"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , Kevin Brooks
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
There are insinuations that he backed al-Qaeda...

Not insinuations--more like proven fact at this point. Let's see...Al
Zarqawi was AQ...Al Zarqawi was wounded by coalition forces in
Afghanistan
and fled....Al Zarqawi was allowed into Iraq by Hussein...Al Zarqawi was
given medical treatment in Baghdad...

The first is pretty unarguable. Two, three and four are claimed rather
than proven.

Then you apparently know more than General Franks...nah, I don't think so.
See his book.

There are other references to the links between Saddam and AAI; for example
the following describes some foreign national memebers who were captured
after they attacked PUK forces: "Interestingly, many captured Arab fighters
held passports with Iraqi visas, signaling that Iraq likely approved their
presence." www.meforum.org/article/579 This is in regards to foreign
fighters caught immediately after hostilities were initiated in March 03,
not any current batches.

I have yet to see any reputable source claim that Al Zarqawi did NOT receive
medical care in Baghdad. Given that Iran has reportedly *not* been a safe
haven for AAI fighters (those that tried to flee across the border early in
the conflict were either turned back or taken into custody), then how the
heck do you think Zarqawi got into Iraq without governmental approval?

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck--it's a duck.


Al Zarqawi ended up working with Anser
Al Islam, which group had Hussein's "stamp of approval".

Ansar al-Islam opposed a secular Kurdistan, which might have earned
Hussein's approval... except that they preferred Sharia law and a
theocracy, which sets them directly against Hussein.

As others have pointed out in the media, Saddam had no problem with allying
himself with those who did not really like him, and apparently Al Zarqawi
and friends were likewise amenable to working with those they did not really
care for when it served their purposes.


Yep, that adds up
to providing support to AQ.

Only if you simultaneously believe that Saudi Arabia is the main
bankroll and wellspring for al-Qaeda, which apparently has been
_completely_ discredited: it seems Saudi Arabia hasn't even *heard* of
Wahabbi Islam, let alone ever supported it.

Nobody has said that--that is you once again stretching things to the
extreme in a juvenile attempt to sway the argument from its focus. Al
Zarqawi was in Iraq; even if you want to discount him, you still have Abu
Abbas and Abu Nidal to contend with, not to mention the funneling of money
to those suicide bombers' families, and that curious training facility
overrun early in the war, etc. But hey, you want to turn this into a Saudi
Arabia thread to get the attention off of those things, right? Try again.


Franks covers this in his recent book, just as
he covered it last night in his speech.

So now we're into "book X is truth and book Y is lies"?

You have yet to produce Book Y. Boox X was written by the former CENTCOM
commander, a man yet shown to have ever presented anything but the truth.
You should read it--but I doubt you will, being as it goes against some of
your more cherished preconceptions.


Meanwhile, it's certain that Nidal died in Iraq. (Couldn't have
happened
to a nicer guy). It's alleged he died of terminal lead poisoning. Hard
to say how that proves that Iraq was a major terrorist threat.

Gee, how long had they allowed him to live and operate from Iraq prior to
that? A period of some *years*...

Same as Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US, in other words.

Excuse me, but were any of those fellows in Iraq? No? Why do you persist in
trying to change the subject, which is Iraq? Try again.


(One man's "wicked murdering terrorist" is another man's "fleeing
persecuted refugee": cf. Brennan, Artt and Kirby in the US)

Trying to change the subject?

We're talking about terrorists?

No, we are talking about Iraq, Hussein, and terrorists; if your ideas don't
entertwine with at least two of the above, you are posting to the wrong
thread.


Okay, it is a change of subject: Brennan, Artt and Kirby weren't
*alleged* terrorists, they were *convicted* terrorists who ran to the US
after killing their way out of prison.

They have not been to Iraq, and have nothing to do with Hussein--take it to
another thread.


By this argument, the UK needs to at least invade Boston and
California.

Strawman...

Evasion.

Abu Nidal. Abbu Abbas. Al Zarqawi. Those are the names that first popped up,
and which you are apparently evading. This is about Iraq, not NI.


Is harbouring convicted terrorists a hostile act, or casus belli? Or
not?

So you are saying that Hussein harboring terrorists was causus belli? Good.


Harboured a few, but then so does the US according to us.

If you wish to start a thread about how you think the UK should go to war
with the US, go right ahead; the issue here is Hussein and his support of
terrorists, though.

Why do you find the subject so frightening?

I don't--I am not arguing it here, because it is not the subject here, no
matter how much you want to try to change it. Nor am I going to introduce
Bloody Sunday into the discussion, or UK officials turning a blind eye to
past Protestant terrorist acts--because they are not part and parcel to the
discussion at hand. Get it?


You have acknowledged that he did indeed support
terrorists, so what are you arguing about now?

He allowed them residence and refused to extradite them, true

Well, you left out that training camp that one of them was apparently
running outside Baghdad, the money he was providing to support suicide
bombings, etc.; but it is nice to see you agree he was supporting
terrorists. That wasn't so hard now, was it?

Brooks

snip