• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Al-Qaida Surges Back in Iraq, Reviving Old Fears

I was quoting the MSM. Aren't you at all suspicious about your source?

Absolutely. I'm always suspicious of anything that came out of the mouth of GWB.... oh, you mean the blogger? I suppose he might have misquoted the POTUS.

as for MSM? Your links led to Newsbusters and the Weekly Standard. Are they really any more reliable?
 
Can any one actually document with a reputable source their claims about AQ in Iraq prior to the war? I see unsubstantiated claims both ways...

From the beginning of his rise to power, one of Saddam's major objectives was to shift the regional balance of power favorably
towards Iraq. After the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing this objective motivated Saddam and his regime to increase their cooperation
with-and attempts to manipulate-Islamic fundamentalists and related terrorist organizations.
Documents indicate that the regime's us of terrorism was standard practice, although not always successful. From 1991 through
2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state
power.
Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

5 volumes of cataloged and referenced reports on Saddams ties to terrorism. Good reading.

Saddam was a dictator. He wasnt some pansy ass dictator...he ruled with a pretty iron grip and he had a military and the Guard to pretty much do his bidding. Like the Shah, he didnt allow terrorist organizations to plot against the Iraqi government and people...he would have simply made them disappear. So no...it is not likely you will find a group like Al Qaida operating in the borders of a country where the dictator for life would have no problem making their families vanish.

Saudi Arabia handles the terrorist problem in much the same way. UAE handles it a bit differently. In UAE, terror organizations can live, dwell, plan, bank, barbeque...whatever....but they cant ACT within the Emirate.
 
From the beginning of his rise to power, one of Saddam's major objectives was to shift the regional balance of power favorably
towards Iraq. After the 1991 Gulf War, pursuing this objective motivated Saddam and his regime to increase their cooperation
with-and attempts to manipulate-Islamic fundamentalists and related terrorist organizations.
Documents indicate that the regime's us of terrorism was standard practice, although not always successful. From 1991 through
2003, the Saddam regime regarded inspiring, sponsoring, directing, and executing acts of terrorism as an element of state
power.
Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

5 volumes of cataloged and referenced reports on Saddams ties to terrorism. Good reading.

Saddam was a dictator. He wasnt some pansy ass dictator...he ruled with a pretty iron grip and he had a military and the Guard to pretty much do his bidding. Like the Shah, he didnt allow terrorist organizations to plot against the Iraqi government and people...he would have simply made them disappear. So no...it is not likely you will find a group like Al Qaida operating in the borders of a country where the dictator for life would have no problem making their families vanish.

Saudi Arabia handles the terrorist problem in much the same way. UAE handles it a bit differently. In UAE, terror organizations can live, dwell, plan, bank, barbeque...whatever....but they cant ACT within the Emirate.

I wish I had time to read through all that. Based on the abstract it looks like probably there was little if any actual AQ presence in Iraq and any links where pretty tenuous at best, but they did work towards similar goals and had some secondhand connections. Have you read the full thing to verify if that is correct?
 
I wish I had time to read through all that. Based on the abstract it looks like probably there was little if any actual AQ presence in Iraq and any links where pretty tenuous at best, but they did work towards similar goals and had some secondhand connections. Have you read the full thing to verify if that is correct?
The report indicates there were multiple terrorist organizations present but not 'operating' in Iraq. AlQaida is a fundamentalist driven terrorist organization (not exactly team players), Saddam was a 'convenient' Muslim at best. If the question is were there active Al Qaida cells operating within Iraqs borders against the Iraqi people and government, then no..the report doesnt indicate that at all.

Al Qaida moved in as a presence after Saddam was ousted. If he were still in power there is little to no likelihood they would have had a real foothold in Iraq. But then...Saddam would have to still be in power.
 
The report indicates there were multiple terrorist organizations present but not 'operating' in Iraq. AlQaida is a fundamentalist driven terrorist organization (not exactly team players), Saddam was a 'convenient' Muslim at best. If the question is were there active Al Qaida cells operating within Iraqs borders against the Iraqi people and government, then no..the report doesnt indicate that at all.

Al Qaida moved in as a presence after Saddam was ousted. If he were still in power there is little to no likelihood they would have had a real foothold in Iraq. But then...Saddam would have to still be in power.

Thank you sir.
 
Can any one actually document with a reputable source their claims about AQ in Iraq prior to the war? I see unsubstantiated claims both ways...

Iraq's Alleged Al-Qaeda Ties Were Disputed Before War

This was a report based on a Senate Report.

In a classified January 2003 report, for instance, the CIA concluded that Hussein "viewed Islamic extremists operating inside Iraq as a threat." But one day after that conclusion was published, Levin noted, Vice President Cheney said the Iraqi government "aids and protects terrorists, including members of al-Qaeda."

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the report said. Tariq Aziz, the detained former deputy prime minister, has told the FBI that Hussein "only expressed negative sentiments about [Osama] bin Laden."

They did have a couple of operatives but Saddam was attempting to kick them out.
 
I wish the Democrats had used the tea party tactic of holding the debt ceiling hostage in 2006 to defund Bush vanity wars.
 
One thing is evident. If Saddam had any relationship to Al Qaida, Bush wouldn't miss the chance to accuse him of "support terrorism". He couldn't find any then he had to find an fake "WMD" to start his unjust war in Iraq.
 
If your looking for a source you should just read the 9/11 commission report...
 
Can any one actually document with a reputable source their claims about AQ in Iraq prior to the war? I see unsubstantiated claims both ways...

How do you define a reputable source?
 
The goal of AQ is to re-establish an Islamic empire similar to that of the ancient Islamic caliphate...
 
It is basic logic. Saddam was everything Al Q was/is fighting against in the Middle East.

It's called The Global War on Terrorism Hussein funded terrorists, plus made an attempt on the life of The President of The United States.

Those two facts, by themselves, made him a legitimate target.
 
And the islamic caliphate is a contradiction to the American theory of separation between state and church; I believe that church can play an important role in politics and that it is necessary in the middle east to have such a government!
 
You know, someone in this thread asked what would you consider a reputable source, I would answer that by saying the bible; however, since there is a separation of church and state it can never be used as a source in politics...
 
And the islamic caliphate is a contradiction to the American theory of separation between state and church; I believe that church can play an important role in politics and that it is necessary in the middle east to have such a government!

An Islamic calephate contradicts everything that The United States stands for.
 
You know, someone in this thread asked what would you consider a reputable source, I would answer that by saying the bible; however, since there is a separation of church and state it can never be used as a source in politics...

There's no such thing as the seperation of church and state, technically.
 
An Islamic calephate contradicts everything that The United States stands for.

Which makes you wonder why Bush spent $3T to make it easier for them by eliminating Hussein, who was an SOB but a secular SOB who hated al Qaida.
 
Which makes you wonder why Bush spent $3T to make it easier for them by eliminating Hussein, who was an SOB but a secular SOB who hated al Qaida.

Obama gave them the whole show when he surrendered our position to them.
 
Obama gave them the whole show when he surrendered our position to them.
Cant have it both ways. Obama didn't surrender our position. He really did absolutely nothing except NOT **** up the withdrawal agreements Bush signed before he left office.
 
Back
Top Bottom