Saddam Hussein's view on Iraq War...according to his interrogator

[Ego]

http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/151/iraq_war_saddams_view

[MrBogey]

Give me a rundown of the interesting parts so I don't have to follow a dozen seperate video links.

[Ego]

He said that the UN weapons inspectors destroyed most of his WMDs already, and he personally ordered the destruction of the rest of them. He kept this info under his hat because he didn't want Iran trying to invade his country again.

Even he was bothered by the behavior of his children at times.

And for the biggie, Saddam had no relationship with Bin Laden. Religious fanatacism bothered him, and wasn't in line with how he ruled his country. Any kind of relationship with Bin Laden would have just caused him unnecessary troubles.

[Deadbent]

Thanks for the abridged version, Ego.


But I can only wonder what parts of his sons behavior bothered him.
Was it throwing **** victims to pet tigers...or the violence, or... other?

[Treat_Yourself]

Thanks for the abridged version, Ego.


But I can only wonder what parts of his sons behavior bothered him.
Was it throwing **** victims to pet tigers...or the violence, or... other?

Didn't Uday shoot his driver or something at a dinner party once? That probably bothered Saddam. Imagine the embarrassment of having your son kill your servant in front of your guests.

[JoeyDVDZ]

He said that the UN weapons inspectors destroyed most of his WMDs already, and he personally ordered the destruction of the rest of them. He kept this info under his hat because he didn't want Iran trying to invade his country again.

Even he was bothered by the behavior of his children at times.

And for the biggie, Saddam had no relationship with Bin Laden. Religious fanatacism bothered him, and wasn't in line with how he ruled his country. Any kind of relationship with Bin Laden would have just caused him unnecessary troubles.

As big an animal as Saddam was, this part seemed to be true. He wasn't particularly religious, and ran Iraq as a secular nation. he wasn't big on jihads. (We shouldda gone after Pakistan, imho.)

[DonTheTrucker]

Wow, I guess the hippies were right. Saddam was a nice guy who never hurt anyone. :rolleyes:

[Voss's Tumor]

Wow, I guess the hippies were right. Saddam was a nice guy who never hurt anyone. :rolleyes:

Wow, I guess the non-hippies were right. We should totally invade every country who makes funny faces at us until we have no military left! Go USA! :rolleyes:

It doesn't have to be one extreme or the other. I bathe, I was a soldier, I'm well educated, the war in Iraq was a mistake.

[Three Hole Puncher]

Wow, I guess the hippies were right. Saddam was a nice guy who never hurt anyone. :rolleyes: Sure, he hurt lot's of people... his own savage people, and the savage people living in adjacent countries... and who gives a fuck about ANY of those savages?

250 billion dollars of American taxpayer $$$ to make life marginally better for a pack of savages? Ummm... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it wasn't worth tree fiddy, let alone $250 billion.

Taking the bold stances... that's how I roll.

Anyone who thinks this fucking war has brought more security and stability to the U.S. should just go run a hose from their car's tailpipe and in through their bedroom window.

[Voss's Tumor]

If we're fighting terrorism, we're in Afghanistan/Pakistan. If we're being humanitarians, we're in Darfur or other African shit hole.

Being in Iraq accomplishes... I don't even know what the fuck it accomplishes. This stabilizing the region bullshit is just a fucking fairy tale.

[DonTheTrucker]

Sure, he hurt lot's of people... his own savage people, and the savage people living in adjacent countries... and who gives a fuck about ANY of those savages?

250 billion dollars of American taxpayer $$$ to make life marginally better for a pack of savages? Ummm... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say it wasn't worth tree fiddy, let alone $250 billion.

Taking the bold stances... that's how I roll.

Anyone who thinks this fucking war has brought more security and stability to the U.S. should just go run a hose from their car's tailpipe and in through their bedroom window.

If we're fighting terrorism, we're in Afghanistan/Pakistan. If we're being humanitarians, we're in Darfur or other African shit hole.

Being in Iraq accomplishes... I don't even know what the fuck it accomplishes. This stabilizing the region bullshit is just a fucking fairy tale.

http://www.strivingtogether.com/images/hls-lg.jpg

It really is too easy with you people. :D It's a good thing TOG doesn't work here.

[Voss's Tumor]

I'm glad our concern with the very real bad shit that's going amuses you, Don.

[Glenn Dandy]

my brain needs this information.... great story.

[Vyce]

As big an animal as Saddam was, this part seemed to be true. He wasn't particularly religious, and ran Iraq as a secular nation. he wasn't big on jihads. (We shouldda gone after Pakistan, imho.)

But he DID use them. There is a misconception out there that because Saddam was secular, he didn't fund terrorists or the jihad, but he most certainly did.

Per a Pentagon report (http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf) released just a few days ago, which documents in detail Saddam's numerous terrorism ties.

For example, The Army of Muhammad was allowed to operate in Bahrain. AoM is a known al-Qaeda subsidiary that has, in the past, expressed loyalty to Bin Laden. He also funded Egypt's Islamic Jihad, and a former Jihad leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, went on to become one of Bin Laden's deputies and spokemen.

Read pages 41 of the report for examples of more terrorist groups Saddam supported or was trying to work with, but the entire document is full of information if you have the time to pore through it. For example, I haven't even touched the fact that Saddam supported Hamas and the militant Palestinian movement.

Basically, yes, Saddam was a secular ruler, but he still supported the jihad not because of any religious imperative to spread Islam, but rather he wanted to use it as his tool in order to spread his own power and influence across the Arab world. To Saddam, it was essentially a business venture. Pour some funding into these terror groups, use them as my proxies.

[seeinred]

Well now I feel bad that we killed him.

[THE FEZ MAN]

Well now I feel bad that we killed him.

but he threatened GW's daddy 13 years ago.....




the war in iraq is wrong.

[Vyce]

Well now I feel bad that we killed him.

What's this "we" shit. It was the Iraqis. And not without good reason.

[Three Hole Puncher]

But he DID use them. There is a misconception out there that because Saddam was secular, he didn't fund terrorists or the jihad, but he most certainly did.

Per a Pentagon report (http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf) released just a few days ago, which documents in detail Saddam's numerous terrorism ties.

For example, The Army of Muhammad was allowed to operate in Bahrain. AoM is a known al-Qaeda subsidiary that has, in the past, expressed loyalty to Bin Laden. He also funded Egypt's Islamic Jihad, and a former Jihad leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, went on to become one of Bin Laden's deputies and spokemen.

Read pages 41 of the report for examples of more terrorist groups Saddam supported or was trying to work with, but the entire document is full of information if you have the time to pore through it. For example, I haven't even touched the fact that Saddam supported Hamas and the militant Palestinian movement.

Basically, yes, Saddam was a secular ruler, but he still supported the jihad not because of any religious imperative to spread Islam, but rather he wanted to use it as his tool in order to spread his own power and influence across the Arab world. To Saddam, it was essentially a business venture. Pour some funding into these terror groups, use them as my proxies.

And again...

Anyone who thinks this fucking war has brought more security and stability to the U.S. should just go run a hose from their car's tailpipe and in through their bedroom window.

[Ego]

But he DID use them. There is a misconception out there that because Saddam was secular, he didn't fund terrorists or the jihad, but he most certainly did.

Per a Pentagon report (http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf) released just a few days ago, which documents in detail Saddam's numerous terrorism ties.

For example, The Army of Muhammad was allowed to operate in Bahrain. AoM is a known al-Qaeda subsidiary that has, in the past, expressed loyalty to Bin Laden. He also funded Egypt's Islamic Jihad, and a former Jihad leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, went on to become one of Bin Laden's deputies and spokemen.

Read pages 41 of the report for examples of more terrorist groups Saddam supported or was trying to work with, but the entire document is full of information if you have the time to pore through it. For example, I haven't even touched the fact that Saddam supported Hamas and the militant Palestinian movement.

Basically, yes, Saddam was a secular ruler, but he still supported the jihad not because of any religious imperative to spread Islam, but rather he wanted to use it as his tool in order to spread his own power and influence across the Arab world. To Saddam, it was essentially a business venture. Pour some funding into these terror groups, use them as my proxies.
I don't think he really used them. If indeed he did give those groups any money, it probably was so that they wouldn't give him any more trouble within his own country than he already had to deal with.

Didn't Uday shoot his driver or something at a dinner party once?
Didn't Jayson Williams do the same thing?

[Treat_Yourself]

Wow, I guess the hippies were right. Saddam was a nice guy who never hurt anyone. :rolleyes:

Well, he never hurt anyone I care about. Dead kurds, arabs and Iranians don't count for much as far as I'm concerned.

[Vyce]

I don't think he really used them. If indeed he did give those groups any money, it probably was so that they wouldn't give him any more trouble within his own country than he already had to deal with.


*sigh*

Did you even look at that report I linked? I realize it's long, nearly 100 pages, but it lays it all out quite thoroughly.

He didn't give them money "just so they wouldn't give him any trouble".

Saddam was using them for his own ends. Did Saddam give a shit about the jihad? No. But he still wasn't above USING jihadists to further his own goals in the Middle East.

[Treat_Yourself]

But he DID use them. There is a misconception out there that because Saddam was secular, he didn't fund terrorists or the jihad, but he most certainly did.

Per a Pentagon report (http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf) released just a few days ago, which documents in detail Saddam's numerous terrorism ties.

For example, The Army of Muhammad was allowed to operate in Bahrain. AoM is a known al-Qaeda subsidiary that has, in the past, expressed loyalty to Bin Laden. He also funded Egypt's Islamic Jihad, and a former Jihad leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, went on to become one of Bin Laden's deputies and spokemen.

Read pages 41 of the report for examples of more terrorist groups Saddam supported or was trying to work with, but the entire document is full of information if you have the time to pore through it. For example, I haven't even touched the fact that Saddam supported Hamas and the militant Palestinian movement.

Basically, yes, Saddam was a secular ruler, but he still supported the jihad not because of any religious imperative to spread Islam, but rather he wanted to use it as his tool in order to spread his own power and influence across the Arab world. To Saddam, it was essentially a business venture. Pour some funding into these terror groups, use them as my proxies.

Syria and Iran do that much more often and overtly yet we went after Saddam for some reason. Saudi Arabia has a long history with and still funds Al Qaeda, yet we ignore them. In addition, on page 15 of the PDF you linked to it says this. But the relationships between Iraq and the groups advocating
radical pan-Islamic doctrines are much more complex. This study found no
"smoking gun" (i.e., direct connection) between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda.
Saddam's interest in, and support for, non-state actors was spread across a variety
of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. So while saddam supported terrorist groups he didn't support the one that hit us on 9/11/. Saudi Arabia did. On page 41 it states that Saddam's goals were not the same as Bin Laden's. Saddam wanted to control the middle east. Bin Laden was aiming for a caliphate that would control the world.

It makes more sense to me to attack al qaeda's funding by spending that 12.5 billion per month on building new nuclear plants, developing alternative automotive fuels, and starving the terrorist financiers of all of their income rather than occupying Iraq. The middle east produces nothing of any value except for oil. The tiny bit of dates and pistacio nuts in the region aren't enough to keep the population alive much less fund terrorism. If we could properly develop alternatives to oil we could starve Al Qaeda and make the middle east and venezuela completely irrelevant.

[Fr. Dougal]

If we could properly develop alternatives to oil we could starve Al Qaeda and make the middle east and venezuela completely irrelevant.

Actually, don't even have to go that far. We just need the NIMBYs to let us explore the oil reserves in this side of the world.

Someone here posted a report just a few weeks ago, forget if it was NASA or DOE or something, but it showed how there's a new shelf of oil recently discovered along the US/Canadian border... bigger than what's in the middle east -- and if tapped, it would make the US and Canada the 2 largest oil countries in the world.

Or something like that. Can't remember the deets.

[Ego]

That would be the biggest "fuck you" we could possibly give to that part of the world. Unfortunately nobody around here has the gumption and wherewithall to get things started. Fuck the hippies. We can dig and drill with minimal damage to the surrounding areas. The worst thing we'd do is have a few li'l pipes running near Bambi's salt lick, and all of our oil needs and wants would be satisfied for my lifetime. Fuck the future too. I won't see anything beyond my years (obviously), and by then they'll probably have more of this alternative fuel stuff nailed down.

[Vyce]

Syria and Iran do that much more often and overtly yet we went after Saddam for some reason. Saudi Arabia has a long history with and still funds Al Qaeda, yet we ignore them. In addition, on page 15 of the PDF you linked to it says this. So while saddam supported terrorist groups he didn't support the one that hit us on 9/11/. Saudi Arabia did. On page 41 it states that Saddam's goals were not the same as Bin Laden's. Saddam wanted to control the middle east. Bin Laden was aiming for a caliphate that would control the world.

I didn't reference all of this stuff as a justification for the Iraq War.

[Justification goes far beyond just Saddam having, or not having, links to Al-Qaeda, but that's been debated endlessly on this board before and I don't want to derail the discussion now with it.]

I did it to clear up the myth that Saddam wouldn't work with jihadist terror groups. He absolutely would - and DID. He just did it for different reasons. People assumed that because he was secular, he wouldn't break bread with the jihadists, but he did, when it served his own selfish ends.

BTW, I also referenced it to give you all some perspective - when Saddam says, no, I wouldn't deal with religious fanatics like Bin Laden: take what he has to say with not a grain, but a Buick-sized block of salt. He absolutely would, and DID, deal with religious zealots, so long as he was able to get something out of it.

[Treat_Yourself]

I didn't reference all of this stuff as a justification for the Iraq War.

[Justification goes far beyond just Saddam having, or not having, links to Al-Qaeda, but that's been debated endlessly on this board before and I don't want to derail the discussion now with it.]

I did it to clear up the myth that Saddam wouldn't work with jihadist terror groups. He absolutely would - and DID. He just did it for different reasons. People assumed that because he was secular, he wouldn't break bread with the jihadists, but he did, when it served his own selfish ends.

BTW, I also referenced it to give you all some perspective - when Saddam says, no, I wouldn't deal with religious fanatics like Bin Laden: take what he has to say with not a grain, but a Buick-sized block of salt. He absolutely would, and DID, deal with religious zealots, so long as he was able to get something out of it.
I get it. A lot of folks know a little and think they've got the whole story. "I know Saddam was a secular dictator, so I'm going to believe he's never had any contact with terrorists." Those people are annoying and so convinced that they're right that they'll never bother to look up the truth. Terrorism is a tool of foreign policy in the middle east.

[DonTheTrucker]

I'm glad our concern with the very real bad shit that's going amuses you, Don.

Because perish the thought that you're actually wrong and in the long run this may help. :icon_roll

I've said it 100 times. The idea was right, the execution has been shit.

If you're going to fight a war, you fight a war. You kill the bad guys no matter where they are. Then you come home.

[DC Chick]

It's 2008 and people are just learning that Saddam Hussein didn't assist Al Queada? We are so doomed.

My internet connection is too inconsistent to watch video. Does Hussein mention his many appearances on South Park?

[BIV]

It's 2008 and people are just learning that Saddam Hussein didn't assist Al Queada? We are so doomed.

My internet connection is too inconsistent to watch video. Does Hussein mention his many appearances on South Park?

Again, he didn't assist Al Queada. He DID assist terror groups. Al Queada is not our only target. As said a few posts before, we were 100% right to go into Iraq, it's just the execution that sucked balls.

[DonTheTrucker]

Again, he didn't assist Al Queada. He DID assist terror groups. Al Queada is not our only target. As said a few posts before, we were 100% right to go into Iraq, it's just the execution that sucked balls.

Are you saying that Osama Bin Laden isn't the ONLY TERRORIST IN THE WHOLE WORLD? Blasphemy.

[NoSurviivors]

our war in Iraq is a strategic move in the region. OK.

That's why we're paying.. and dying.. for what?

Bush is lucky to be alive right now.

[mascan42]

our war in Iraq is a strategic move in the region. OK.

That's why we're paying.. and dying.. for what?

Bush is lucky to be alive right now.
No kidding. If my own father, hardly a liberal by any means, is hoping that Bush gets assassinated, something has gone horribly wrong.

[Schmed]

Because perish the thought that you're actually wrong and in the long run this may help. :icon_roll

I've said it 100 times. The idea was right, the execution has been shit.

If you're going to fight a war, you fight a war. You kill the bad guys no matter where they are. Then you come home.

Correct, you use this air power we have invested BILLIONS of dollars in, instead of sending our boys in to have their faces shot off. If we would have gotten involved a bit earlier during WWII, perhaps many more lives would've been saved, instead of sitting back and watching Adolf stomp all over Europe.

"What we need is more Patton and less Patent leather" - M. Savage.

[Treat_Yourself]

Because perish the thought that you're actually wrong and in the long run this may help. :icon_roll

I've said it 100 times. The idea was right, the execution has been shit.

If you're going to fight a war, you fight a war. You kill the bad guys no matter where they are. Then you come home.

Why was the idea right? What's going to be accomplished by taking out Saddam and giving a people with no history of democratic institutions and a very divided population democracy? The nations around them, Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular, have no interest in allowing Iraq to become a stable democracy and will encourage constant unrest in that nation.

The fact that the Iraqis really can't get along and the nations bordering Iraq don't want them to get along is going to make sure we continue to waste money on that shit hole instead of becoming energy self sufficient and allowing those desert savages to starve in their oil-soaked sandbox.

[Vyce]

Why was the idea right? What's going to be accomplished by taking out Saddam and giving a people with no history of democratic institutions and a very divided population democracy? The nations around them, Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular, have no interest in allowing Iraq to become a stable democracy and will encourage constant unrest in that nation.


Things aren't quite so grim. There is good news to be found. For example, jihad isn't going so well (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-20-fighters_N.htm?csp=34) in Iraq these days, and there are some undertones that maybe the Iraqis actually do want a secular democratic government instead of an Islamic theocracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120596796160950147.html?mod=rss_opinion_main). Basically, the Iraqis got tired of the terrorism and jihadist bullshit and the well seems to have been poisoned.

You are correct in that Iraq still has many troubles, chiefly how they're going to reconcile their deep-seated Shia / Sunni rifts, but let's not act as if hope isn't there. Most Americans, even if they don't agree with the war anymore, now do believe that we CAN achieve success there and accomplish our goals.

[Treat_Yourself]

Things aren't quite so grim. There is good news to be found. For example, jihad isn't going so well (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2008-03-20-fighters_N.htm?csp=34) in Iraq these days, and there are some undertones that maybe the Iraqis actually do want a secular democratic government instead of an Islamic theocracy (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120596796160950147.html?mod=rss_opinion_main). Basically, the Iraqis got tired of the terrorism and jihadist bullshit and the well seems to have been poisoned.

You are correct in that Iraq still has many troubles, chiefly how they're going to reconcile their deep-seated Shia / Sunni rifts, but let's not act as if hope isn't there. Most Americans, even if they don't agree with the war anymore, now do believe that we CAN achieve success there and accomplish our goals.


It's going to be a long term effort and it may work out. I just think the money could have been spent better elsewhere.

[Voss's Tumor]

Saddam was using them for his own ends. Did Saddam give a shit about the jihad? No. But he still wasn't above USING jihadists to further his own goals in the Middle East.

So did we and neither were we when Russia was the enemy.

[DonTheTrucker]

No kidding. If my own father, hardly a liberal by any means, is hoping that Bush gets assassinated, something has gone horribly wrong.


Sorry to break it to you, but your dad is a fucking asshole. Anyone who wishes any president assassinated needs to grow the fuck up. I didn't care for Clinton, but I don't want the man dead. Jesus, some people don't know where to stop.

Correct, you use this air power we have invested BILLIONS of dollars in, instead of sending our boys in to have their faces shot off. If we would have gotten involved a bit earlier during WWII, perhaps many more lives would've been saved, instead of sitting back and watching Adolf stomp all over Europe.

"What we need is more Patton and less Patent leather" - M. Savage.

No shit. Now I understand the need to limit collateral damage, but we worry too much what the world thinks of us as it is. Do what's right and the world will come around. Do what the world wants you to do, and a few thousand people die that shouldn't have. Like I said, the idea is noble. The execution, not so much.

Why was the idea right? What's going to be accomplished by taking out Saddam and giving a people with no history of democratic institutions and a very divided population democracy? The nations around them, Iran and Saudi Arabia in particular, have no interest in allowing Iraq to become a stable democracy and will encourage constant unrest in that nation.

The fact that the Iraqis really can't get along and the nations bordering Iraq don't want them to get along is going to make sure we continue to waste money on that shit hole instead of becoming energy self sufficient and allowing those desert savages to starve in their oil-soaked sandbox.

It's easy enough to call these people savages, but if any country in the region is going to be dragged into the 21st century, it's Iraq. They're the main secular nation in the Arab world. If we can't succeed there we may have to turn the whole area into glass.

Ask anyone who has been there. The average Iraqi wants us to succeed. It's the muckrakers from Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran coming there to start trouble.

[weakside]

The reasons for going into Iraq were questionable, and although what determines a “good war” is subjective at best, you certainly would be hard-pressed in finding anyone who believes this one was well managed. But no matter what history has to say about this war I will never be sorry that Hussein or his pieces of shit sons are gone. Yes, I know the world is filled with terrible people but at the very least there are three less of them now.

[nikoloslvy]

I don't think he really used them. If indeed he did give those groups any money, it probably was so that they wouldn't give him any more trouble within his own country than he already had to deal with.


Didn't Jayson Williams do the same thing?


http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2008/03/saddam-and-terrorism-emerging-insights.html

Friday, March 14, 2008
Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents

Declassified portions of the Pentagon Report tittled, "Iraqi Perspectives Project- Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, have been released in a 94 page report listing Saddam Hussein's direct ties with terrorism.
The 94 page PDF file is available through ABC and can be accessed here.

http://a.abcnews.com/images/pdf/Pentagon_Report_V1.pdf

Over 600,000 documents and several thousand hours of audio and video footage, were captured from Iraq, to which, as of 2006, only 15 percent had been fully translated and reported on. Of that 15 percent, declassified portions of the report formed by the Pentagon, has been released.

Approximately 100,000 have some level (full, partial, or a summary) of translation. Some captured documents are hundreds of pages in length.

The report documents ties between Saddam Hussein and multiple terrorist organizations, dating back to 1988, with some of the recent memeorandums from Iraqi Intelligence Services (IIS), dated in 2003.

To get us started, the "abstract, found on page #93 states:

Captured Iraqi documents have uncovered evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism, including a variety of revolutionary, liberation, nationalist, and Islamic terrorist organizations. While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely. Because Saddam’s security organizations and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network operated with similar aims (at least in the short term), considerable overlap was inevitable when monitoring, contacting, financing, and training the same outside groups. This created both the appearance of and, in some ways, a “de facto” link between the organizations. At times, these organizations would work together in pursuit of shared goals but still maintain their autonomy and independence because of innate caution and mutual distrust. Though the execution of Iraqi terror plots was not always successful, evidence shows that Saddam’s use of terrorist tactics and his support for terrorist groups remained strong up until the collapse of the regime.



The beginning of the report explains what the report is, why it was created, the documents used to make the conclusions they do and a list of extracts, which are captured documents that have been translated, from various points in time from 1988 to 2003.

A review of the captured documents, the ones that have been translated, indicate: (Page #15-16)

#1. The Iraqi regime was involved in regional and international terrorist operations prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. The predominant targets of Iraqi state terror operations were Iraqi citizens, both inside and outside of Iraq.

#2. On occasion, the Iraqi intelligence services directly targeted the regime's perceived enemies, including non-Iraqis. Non-Iraqi casualties often resulted from Iraqi sponsorship of non-governmental terrorist groups.

#3. Saddam's regime often cooperated directly, albeit cautiously, with terrorist groups when they believed such groups could help advance Iraq's long-term goals. The regime carefully recorded its connections to Palestinian terror organizations in numerous government memos. One such example documents Iraqi financial support to families of suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

#4. State sponsorship of terrorism became such a routine tool of state power that Iraq developed elaborate bureaucratic processes to monitor progress and accountability in the recruiting, training, and resourcing of terrorists. Examples include the regime's development, construction, certification, and training for car bombs and suicide vests in 1999 and 2000.

Documents indicate that the Saddam's regime's use 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.

On Page #21, the report discusses Saddam's use of terror as an instrument of state power.

By page #23, an extract from a captured document from July of 2002, is presented, which is a response from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to a letter from Saddam asking for a list of weapons available in Iraqi embassies overseas.

Subject: Weapons Information:
1. We would like to inform you of the following:

Romania - Missile launcher and missile
Athens [Greece] - Explosive charges
Vienna [Austria] - Explosive charges, rifles with silencers, hand grenades, and Kalashnikov rifles
Pakistan - Explosive materials of TNT
India - Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Thailand - Plastic explosive charges and booby-trapped suitcases
Prague [Czech] - Missile launcher and missile
Turkey - Missile launcher, missile, and pistols with silencers
Sana'a [Yemen] - Missile launcher, missile, plastic explosives and explosive charges
Baku [Azerbaijan] - American missile launcher, plastic explosives and booby-trapped suitcases
Beirut [Lebanon] - American missile launcher, plastic explosives and booby-trapped suitcases
Gulf nations - Explosive material outside the embassies

2. Between the year 2000 and 2002 ... explosive materials were transported to the embassies outside Iraq for special work, upon the approval of the Director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. The responsibility for these materials is in the hands of heads of stations. Some of these materials were transported in the political
mail carriers [Diplomatic Pouch]. Some of these materials were transported by car in booby-trapped briefcases.



They go on to discuss the disposal of those materials in case the embassies were raided.

State Sponsorship of Suicide Operations.

The report provides examples of suicide operations becoming a "popular weapon" in Saddam's arsenal, in the decade leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

Captured documents from the General Military Intelligence Directorate (GMID), (example is extract 6), show that organizations within the regime were already considering the use of suicide terrorism in the fall of 2001. (See page #27)

The report goes on to document terrorist ties and on page #44, they state that in return for financial support, particularly Hamas, "were willing to do Saddam's bidding."

In a document dated March of 2003 (Extract 16), the depth of Hamas' commitment to Saddam was clearly revealed in a memeorandum to the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).

State Relationships with Terrorist Groups.

Starting on page #33, the report shows a memeorandum from 1993, providing detailed evidence of ties with a number of terrorist organizationsm that Saddam was supporting.

One specific terrorist group is mentioned, Saddam agreed on a plan to train commandos from Egyptian Islamic Jihad. This is the group that assassinated Anwar Sadat and the founder of that group was, Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Since 1991 it has been led by Ayman al-Zawahiri.

The Army of Muhammad.

Captured documents reveal that the regime was willing to support organizations it knew to be part of al Qaeda-as long as that organization's near-term goals supported Saddam's longterm
vision.

The Director for the IIS sent a directive to an Iraqi operative in Bahrain in July of 2001, ordering him to investigate a particular group of interest called the Army of Muhammad. (See page 54, extract 24):

We have learned of a group calling themselves The Army of Muhammad... has threatened Kuwaiti authorities and plans to attack American and Western interests ...We need detailed information about this group, their activities, their objectives, and their most distinguished leaders. We need to know [to] whom they belong to and with whom they are connected. Give this subject your utmost attention.



On July 9, 2001, the received their response from the operative where he reports that the Army of Muhammad is working with Osama bin Laden.

A later memorandum from the same collection to the Director of the IIS reports that the Army of Muhammad is endeavoring to receive assistance [from Iraq] to implement its objectives, and that the local IIS station has been told to deal with them in accordance with priorities previously established.

The IIS agent goes on to inform the Director that "this organization is an offshoot of bin Laden, but that their objectives are similar but with different names that can be a way of camouflaging the organization."



This report shows it's conclusions on page #65 and I have only highlighted small portions of this whole report. It is well worth reading to know exactly what Saddam Hussein was planning, his ties to terrorist groups throughout the world, his associations and direct monetary and training support for groups directly beholden and tied to al-Qaeda as well as documented evidence, via memeorandums from Saddam's own Intelligence service, that "attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces."

The organizations that put this report together for the Pentagon were the Joint Advanced Warfighting Program and the Institute for Defense Analyses.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ _________________________

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25604&page=5&cp=1#hec180381


The Truth About Saddam and Terrorism
by Christopher Holton
Posted: 03/21/2008

Sponsored By:
Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had extensive ties to terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, according to an official report published by the Pentagon’s Institute for Defense Analyses and released through the Joint Forces Command.

That report, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents, came up with some startling revelations in its 59 pages:

• Saddam’s Iraq trained terrorists for use inside and outside Iraq and in 1999 sent 10 terrorist-training graduates to London to carry out attacks throughout Europe. (Page 1)

• Saddam’s Iraq stockpiled munitions (including explosives, missile launchers and silencer-equipped small arms) at its embassies in the Middle East, Asia and parts of Europe. (Pages 3-4)

• In September of 2001, Saddam’s Iraq sought out and compiled a list of 43 suicide-bomb volunteers in a “Martyrdom Project.” (Pages 7-8)

• The report contains language from a captured Iraqi document which references an attempted assassination of Danielle Mitterand, wife of French President Francois Mitterand, by car bomb. (Page 11)

• The report’s authors describe Saddam’s Iraq as a “long-standing supporter of international terrorism” including several organizations designated as international terrorist organizations by the US State Department. (Page 13)

• Among the organizations that captured Iraqi documents indicate were supported by Saddam’s Iraq were: (Pages 13-15).

> Fatah-Revolutionary Council (Abu Nidal Organization). (Author’s note: Abu Nidal was generally considered the world’s most dangerous terrorist in the late 1980s.)

> Palestine Liberation Front (led by Abu al-Abbas). (Author’s note: Abbas was the mastermind of the Achille Lauro hijacking and the murderer of American Leon Klinghoffer.)

> Renewal and Jihad Organization, which the Iraqi documents describe as a “Secret Islamic Palestinian Organization” that “believes in armed jihad against the Americans and Western interests.”

> Islamic Ulama Group, a radical Islamist group in northern Pakistan.

> The Afghani Islamic Party, led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. (Author’s note: Hekmatyar is an Afghan mujahideen warlord who is worked with Osama Bin Laden during the 1990s. US intelligence agencies have lost track of Hekmatyar, but believe that he was trying to join Al Qaeda in 2002 when he released a video message calling for armed jihad against the United States. Reports from BBC-TV and CNN claim that Hekmatyar helped Osama Bin Laden escape from Tora Bora in 2002.

> Islamic Jihad Organization (Egyptian Islamic Jihad). This is perhaps the most startling revelation in the report. Egyptian Islamic Jihad was founded and led by Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, now Al Qaeda’s co-leader. The group is most infamous for the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. Zawahiri is known to have worked in the Al Qaeda organization since its inception, while he was still leader of Egyptian Islamic Jihad in fact. Al Qaeda was started around 1989 and Zawahiri is said to have been a senior member from its earliest days. He was present in Afghanistan with Bin Laden at the time and later he was in Sudan with Bin Laden until being expelled in 1996 and eventually returning to Afghanistan. In 1998, Zawahiri formally merged Egyptian Islamic Jihad with Al Qaeda and has served as co-leader of Al Qaeda ever since. Iraq’s relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad was so close that captured documents indicate that Iraq was able to request that the group hold off on operations against the regime in Egypt in 1993.

In other words, Saddam’s Iraq had a longstanding relationship with the co-leader of Al Qaeda.

• Captured documents show that Saddam’s Iraq was training non-Iraqis in Iraqi training camps a decade before Operation Desert Storm, including fighters from the following nations: Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Syria, Eritrea, and Morroco. (Pages 15-16)

• A captured memorandum shows that Saddam’s Iraq had an agreement with an Islamist terrorist group to conduct operations against Egypt during the first Gulf War. (Page 16)

• A detailed, captured document from 1993 “illuminated how the outwardly secular Saddam regime found common cause with terrorist groups who drew their inspiration from radical Islam.” (Page 17)

• In January 1993, as the American military’s humanitarian mission was begun in Somalia, Saddam directed that Iraq “form a group to start hunting Americans present on Arab soil, especially Somalia.” (Page 18) Interestingly, Osama Bin Laden was setting up identical operations at the same time.

• Saddam’s secret intelligence service (IIS) hosted 13 conferences in 2002 for various terrorist groups. (Page 19)

• Captured Iraqi documents say that the IIS issued passports to known members of terrorist groups. (Page 19)

• Saddam’s Iraq had close ties and provided funding to Hamas, the Palestinian jihadist organization. Captured documents indicate that Hamas offered to carry out attacks for Saddam’s Iraq in return for his support. In fact, Hamas representatives informed the Iraqis that the organization had 35 armed cells around the world hidden among refugees, including in France, Sweden and Denmark. (Pages 24-25).

• Saddam’s IIS manufactured bombs in the early 1990s for terrorist Abu Abbas to conduct attacks against American and other interests. Three instances of these bombs failing are evidently the only thing that prevented terrorist attacks against these interests: (Page 30)

“A bomb intended to destroy the American ambassador’s residence in Jakarta, Indonesia failed.”

“Bombs designed to destroy the American Airlines office and Japanese embassy in the Philippines exploded prematurely and damaged only the front of the office, while killing one and wounding another of the terrorists transporting the explosives.”

• Saddam’s Iraq carried out terrorist attacks on members of humanitarian organizations operating in the Kurdish areas of Northern Iraq, including Doctors Without Borders, Handicap International and UN-affiliated organizations. (Pages 31-33)

• The IIS was willing to reach out to jihadist terrorist groups, including those known to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. This includes the “Army of Muhammad” in Bahrain, which had threatened Kuwaiti authorities and had plans to attack American and Western interests. (Pages 35-36)

• The report concludes with the following question: “Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?” The Institute for Defense Analyses then provides the answer:

Yes.

Conclusion

Those who claim that Saddam had no “direct, operational ties” to Al Qaeda are attempting to narrow the definition of “terrorist-sponsoring nation” to an impossible scope. By this definition, a nation, like Saddam’s Iraq, can provide money, arms, safe haven and cooperation to jihadist terrorist groups and not have “direct, operational ties” to terrorists.

This was never the standard by which a nation found itself on the US State Department’s list of terrorist-sponsoring nations and implies that, unless a dictator is found directly ordering a terrorist attack, that dictator cannot be considered as linked to a terrorist group.

The “direct, operational ties” standard was invented after the overthrow of Saddam and is a ridiculous standard that can never be met.

Five years after United States forces overthrew Saddam Hussein, the Pentagon has produced a blockbuster report that has been both misrepresented and ignored. That report shows that Saddam’s Iraq had extensive ties to international terrorist groups, both Islamist and secular, including organizations that were part of Al Qaeda. No ginned up definition invented for domestic political consumption can change the truth.

Mr. Holton is a Vice President with the Center for Security Policy and directs the Center�s Divest Terror Initiative, which targets investments in terrorist-sponsoring nations.

[nikoloslvy]

cough...