"We support the troops but not the mission"

[gabosaurus]

The fact that Saddam paid suicide bombers does not equate to his support of outside terrorist forces. It equates with his hatred of Israel.
Find me a certified link where Saddam is supporting bin Laden or AQ.

[JohnDoe]

Like I said, show me the proof that he DIDN'T pay suicide bombers. There's nothing convoluted about that.

And like I have SAID, you can ONLY show proof that he did pay them, if he paid them, there would be some sort of paper trail or money trail..

YOu will not ever be able to show proof that he did not pay the families of suicide bombers, if he did not pay them.

Regardless Gaffer, what is your contention or even Gunny's contention regarding saddam and the families of these Palestinian suicide bombers and this kind of terrorism?

I have already agreed that it is MORE THAN LIKELY the accusation of him paying suicide bomber's families in the past was true?

What does this have to do with going in to a full fledge invaision and occupation of the country? We did not invade Palestine for providing the suicide bombers to kill Israelis, so why invade Saddam for him supposedly supplying charity to the families left behind of these Palestinian suiciders?

In the 80's and 90's before the Gulf War, I personally believe from all that I have reaD, that Saddam had various connections with different terrorist groups outside his country....Not Al Qaeda, but others.

I simply do not believe this was one of the reasons we invaded him and his country in 2003, a decade later.

[Kathianne]

And like I have SAID, you can ONLY show proof that he did pay them, if he paid them, there would be some sort of paper trail or money trail..

YOu will not ever be able to show proof that he did not pay the families of suicide bombers, if he did not pay them.

Regardless Gaffer, what is your contention or even Gunny's contention regarding saddam and the families of these Palestinian suicide bombers and this kind of terrorism?

I have already agreed that it is MORE THAN LIKELY the accusation of him paying suicide bomber's families in the past was true?

What does this have to do with going in to a full fledge invaision and occupation of the country? We did not invade Palestine for providing the suicide bombers to kill Israelis, so why invade Saddam for him supposedly supplying charity to the families left behind of these Palestinian suiciders?

In the 80's and 90's before the Gulf War, I personally believe from all that I have reaD, that Saddam had various connections with different terrorist groups outside his country....Not Al Qaeda, but others.

I simply do not believe this was one of the reasons we invaded him and his country in 2003, a decade later.

Ok, so you must have read this, posted above:


...Saddam has said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace proposals and has provided payments throughout a year and a half of Israeli-Palestinian battles. "I saw on Iraqi TV President Saddam saying he will continue supporting the (uprising) even if it means selling his own clothes," said Safi.

Rumsfeld, who said earlier this week that Saddam and the Iraqi government were offering the lower amount, elaborated on the issue at a Pentagon briefing.

"It turns out that he has raised that amount and it's $25,000 per family, not $10,000 per family," Rumsfeld said.

"Here is an individual who is the head of a country, Iraq, who has proudly, publicly made a decision to go out and actively promote and finance human sacrifice for families that will have their youngsters kill innocent men, women and children," Rumsfeld said.

Though he did not say so, he appeared to refer to the current wave of suicide bombings on Israeli civilian targets.

"I am simply trying to let the people of Iraq understand what their leadership is doing, to let the people of the Middle East and the rest of the world ... know what is in fact being done to arm young people and send them out to blow up restaurants and shopping malls and pizza parlors," he said.

Rumsfeld blasted Iraq, Iran and Syria on Monday for inflaming violence in the Middle East, and said he raised the issue of Iraq on Wednesday to suggest it was important to "recognize that there is an infrastructure to terrorism."

Rumsfeld said Saddam had stated publicly the payment for families "if they're able to persuade a family to have their teen-ager strap explosives on them and go out and kill themselves and kill innocent men, women and children."

"He is pleased with his idea and is promoting it in the region," Rumsfeld said of Saddam. "It is a matter of public record."

Under the new Iraqi payscale, decided on March 12 during an Arab conference in Baghdad, the families of gunmen and others who die fighting the Israelis will still receive $10,000, while the relatives of suicide bombers will get $25,000...
then bring the new element up, see bolded above.

[Gaffer]

There were many other examples of his dealings with terrorist organizations. You can read back through other posts in this thread. He was not submitting to the un resolutions, or the sanctions. He had kicked all the inspectors out. He continually fired at US and British aircraft patrolling the no fly zones. He ignored all the cease fire agreements from the first war. Then there was the WMD which the WHOLE WORLD thought he had. And then there were the torture chambers and mass graves that showed what he did in his spare time.

As it turned out he was even worst than originally thought inspite of the lack of WMD's. They are still going through the tons of paper work captured when baghdad fell.

If you think he didn't pay homicide bombers then its up to you to prove it. His foreign minister bragged about it.

[Gunny]

The fact that Saddam paid suicide bombers does not equate to his support of outside terrorist forces. It equates with his hatred of Israel.
Find me a certified link where Saddam is supporting bin Laden or AQ.

Why? No one has stated Saddam was supporting bin Laden or AQ. Just some jackass saying it was said by the administration.

YOU provide the proof to back the allegation. I'm certainly not going to look for proof for an allegation I have not made.

[JohnDoe]

Ok, so you must have read this, posted above:

then bring the new element up, see bolded above.No, I had not read this yet kathianne. In fact, I came in on the end of this thread and still have not had the chance to read through all of the posts or even a pidgeon of them and I have stuck my foot in my mouth already, so please allow me to do some more reading on what you highlightened, BEFORE I answer your post.

I will answer it, but need to do more reading.

Because, the last thing I had read said that there was only solid proof that up through 1993 he supported "terrorists" or "terrorism groups". So, up till about 2 years after the Gulf War.

But like I have said, let me read some more.

[Kathianne]

No, I had not read this yet kathianne. In fact, I came in on the end of this thread and still have not had the chance to read through all of the posts or even a pidgeon of them and I have stuck my foot in my mouth already, so please allow me to do some more reading on what you highlightened, BEFORE I answer your post.

I will answer it, but need to do more reading.

Because, the last thing I had read said that there was only solid proof that up through 1993 he supported "terrorists" or "terrorism groups". So, up till about 2 years after the Gulf War.

But like I have said, let me read some more.

Sure thing, but after 2 days, haven't you had time? You certainly have made more posts since you responded.

[nevadamedic]

:laugh2:

[Kathianne]

What a convoluted way of thinking.

If Saddam paid Hamas suicide bomber families money to support them, then there must be PROOF of such.

If he did not pay them, there would be NO proof to provide.

And one man's comments against another man's, do not in any way suffice, not without tangiable evidence also.

I may have missed something, but in your last response, you implied that your answer was 'since '93'. I didn't see that qualifier earlier. Have you had a chance yet to read?

[JohnDoe]

I may have missed something, but in your last response, you implied that your answer was 'since '93'. I didn't see that qualifier earlier. Have you had a chance yet to read? I had completely forgot about this kathianne....thanks for reminding me by bringing this up...

[Kathianne]

I had completely forgot about this kathianne....thanks for reminding me by bringing this up...

No problem!

[JohnDoe]

This seems like what you are asking for?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml


Actually, I don't accept anything that Rumsfeld has told us without proof. There is no proof in this article. There is no "trace" on Saddam's money going to suicide bombers that we can review. There is no link to this supposed comment by Saddam upping the money that we could review, etc... We only have Rumsfeld saying such, and Rumsfeld is one of the people that wanted to strike iraq the day after 911.... in other words, he would have done anything to get the public to support going to war against Iraq, INCLUDING LYING AND FABRICATING EVIDENCE to mislead us IMO.

So, Kathianne, this article does not suffice as any kind of Proof imo....that saddam's support of terrorists continued after '93....

This does not mean that it is not true, that he continued supporting terrorism against the Israelis up until we invaded, just that other than hype, I have viewed no evidence of such, YET.

And EVEN if he did pay the families of suicide bombers in Israel, that is not a reason that we should have sent OUR men and women to die in a war against him and in the occupation of his country.

The connection the administration tried to make through misleading comments was that saddam supported Alqaeda....that saddam supported the alqaeda that caused 911.

[Kathianne]

Actually, I don't accept anything that Rumsfeld has told us without proof. There is no proof in this article. There is no "trace" on Saddam's money going to suicide bombers that we can review. There is no link to this supposed comment by Saddam upping the money that we could review, etc... We only have Rumsfeld saying such, and Rumsfeld is one of the people that wanted to strike iraq the day after 911.... in other words, he would have done anything to get the public to support going to war against Iraq, INCLUDING LYING AND FABRICATING EVIDENCE to mislead us IMO.

So, Kathianne, this article does not suffice as any kind of Proof imo....that saddam's support of terrorists continued after '93....

This does not mean that it is not true, that he continued supporting terrorism against the Israelis up until we invaded, just that other than hype, I have viewed no evidence of such, YET.

And EVEN if he did pay the families of suicide bombers in Israel, that is not a reason that we should have sent OUR men and women to die in a war against him and in the occupation of his country.

The connection the administration tried to make through misleading comments was that saddam supported Alqaeda....that saddam supported the alqaeda that caused 911.

I could understand if it were 'just' Rumsfeld, though it wasn't:


Mahmoud Safi, leader of a pro-Iraqi Palestinian group, the Arab Liberation Front, acknowledged that the support payments for relatives make it easier for some potential bombers to make up their minds. "Some people stop me on the street, saying if you increase the payment to $50,000 I'll do it immediately," Safi said. He also suggested such remarks were made mostly in jest.

Saddam has said the Palestinians need weapons and money instead of peace proposals and has provided payments throughout a year and a half of Israeli-Palestinian battles. "I saw on Iraqi TV President Saddam saying he will continue supporting the (uprising) even if it means selling his own clothes," said Safi.

[JohnDoe]

I could understand if it were 'just' Rumsfeld, though it wasn't:ok, there is someone elses word besides mr. Rumsfeld. And perhaps I could take his word as fact if I knew more about him.

As I have mentioned before, I have always believed these accusations regarding Saddam paying families of those that killed Israelis to be true. I have not seen confirmed information of such, though.

The reason I believe it to be true is because of the VICERAL animosity between the two over the years, (Israel/Iraq), and the actions that had been taken against one another over the years.

I just found this article below, it is long, it mostly discredits the Al Qaeda terrorism ties of Saddam, but i don't think it discredited the paying of families of suicide bombers?

As I get time, I am doing various searches on this topic, to see if I can find out more. There are some recent rumors that more links between Saddam and Al Qaeda have surfaced, but this, again, has not been validated yet, by any means.


ADMINISTRATION
Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2005

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter.

The administration has refused to provide the Sept. 21 President's Daily Brief, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists.

The information was provided to Bush on September 21, 2001 during the "President's Daily Brief," a 30- to 45-minute early-morning national security briefing. Information for PDBs has routinely been derived from electronic intercepts, human agents, and reports from foreign intelligence services, as well as more mundane sources such as news reports and public statements by foreign leaders.

One of the more intriguing things that Bush was told during the briefing was that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources.

The September 21, 2001, briefing was prepared at the request of the president, who was eager in the days following the terrorist attacks to learn all that he could about any possible connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Much of the contents of the September 21 PDB were later incorporated, albeit in a slightly different form, into a lengthier CIA analysis examining not only Al Qaeda's contacts with Iraq, but also Iraq's support for international terrorism. Although the CIA found scant evidence of collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, the agency reported that it had long since established that Iraq had previously supported the notorious Abu Nidal terrorist organization, and had provided tens of millions of dollars and logistical support to Palestinian groups, including payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists...

The conclusions drawn in the lengthier CIA assessment-which has also been denied to the committee-were strikingly similar to those provided to President Bush in the September 21 PDB, according to records and sources. In the four years since Bush received the briefing, according to highly placed government officials, little evidence has come to light to contradict the CIA's original conclusion that no collaborative relationship existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"What the President was told on September 21," said one former high-level official, "was consistent with everything he has been told since-that the evidence was just not there."

In arguing their case for war with Iraq, the president and vice president said after the September 11 attacks that Al Qaeda and Iraq had significant ties, and they cited the possibility that Iraq might share chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons with Al Qaeda for a terrorist attack against the United States.

Democrats in Congress, as well as other critics of the Bush administration, charge that Bush and Cheney misrepresented and distorted intelligence information to bolster their case for war with Iraq. The president and vice president have insisted that they unknowingly relied on faulty and erroneous intelligence, provided mostly by the CIA.

The new information on the September 21 PDB and the subsequent CIA analysis bears on the question of what the CIA told the president and how the administration used that information as it made its case for war with Iraq.

The central rationale for going to war against Iraq, of course, was that Saddam Hussein had biological and chemical weapons, and that he was pursuing an aggressive program to build nuclear weapons. Despite those claims, no weapons were ever discovered after the war, either by United Nations inspectors or by U.S. military authorities.

Much of the blame for the incorrect information in statements made by the president and other senior administration officials regarding the weapons-of-mass-destruction issue has fallen on the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies.

In April 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in a bipartisan report that the CIA's prewar assertion that Saddam's regime was "reconstituting its nuclear weapons program" and "has chemical and biological weapons" were "overstated, or were not supported by the underlying intelligence provided to the Committee."

The Bush administration has cited that report and similar findings by a presidential commission as evidence of massive CIA intelligence failures in assessing Iraq's unconventional-weapons capability...


Although the Senate Intelligence Committee and the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, commonly known as the 9/11 commission, pointed to incorrect CIA assessments on the WMD issue, they both also said that, for the most part, the CIA and other agencies did indeed provide policy makers with accurate information regarding the lack of evidence of ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq.



But a comparison of public statements by the president, the vice president, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld show that in the days just before a congressional vote authorizing war, they professed to have been given information from U.S. intelligence assessments showing evidence of an Iraq-Al Qaeda link.

"You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror," President Bush said on September 25, 2002.

The next day, Rumsfeld said, "We have what we consider to be credible evidence that Al Qaeda leaders have sought contacts with Iraq who could help them acquire … weapons-of-mass-destruction capabilities."

The most explosive of allegations came from Cheney, who said that September 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta, the pilot of the first plane to crash into the World Trade Center, had met in Prague, in the Czech Republic, with a senior Iraqi intelligence agent, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al-Ani, five months before the attacks. On December 9, 2001, Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press: "[I]t's pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in [the Czech Republic] last April, several months before the attack."

Cheney continued to make the charge, even after he was briefed, according to government records and officials, that both the CIA and the FBI discounted the possibility of such a meeting.

Credit card and phone records appear to demonstrate that Atta was in Virginia Beach, Va., at the time of the alleged meeting, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials. Al-Ani, the Iraqi intelligence official with whom Atta was said to have met in Prague, was later taken into custody by U.S. authorities. He not only denied the report of the meeting with Atta, but said that he was not in Prague at the time of the supposed meeting, according to published reports.

In June 2004, the 9/11 commission concluded: "There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda also occurred after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior bin Laden associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between Al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States."

Regarding the alleged meeting in Prague, the commission concluded: "We do not believe that such a meeting occurred."

Still, Cheney did not concede the point. "We have never been able to prove that there was a connection to 9/11," Cheney said after the commission announced it could not find significant links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. But the vice president again pointed out the existence of a Czech intelligence service report that Atta and the Iraqi agent had met in Prague. "That's never been proved. But it's never been disproved," Cheney said.

The following month, July 2004, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded in its review of the CIA's prewar intelligence: "Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collected that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime's possible links to al-Qaeda."

One reason that Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld made statements that contradicted what they were told in CIA briefings might have been that they were receiving information from another source that purported to have evidence of Al Qaeda-Iraq ties. The information came from a covert intelligence unit set up shortly after the September 11 attacks by then-Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith.

Feith was a protégé of, and intensely loyal to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, then-Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz, and Cheney's then-chief of staff and national security adviser, I. Lewis (Scooter) Libby. The secretive unit was set up because Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Libby did not believe the CIA would be able to get to the bottom of the matter of Iraq-Al Qaeda ties. The four men shared a long-standing distrust of the CIA from their earlier positions in government, and felt that the agency had failed massively by not predicting the September 11 attacks.
...

continued at link!

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2005/1122nj1.htm


also, here is another article about terrorists in Iraq that states this:


Although Zarqawi may have cooperated with al Qaeda in the past, officials said it is increasingly clear that he has been operating independently of bin Laden's group and has his own network of operatives.

The other group, Ansar al-Islam, began in 2001 among Kurdish Sunni Islamic fundamentalists in northern Iraq, fighting against the two secular Kurdish groups that operated under the protection of the United States. At one point, bin Laden supported Ansar, as did Zarqawi, who is believed to have visited their area more than once. Tenet referred to Ansar as one of the Sunni groups that had benefited from al Qaeda links.



at this link, the whole article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16_2.html

I may have given this link earlier, not certain?

[Kathianne]

ok, there is someone elses word besides mr. Rumsfeld. And perhaps I could take his word as fact if I knew more about him.

As I have mentioned before, I have always believed these accusations regarding Saddam paying families of those that killed Israelis to be true. I have not seen confirmed information of such, though.

The reason I believe it to be true is because of the VICERAL animosity between the two over the years, (Israel/Iraq), and the actions that had been taken against one another over the years.

I just found this article below, it is long, it mostly discredits the Al Qaeda terrorism ties of Saddam, but i don't think it discredited the paying of families of suicide bombers?

As I get time, I am doing various searches on this topic, to see if I can find out more. There are some recent rumors that more links between Saddam and Al Qaeda have surfaced, but this, again, has not been validated yet, by any means.



also, here is another article about terrorists in Iraq that states this:



at this link, the whole article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16_2.html

I may have given this link earlier, not certain?

The question was not Hussein and al Qaeda, rather did Hussein fund terrorists.

[JohnDoe]

The question was not Hussein and al Qaeda, rather did Hussein fund terrorists.Since I have not read this entire thread,

May I ask:

WHY is that the question?

Why is Saddam's support for suicide bombers of Israelis' families a point that has to be made?

Was this point a reason for us sending our men and women in to the War in Iraq? Why is it imprtant to the issue of the War we went in to in Iraq? Was this posted somewhere in the thread, that saddam's support of suicide bomber families was the reason we went to war against Iraq and someone is trying to dismiss this?

Can you please explain to me what is going on here and what I have missed, IF you have been following it?

I just can't read through all of the posts involved in this thread! lol

[Kathianne]

Since I have not read this entire thread,

May I ask:

WHY is that the question?

Why is Saddam's support for suicide bombers of Israelis' families a point that has to be made?

Was this point a reason for us sending our men and women in to the War in Iraq? Why is it imprtant to the issue of the War we went in to in Iraq? Was this posted somewhere in the thread, that saddam's support of suicide bomber families was the reason we went to war against Iraq and someone is trying to dismiss this?

Can you please explain to me what is going on here and what I have missed, IF you have been following it?

I just can't read through all of the posts involved in this thread! lol

Your post #247. As for Iraq, no they are different issues, it being one; along with the failure to comply to the ceasefire from first gulf war; failure or rather non-compliance in accounting for WMD; fear of terrorism from ME following the 9/11 attacks...