far apart. These multiple terrorist groups have different agendas but a COMMON ENEMY ... which is us.
Yes, and Nazis and Soviets had a common enemy and cooperated before they slaughtered each other on the Eastern Front. Somehow having a common enemy isn't quite the same as having common interests.