Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (214273)	1/23/2007 8:07:36 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

I guess you don't see the obvious problem with this information. ALL the high level folks in the ME playground knew/know the US is lookging for a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, so folks captured by the US are going to know exactly what kind of information would be "valuable" to their captors. I imagine even the interrogators make it clear. Such "confessions" are probably not worth the paper they are written on. It's unfortunate, but there you are. And of course, AFTER we invaded the Baathists would have joined up with the insurgents. No suprise there. And it's possible Saddam got desperate after 9/11 and started putting out feelers- not that we have evidence for that, and not that this would have anything to do with what you and I were talking about- and I think you've forgotten the main point again. We're talking about connections before the US invasion; we're talking about connections BEFORE 9/11- since you are the one who said there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam (remember?). That the US invasion drove dispossessed Baathists into the arms of Al Qaeda and all other sorts of insurgent groups, I have no doubt whatsoever. Remember what we're talking about- we're talking about connections between Saddam and 9/11- so you need Saddam Al Qaeda connections from the 2000-2001 time frame (if you notice what you post talks about Saddam being worried about being a target AFTER the Taliban- so 9/11 has already happened- what we were talking about was a link TO 9/11, via Al Qaeda- remember?). I just don't see anything. I understand you are convinced, but I see no hard evidence on this. Since Iraq was such a bureaucratic society I'd expect SOME sort of paper trail. Maybe there is one, and it just hasn't been found yet- but this "I heard..." stuff from folks in CIA interrogation? PS- Azzam's testimony is ridiculous. I think I read something recently on him. I'll try to find it.

To: Ilaine who wrote (214273)	1/23/2007 8:20:18 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 281500

This is very good: en.wikipedia.org if you note, Azzam's quote about Saddam "controlling" Al Qaeda fighters (which I don't actually believe, btw- I don't imagine they are very easy to "control")- was in the context of an iminent US invasion. I suspect Saddam's control of the mountainous borders, at this point, was a low priority. He's focusing on the coming US invasion, obviously. Also, make sure you read the part about the Iraqi "relationship" with ANSAR being one that consisted of spying on them, and infiltrating them. I buy that- as I already said I did. I know I read something else about Azzam. The above is good- but not exactly what I was looking for.