Interesting news..

[justgotback]

But some will still say Saddam and his sons were no threat.... I tend to disagree...

Report: Saddam Hussein’s Son Plotted London Assassination Attack

Sunday, March 23, 2008



Saddam Hussein's son Uday planned to carry out an attack in London to assassinate the leader of an Iraqi opposition group in April 2000, it is being reported.
According to the U.K.'s Times of London newspaper, a new Pentagon study based on documents seized during the Iraq war reveal an aborted plot by Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — to kill London-based Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress.
Click here to read the Pentagon report.
Documents show that Fedayeen's orders were to carry out assassinations and bombings in London, the Times reported.
While the study showed no link between Saddam Hussein's regime and Al Qaeda, it does detail the former Iraq dictator's support for Middle Eastern terror groups, including those linked to Al Qaeda.
Also in the report are memos showing Uday ordered officials to “start planning special operations in the centres of the traitors’ symbols in the fields of London / Iran / self-ruled areas [Kurdish northern Iraq]”, it was reported.

[Frenchy]

So it didn't get past the planning stage?

[Delija]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

So it didn't get past the planning stage?

Sort of like my plans to pitch in the World Seriies, rob a bank, and have nightly sex with Rebecca Romjin.






Oh well, two out of three ain't bad....

LOL


Peace,
D.

[jtkratzer]

But the war in Iraq was about oil, not terrorism, right?

[Powerman]

Originally Posted by justgotback

But some will still say Saddam and his sons were no threat.... I tend to disagree...

JGB, you know I hold you in high regard. So answer me this....

The pre war intel tried to show a connection between AQ and Saddam. That his "active" WMD program was a threat, and worse, he was trying to go nuke. There has not been significant comfirmation of these things. Meaning Saddam was not much more of a threat than he had been for the nearly 10 years post GWI. He was no more a threat post 9/11 than he was pre 9/11.

This report does show links to terror groups and some talk to AQ. However, the report shows that most of Saddam's efforts were directed towards his own people and those trying to do him in. The story you posted again shows that the target to his agression was anti Saddam forces.

Pre 9/11, we did not need anymore justification to remove Saddam. The repeated U.N. violations were enough in my book. However, those violations did not warrent invasion because Saddam simply was not a big theat to the U.S., or the region. He was not going to be invading anyone again. Yet post 9/11, Saddam was painted as a clear and present danger to the U.S. and our interests. I have yet to see the evidience of that.

So, I don't see the connection to 9/11, or the threat to our nation. So let's just take 9/11 out of the picture. Pre 9/11, do you beleive the evidence we have found to date of Saddam's activities, do you believe it warranted an invasion of Iraq? Why do you believe that Saddam was such a threat to the U.S. that warranted the U.S. to circumvent the U.N. and invade Iraq?

Nobody has ever argued that Saddam was not a bad man and did terrible things. That he was a brutal dictator. I just don't believe he was a threat to us, nor do I believe he was a major player in "International" terror. He was a major player in Saddam terror. With the real threat to our nation that made itself clear on 9/11/01, I don't see Saddam being a bigger issue, I see Saddam being a lesser issue on 9/12/01. Please, explain to me why Saddam was a bigger issue post 9/11 than he was pre 9/11 as opposed to my argument that he was a problem we could have dealt with another time.

[KEVWYO]

Originally Posted by Delija

Sort of like my plans to pitch in the World Seriies, rob a bank, and have nightly sex with Rebecca Romjin.






Oh well, two out of three ain't bad....

LOL


Peace,
D.

So you're the only felon to pitch in the World Series???? Who'd you pitch for???? Man I bet your baseball card is worth tons!

[HPD SRT]

Buuuut they're dead now.... So does this just reinforce us going in? I think it helps.... I mean we needed to anyway.

[KEVWYO]

Man this is just like Ground Hog Day. First, HPD says this ...

Originally Posted by HPD`SRT

I think it helps.... I mean we needed to anyway.

.... and now we will have 129 back and forth responses to if we should have or no we shouldn't have gone into Iraq.

As for me, I think I would rather give birth to a pocupine on top of an igloo during a rampant hemmorhoid attack than get into this whole debate again.

I am now going to jab knitting needles in my eyes so that I can't read this anymore. Goodnight.

[HPD SRT]

Originally Posted by KEVWYO

I am now going to jab knitting needles in my eyes so that I can't read this anymore. Goodnight.

HAHAHA Sorry I brought it up lol, goodnight...

[Etta Place]

Originally Posted by justgotback

According to the U.K.'s Times of London newspaper, a new Pentagon study based on documents seized during the Iraq war reveal an aborted plot by Uday Hussein's elite paramilitary group — the Fedayeen — to kill London-based Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress.

Originally Posted by Powerman

JGB, you know I hold you in high regard. So answer me this....

The pre war intel tried to show a connection between AQ and Saddam. That his "active" WMD program was a threat, and worse, he was trying to go nuke. There has not been significant comfirmation of these things. Meaning Saddam was not much more of a threat than he had been for the nearly 10 years post GWI. He was no more a threat post 9/11 than he was pre 9/11.

This report does show links to terror groups and some talk to AQ. However, the report shows that most of Saddam's efforts were directed towards his own people and those trying to do him in. The story you posted again shows that the target to his agression was anti Saddam forces.

Pre 9/11, we did not need anymore justification to remove Saddam. The repeated U.N. violations were enough in my book. However, those violations did not warrent invasion because Saddam simply was not a big theat to the U.S., or the region. He was not going to be invading anyone again. Yet post 9/11, Saddam was painted as a clear and present danger to the U.S. and our interests. I have yet to see the evidience of that.

So, I don't see the connection to 9/11, or the threat to our nation. So let's just take 9/11 out of the picture. Pre 9/11, do you beleive the evidence we have found to date of Saddam's activities, do you believe it warranted an invasion of Iraq? Why do you believe that Saddam was such a threat to the U.S. that warranted the U.S. to circumvent the U.N. and invade Iraq?

Nobody has ever argued that Saddam was not a bad man and did terrible things. That he was a brutal dictator. I just don't believe he was a threat to us, nor do I believe he was a major player in "International" terror. He was a major player in Saddam terror. With the real threat to our nation that made itself clear on 9/11/01, I don't see Saddam being a bigger issue, I see Saddam being a lesser issue on 9/12/01. Please, explain to me why Saddam was a bigger issue post 9/11 than he was pre 9/11 as opposed to my argument that he was a problem we could have dealt with another time.

I agree with Powerman - for the most part. Ahmed Chalabi was a political opponent of Saddam. Not that killing opponents is acceptable, but wanting to kill him would be at least "understandable." The U.S. doesn't like him either.

The Truth About Ahmed Chalabi
Why the US Turned Against Their Former Golden Boy -- He was Preparing a Coup! What He Did as a Catspaw for Tehran: How He Nearly Bankrupted Jordan; the Billions He Stands to Make Out of the New Iraq
By ANDREW COCKBURN

In dawn raids today, American troops surrounded Ahmed Chalabi's headquarters and home in Baghdad, put a gun to his head, arrested two of his aides, and seized documents. Only five months ago, Chalabi was a guest of honor sitting right behind Laura Bush at the State of the Union. What brought about this astonishing fall from grace of the man who helped provide the faked intelligence that justified last year's war?

Andrew Cockburn: The Truth About Ahmed Chalabi