Ansar Al Islam

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You do know that Ansar Al Islam is an anti-Saddam group, right?

BS. They entered Iraq at the request of Saddam to help suppress the Kurds.

[Vympel]

Oh really? And you have a source for this interesting little claim?

[Axis Kast]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, al-Qaeda operatives are now positioned to lead Iraqi irregulars in some cases – especially against American troops.

And before you go off and say, “This is a product of the war; al-Qaeda is capitalizing on a good opportunity,” let me remind you that this is what we’ve been worried about all along! The fact that the two would cooperate – directly or indirectly – to bring harm upon the United States. Think long and hard. Somebody just “showed up” on Saddam’s doorstep as of eleven days after the war and made the case? “Hi, we’re al-Qaeda, and we’re here to help you?” No. Lines of communications were clearly in existence prior to today. Saddam might not have welcomed al-Qaeda’s support. He might have tried to crush al-Qaeda cells wherever they were found. That does not mean he wasn’t in communication with acknowledged members of Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization.

[Vympel]

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, al-Qaeda operatives are now positioned to lead Iraqi irregulars in some cases – especially against American troops.

This is your big source? My own cities newspaper? Surely you can do better. Considering the standard of war reporting, I take this with about as much faith as the claims of the Iraqi Ministry of Information.

And before you go off and say, “This is a product of the war; al-Qaeda is capitalizing on a good opportunity,” let me remind you that this is what we’ve been worried about all along! The fact that the two would cooperate – directly or indirectly – to bring harm upon the United States.

Is your brain broken? "It's a good thing we attacked them, look what's happened now that we've attacked them!" fallacy.

Think long and hard. Somebody just “showed up” on Saddam’s doorstep as of eleven days after the war and made the case? “Hi, we’re al-Qaeda, and we’re here to help you?” No. Lines of communications were clearly in existence prior to today.

Now it's clearly

Saddam might not have welcomed al-Qaeda’s support. He might have tried to crush al-Qaeda cells wherever they were found. That does not mean he wasn’t in communication with acknowledged members of Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist organization.

What kind of idiotic contradiction is that? The FBI may be in fucking communication with Al-Qaeda while trying to crush them wherever they're found, does that mean this is a terror link? What a moronic thing to say.

[Axis Kast]

This is your big source? My own cities newspaper? Surely you can do better. Considering the standard of war reporting, I take this with about as much faith as the claims of the Iraqi Ministry of Information.

So it’s your city’s newspaper. Big deal. That doesn’t chaff the validity.

Is your brain broken? "It's a good thing we attacked them, look what's happened now that we've attacked them!" fallacy.

I don’t follow.

What kind of idiotic contradiction is that? The FBI may be in fucking communication with Al-Qaeda while trying to crush them wherever they're found, does that mean this is a terror link? What a moronic thing to say.

Al-Qaeda showed up in Iraq within eleven days of our invasion to assist the Iraqi government in ousting the American invasion force. You might be blinded by wishful thinking or the desire to call this a coincidence. I’m more skeptical. I can’t see how al-Qaeda would cement ties to Saddam that would put them on the front line, in command of Iraqi contingents within eleven days’ time. Open lines of communication must have existed.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t attempt to incorporate al-Qaeda into its own field command structure.

[Vympel]

So it’s your city’s newspaper. Big deal. That doesn’t chaff the validity.

No, what DOES chafe the validity is the craptacular standard of Iraq war-reporting, and the numerous enthusiastic non-confirmed false claims made.

I don’t follow.

What's not to follow? You're saying: "look what happened when we attacked them, they're cooperating to harm the United States [in particular, the invading troops of the United States]. I *told* you we should've attacked em!"

Al-Qaeda showed up in Iraq within eleven days of our invasion to assist the Iraqi government in ousting the American invasion force. You might be blinded by wishful thinking or the desire to call this a coincidence.

Coincidence? It's no coincidence, if it's really happening. What's unbelievable about 11 days? You know Syrian volunteers and other Arabs are pouring in to, right? Conspiracy?

I’m more skeptical. I can’t see how al-Qaeda would cement ties to Saddam that would put them on the front line, in command of Iraqi contingents within eleven days’ time. Open lines of communication must have existed.

These open lines of communications are also used by Arab volunteers. They're roads.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t attempt to incorporate al-Qaeda into its own field command structure.

You have an article from a newspaper at the height of a war. I will apply extreme salt to such claims- especially as the thought that Iraq would bother using Al-Qaeda to lead its irregulars seems rather odd, seeing as they have plenty of trained (well, by Arab standards) military men to do that for them.

[Stormbringer]

Axis, you're using the results of our attack to justify the attack in the first place. If you don't see the problem with it I suggest you look up a book on debating.

[Axis Kast]

No, what DOES chafe the validity is the craptacular standard of Iraq war-reporting, and the numerous enthusiastic non-confirmed false claims made.

A general argument. Every media outlet in whole damn world has made mistakes thus far. You attempt to decry as villainous, preposterous, or outright falsehoods, anything with which you disagree on the basis of “generally poor war-reporting.”

What's not to follow? You're saying: "look what happened when we attacked them, they're cooperating to harm the United States [in particular, the invading troops of the United States]. I *told* you we should've attacked em!"

No. Can you not read?

My argument is that current cooperation indicates prolonged contact. Not to mention that assumptions that al-Qaeda would avoid any kind of cooperation with Iraq are proven wrong.

How do you plan to explain al-Qaeda operatives in senior leadership positions over Iraqi irregulars on the front line against the American forces? In the space of eleven days they suddenly proved their worth to the Ba’ath regimé? Please. I’ve heard better arguments put forth by Pravda in their coverage of the “Glorious Afghan War.”

Coincidence? It's no coincidence, if it's really happening. What's unbelievable about 11 days? You know Syrian volunteers and other Arabs are pouring in to, right? Conspiracy?

“What’s unbelievable about 11 days?” The fact that al-Qaeda seems to have crossed over in Saddam’s book from “hated” into “tolerated” – complete with agents with command authority over Iraqi formations on the front-line, that’s what.

These open lines of communications are also used by Arab volunteers. They're roads.

Arab volunteers are one thing. Al-Qaeda in leadership positions quite another.

You have an article from a newspaper at the height of a war. I will apply extreme salt to such claims- especially as the thought that Iraq would bother using Al-Qaeda to lead its irregulars seems rather odd, seeing as they have plenty of trained (well, by Arab standards) military men to do that for them.

It’s what the article put forth.

Axis, you're using the results of our attack to justify the attack in the first place. If you don't see the problem with it I suggest you look up a book on debating.

No. I’m suggesting that one of the results of our attack doesn’t mesh as a simple, off-the-cuff response as Vympel would have us believe. There’s absolutely no way for al-Qaeda to have suddenly been approved for leadership positions in Iraq within the space of eleven days’ time.

[Vympel]

A general argument. Every media outlet in whole damn world has made mistakes thus far. You attempt to decry as villainous, preposterous, or outright falsehoods, anything with which you disagree on the basis of “generally poor war-reporting.”

Despite this, you take these extremely dubious claims as absolute fact.

My argument is that current cooperation indicates prolonged contact. Not to mention that assumptions that al-Qaeda would avoid any kind of cooperation with Iraq are proven wrong.

Ah, now they're 'proven' wrong by this article written in the middle of a war. I guess the 'chemical factory' that turned out to be nothing of the sort would also be held up by you to be irrefutable evidence the moment it appeared.

How do you plan to explain al-Qaeda operatives in senior leadership positions over Iraqi irregulars on the front line against the American forces?

I plan to explain it by calling it yet another piece of unconfirmed nonsense until proven otherwise.

In the space of eleven days they suddenly proved their worth to the Ba’ath regimé? Please. I’ve heard better arguments put forth by Pravda in their coverage of the “Glorious Afghan War.”

Ah, so you don't like 11 days? What about 30? How bout 60? What would satisfy you? What's the magic number for a country to take on allies while it's being invaded?

“What’s unbelievable about 11 days?” The fact that al-Qaeda seems to have crossed over in Saddam’s book from “hated” into “tolerated” – complete with agents with command authority over Iraqi formations on the front-line, that’s what.

Now it's "command authority over Iraqi formations on the front-line"! Firstly, an irregular force is not a 'formation', and secondly, it's a fucking stupid claim.

Arab volunteers are one thing. Al-Qaeda in leadership positions quite another.

What 'leadership positions'? What does the article say? For all we know, Some guy from Afghanistan is waltzing into a town with a few resistance fighters and saying, "come on then, let's go!". Irregular forces are not fricking combat formations, they're partisans.

It’s what the article put forth.

See above, specifically- moronic claim that we will probably not here about ever again for the rest of this conflict. To paraphrase a pithy comic on the quality of the war coverage posted a few days ago: Rumor. Speculation. Conjecture on Speculation. And Speculation on Conjecture.

No. I’m suggesting that one of the results of our attack doesn’t mesh as a simple, off-the-cuff response as Vympel would have us believe. There’s absolutely no way for al-Qaeda to have suddenly been approved for leadership positions in Iraq within the space of eleven days’ time.

Not only do I reiterate the question as to the number of days to take on allies that would 'satisfy' you, I also reiterate it's a fucking moronic claim (at least, the version proposed by yourself is- your original claim being nothing but 'leading irregulars') that doesn't make any sense and fits in perfectly with the vast tide of bullshit that's flowed from all media sources during this war.

[Axis Kast]

Despite this, you take these extremely dubious claims as absolute fact.

In this case, I think the allegations are quite believable, yes.

Ah, now they're 'proven' wrong by this article written in the middle of a war. I guess the 'chemical factory' that turned out to be nothing of the sort would also be held up by you to be irrefutable evidence the moment it appeared.

Again, this has devolved into opinion. My trust in a news outlet versus your pessimism that the truth can ever be told.

I plan to explain it by calling it yet another piece of unconfirmed nonsense until proven otherwise.

That’s not my problem.

Ah, so you don't like 11 days? What about 30? How bout 60? What would satisfy you? What's the magic number for a country to take on allies while it's being invaded?

Allies that were once hunted to the death and are suddenly appearing in command positions? A few months, at least.

Now it's "command authority over Iraqi formations on the front-line"! Firstly, an irregular force is not a 'formation', and secondly, it's a fucking stupid claim.

Al-Qaeda troops in command of dozens of Iraqi irregulars. No matter how small, that’s a “formation.” “Fucking stupid claim” from whose point of view? Yours, oh esteemed Vympel, Master of truthful Russian spin-doctoring?”

What 'leadership positions'? What does the article say? For all we know, Some guy from Afghanistan is waltzing into a town with a few resistance fighters and saying, "come on then, let's go!". Irregular forces are not fricking combat formations, they're partisans.

Partisans connected with Hussein’s military and acting in tandem.

They are apparently guiding the efforts of Iraqi militia in operating against American task forces. That implies a position of authority over at least a few dozen men.

Not only do I reiterate the question as to the number of days to take on allies that would 'satisfy' you, I also reiterate it's a fucking moronic claim (at least, the version proposed by yourself is- your original claim being nothing but 'leading irregulars') that doesn't make any sense and fits in perfectly with the vast tide of bullshit that's flowed from all media sources during this war.

See above. I’ve answered both questions.

[Vympel]

In this case, I think the allegations are quite believable, yes.

Justify this belief, preferably explaining why Iraq would need foreign terrorists to lead irregulars- admit it, the only reason you think the allegations are believable in this case is because you like what it says.

Again, this has devolved into opinion. My trust in a news outlet versus your pessimism that the truth can ever be told.

"Truth is the first casualty" is all that needs to be said- and I think this war is yet another example of that, and this is obvious to all.

That’s not my problem.

Neither is your clinging to this dubious little article my problem, as no serious person would hold it up as irrefutable proof of long standing links to terrorism.

Allies that were once hunted to the death and are suddenly appearing in command positions? A few months, at least.

Why? You don't have any objective reason for why it should be a few months- and furthermore, why is it a question of time at all? The advance and progress of the US/UK forces has been overwhelming. Why shouldn't it be a question of the dire straits the regime is in?

Al-Qaeda troops in command of dozens of Iraqi irregulars. No matter how small, that’s a “formation.” “Fucking stupid claim” from whose point of view? Yours, oh esteemed Vympel

Leave your bullshit 'point of view' crap at the door. This is about evidence. When someone refers to a 'formation' they mean an organized military unit, on the operational level, not a rabble with AKs that feels like shooting at Americans. Explain the reasoning as to the how and why of Iraq getting Al-Qaeda to 'lead' irregulars- Iraq has *plenty* of regime fanatics for that purpose- they're called the Fedayeen.

Master of truthful Russian spin-doctoring?”

??? Riiiighhhht, because I so wholeheartedly believe them.

Partisans connected with Hussein’s military

How? Is any resistance force connected with the military? In what way? Would you argue that Russian partisans were connected to the Kremlin because they were fighting of their own volition behind enemy lines?

and acting in tandem.

Again, how?

Post the article. Because I just searched smh.com.au and didn't find anything at all.

They are apparently guiding the efforts of Iraqi militia in operating against American task forces. That implies a position of authority over at least a few dozen men.

And of course, such authority over the equivalent of less than a platoon of rabble with AKs and defective RPGs must be imposed at the military command level.

[Axis Kast]

Justify this belief, preferably explaining why Iraq would need foreign terrorists to lead irregulars- admit it, the only reason you think the allegations are believable in this case is because you like what it says.

The Fedyaheen Saddam cannot be everywhere at once. If indeed Saddam has cultivated ties with al-Qaeda, he might have chosen to deploy them in distant regions on which the front is most at risk.

And you oppose this because you dislike what it says.

"Truth is the first casualty" is all that needs to be said- and I think this war is yet another example of that, and this is obvious to all.

Obvious, yes. Always? No.

Why? You don't have any objective reason.

Certainly I do. Saddam is unlikely to turn over the policy of many years within the space of eleven days. More likely this operation was either considered for some time or occurred as the result of a brightening friendship. Both are equally as distasteful.

Leave your bullshit 'point of view' crap at the door. This is about evidence. When someone refers to a 'formation' they mean an organized military unit, on the operational level, not a rabble with AKs that feels like shooting at Americans. Explain the reasoning as to the how and why of Iraq getting Al-Qaeda to 'lead' irregulars- Iraq has *plenty* of regime fanatics for that purpose- they're called the Fedayeen.

Formation can mean dozens of irregulars.

Again, the Fedayeen cannot be everywhere. At times they encourage revolt or even a decrease in morale. Al-Qaeda are an experiment – but a dangerous one nonetheless.

How? Is any resistance force connected with the military? In what way? Would you argue that Russian partisans were connected to the Kremlin because they were fighting of their own volition behind enemy lines?

We’ve seen irregulars fighting in the name of Hussein. They likely coordinate with the military where possible, via ties through local troops.

Post the article. Because I just searched smh.com.au and didn't find anything at all.

I can’t find it now. It was posted here.

And of course, such authority over the equivalent of less than a platoon of rabble with AKs and defective RPGs must be imposed at the military command level.

In this case? Probably.

[Vympel]

The Fedyaheen Saddam cannot be everywhere at once. If indeed Saddam has cultivated ties with al-Qaeda, he might have chosen to deploy them in distant regions on which the front is most at risk.

Present evidence that he is deploying them at all- indeed, that they are under any sort of control from the regime.

And you oppose this because you dislike what it says.

No, because unlike you, I can provide reasons for my skepticism. You have merely said "in this case, I think it's believable".

Obvious, yes. Always? No.

Sure. So why do you hold this article up as canon fact?

Certainly I do. Saddam is unlikely to turn over the policy of many years within the space of eleven days.

Before you posted this, I edited my question: "and furthermore, why is it a question of time at all? The advance and progress of the US/UK forces has been overwhelming. Why shouldn't it be a question of the dire straits the regime is in?"

Regardless-

More likely this operation was either considered for some time or occurred as the result of a brightening friendship. Both are equally as distasteful.

And considering that this dubious 'option' occured after Iraq was attacked, the point remains that it cannot be used to justify an attack.

Formation can mean dozens of irregulars.

Again, the Fedayeen cannot be everywhere. At times they encourage revolt or even a decrease in morale. Al-Qaeda are an experiment – but a dangerous one nonetheless.

And who set this sequence of events off? Of course it's dangerous, but that's what happens when you attack another country- resistance. And Iraq certainly won't be turning down fighters coming in to kill the Great Satan- if they are even in a position to control which forces enter their country, which they are not.

We’ve seen irregulars fighting in the name of Hussein. They likely coordinate with the military where possible, via ties through local troops.

Of course they'd fight in the name of Hussein. This doesn't mean they're under his orders.

I can’t find it now. It was posted here.

Then it should be even easier to find.

In this case? Probably.

Why? It's exceedingly improbable if anything. Command and control is supposed to have collapsed. How is the regime communication with forces in the field? We have seen sporadic attacks everywhere, rather than coordinated strikes on US/UK supply lines like they should be doing. This is the flimsiest of conjecture.

[Dralan]

Ansar Al Islam is a group of Conservative Islamist who HATE Saddam Hussein. One of their leaders lives in Norway and there has been alot of news on this group especialy lately.

Right now, what is left of them is fighting the coalition forces because they do not want any hostile nation invading their home either.

I unfortunatly have to log of shortly so I cant post much longer now. I will post what facts I have about them the next time i log on.

[Axis Kast]

Present evidence that he is deploying them at all- indeed, that they are under any sort of control from the regime.

The irregulars are ostensibly linked to Baghdad and coordinate with regular troops. CNN and FOX news continually report on battles between Coalition forces and "a mix of regular and irregular troops." Hell, the Fedyaheen Saddam are irregulars.

No, because unlike you, I can provide reasons for my skepticism. You have merely said "in this case, I think it's believable".

Your skepticism is based on generality. "All media have made mistakes and so all reporting is probably false."

Sure. So why do you hold this article up as canon fact?

The scenario is probable.

Before you posted this, I edited my question: "and furthermore, why is it a question of time at all? The advance and progress of the US/UK forces has been overwhelming. Why shouldn't it be a question of the dire straits the regime is in?"

You still haven't considered whether Saddam would merely retract a standing order of execution of captured al-Qaeda operatives eleven days into a war.

And considering that this dubious 'option' occured after Iraq was attacked, the point remains that it cannot be used to justify an attack.

It can be used as evidence of the correctness of the White House allegations.

Given that it is unlikely agents of al-Qaeda would "show up" within eleven days time to fight for Iraq and enjoy a passable welcome - and avoid being shot -, I'd say lines of communication - at the least - are in clear existence. Do we really want Hussein speaking with al-Qaeda? No.

And who set this sequence of events off? Of course it's dangerous, but that's what happens when you attack another country- resistance. And Iraq certainly won't be turning down fighters coming in to kill the Great Satan- if they are even in a position to control which forces enter their country, which they are not.

They might turn down a few dozen al-Qaeda operatives. They didn't according to this article. That indicates a few things - namely ties with al-Qaeda splinter groups.

Keep in mind that we've feared that they'd cooperate all along - al-Qaeda and Iraq, that is. We feared we'd have to go in and then face this kind of thing anyway if Saddam made the first move.

Of course they'd fight in the name of Hussein. This doesn't mean they're under his orders.

Again, see the regulars and irregulars argument.

Then it should be even easier to find.

But it wasn't. Deal.

Why? It's exceedingly improbable if anything. Command and control is supposed to have collapsed. How is the regime communication with forces in the field? We have seen sporadic attacks everywhere, rather than coordinated strikes on US/UK supply lines like they should be doing. This is the flimsiest of conjecture.

The lines lasted long enough for al-Qaeda to gain immediate and localized command over some irregulars.

And Saddam probably has links with certain groups periodically.

[Durandal]

My argument is that current cooperation indicates prolonged contact. Not to mention that assumptions that al-Qaeda would avoid any kind of cooperation with Iraq are proven wrong.

Unjustifiable logical leap. The simplest explanation is that it's an alliance of opportunity. Current cooperation against a mutual enemy does not indicate a long-standing collaboration.

How do you plan to explain al-Qaeda operatives in senior leadership positions over Iraqi irregulars on the front line against the American forces? In the space of eleven days they suddenly proved their worth to the Ba?ath regimé? Please. I?ve heard better arguments put forth by Pravda in their coverage of the ?Glorious Afghan War.?

So this has happened in every single Iraqi platoon, as opposed to just some of them, where an al Qaeda commander might be better trained or more experienced, so the Iraqi lets him run things?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Unjustifiable logical leap. The simplest explanation is that it's an alliance of opportunity. Current cooperation against a mutual enemy does not indicate a long-standing collaboration.

Damien, the infrastructure for collaboration has to be in place before it can occur. This takes time. Otherwise they will just be two co-belligerents who someone made a proclaimation were on the same side, and that will be reflected in the level of their combat effectiveness in joint operations.

So this has happened in every single Iraqi platoon, as opposed to just some of them, where an al Qaeda commander might be better trained or more experienced, so the Iraqi lets him run things?

No Al-Qaeda commander could effectually run an Iraqi platoon in combat without prior training experience doing so. They're guerrilla leaders with a program that they've crafted themselves for guerrilla operations and that's what they train their commanders for. The Iraqis take everything they do straight from the Soviet book. They'd need cross-training before this can be done.

[Axis Kast]

Damien, the infrastructure for collaboration has to be in place before it can occur. This takes time. Otherwise they will just be two co-belligerents who someone made a proclaimation were on the same side, and that will be reflected in the level of their combat effectiveness in joint operations.

Thank you, Marina. There you have my point, Durandal. There is no way that in eleven days' time Saddam could imaginably have repealed a long-standing prohibition on al-Qaeda and simultaneously permitted their agents control over front-line irregulars. I agree that this was a kind of slap-shod agreement, but it smacks of open lines of communication if not outright planning months in advance.

I seriously about al-Qaeda showed up on Saddam's door the night after we began the bombing of Baghdad. More likely some sort of open link was in place through which the two could naturally collaborate - despite never having done so before.

No Al-Qaeda commander could effectually run an Iraqi platoon in combat without prior training experience doing so. They're guerrilla leaders with a program that they've crafted themselves for guerrilla operations and that's what they train their commanders for. The Iraqis take everything they do straight from the Soviet book. They'd need cross-training before this can be done.

Why must it be universal, Durandal? The fact that al-Qaeda operatives are in place at all indicates the group's new ties to Hussein.

[Durandal]

Damien, the infrastructure for collaboration has to be in place before it can occur. This takes time. Otherwise they will just be two co-belligerents who someone made a proclaimation were on the same side, and that will be reflected in the level of their combat effectiveness in joint operations.

And what makes you think that this infrastructure didn't begin forming when Bush started pointing fingers at Iraq? Everyone knew that the US was going to invade. There is no reason to assume that it's been in place since before September 11th. No one's saying that this just sprung up two weeks ago, but that's no reason to jump to the extreme of saying that they've been working together for years and that Bush was right in saying that Iraq supports terrorism.

Thank you, Marina. There you have my point, Durandal. There is no way that in eleven days' time Saddam could imaginably have repealed a long-standing prohibition on al-Qaeda and simultaneously permitted their agents control over front-line irregulars. I agree that this was a kind of slap-shod agreement, but it smacks of open lines of communication if not outright planning months in advance.

Right, months in advance, not years. In other words, there is utterly no justification for you claiming that this alliance (which you yourself admit is "slap-shod") is indicative of years of cooperation between the two or Iraq being involved in the planning of September 11th.

I seriously about al-Qaeda showed up on Saddam's door the night after we began the bombing of Baghdad. More likely some sort of open link was in place through which the two could naturally collaborate - despite never having done so before.

And I seriously doubt it, too. But when Bush started making his intentions known late last year, they could have easily approached Hussein then, telling him that there was no way he was going to avoid a US invasion, and they were right. Again, this is not indicative of Saddam actively supporting al Qaeda all along.

Why must it be universal, Durandal? The fact that al-Qaeda operatives are in place at all indicates the group's new ties to Hussein.

Well duh. But this hardly indicates that Bush was justified in accusing Iraq of harboring terrorism, which was the original reason he put Hussein in the crosshairs. Using this new alliance to say, "Ah hah! Hussein has been working with al Qaeda all along!" is just silly and absurd.

[Axis Kast]

And what makes you think that this infrastructure didn't begin forming when Bush started pointing fingers at Iraq? Everyone knew that the US was going to invade. There is no reason to assume that it's been in place since before September 11th. No one's saying that this just sprung up two weeks ago, but that's no reason to jump to the extreme of saying that they've been working together for years and that Bush was right in saying that Iraq supports terrorism.

So what if the only ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda materialized after September 11th? It still lends credit to the accusations of George Bush.

Iraq was a clear target as soon as the “Axis of Evil” was even mentioned. Al-Qaeda obviously began to take advantage of the commonality of enemies. I don’t see why that should excuse Hussein even if it was reactionary.

You claim that al-Qaeda’s support for Iraq isn’t just off-the-cuff, but absolutely spontaneous. That within eleven days’ time, representatives of various splint groups braved the trip to Baghdad and were able to make headway in convincing the Baathi regimé to place certain groups of irregulars (on the front line, mind you) under control of an organization which clearly tried to kill him in years past. You suggest that this isn’t indicative of a wider connection but is in fact an expected result of our invasion. But if that’s true – which I doubt highly -, it’s still a danger. Bush was right to suggest that Hussein was a danger and fostered links to terrorism. It implies that Saddam, if cornered, would seek and receive aid from al-Qaeda. And with or without war, Saddam absolutely had to be cornered.

Right, months in advance, not years. In other words, there is utterly no justification for you claiming that this alliance (which you yourself admit is "slap-shod") is indicative of years of cooperation between the two or Iraq being involved in the planning of September 11th.

Months at the least. There is no way that something like this could have been cooked up within eleven days’ time. As Marina said, Iraq is too conditioned. Training – or, at the very least, coordination – takes time that the invasion didn’t entail.

And again, if Hussein cultivated clandestine ties with al-Qaeda after September 11th and our inclusion of Iraq in the “Axis of Evil,” how does that excuse him? It’s still cooperation with terrorists that puts the United States in real and present danger.

And I seriously doubt it, too. But when Bush started making his intentions known late last year, they could have easily approached Hussein then, telling him that there was no way he was going to avoid a US invasion, and they were right. Again, this is not indicative of Saddam actively supporting al Qaeda all along.

It is however indicative of cooperation that had to be stamped out.

Well duh. But this hardly indicates that Bush was justified in accusing Iraq of harboring terrorism, which was the original reason he put Hussein in the crosshairs. Using this new alliance to say, "Ah hah! Hussein has been working with al Qaeda all along!" is just silly and absurd.

“Silly and absurd?” No. The evidence points to the fact that in the months leading up to the invasion, Bush was right to call out Saddam Hussein. Whether or not this was the result of Iraq’s feeling threatened, it’s still a legitimate cause for concern.

And be careful. We’re not going to Iraq solely because of its ties to al-Qaeda, but also because Saddam must be divested of weapons of mass destruction.

[Durandal]

So what if the only ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda materialized after September 11th? It still lends credit to the accusations of George Bush.

Bush accused Iraq of supporting terrorism. Hussein and al Qaeda deciding to work together to kill Americans in the past few months does not support this claim in any way. It tells us that Hussein won't discriminate when he needs help.

Iraq was a clear target as soon as the ?Axis of Evil? was even mentioned. Al-Qaeda obviously began to take advantage of the commonality of enemies. I don?t see why that should excuse Hussein even if it was reactionary.

Excuse him from what? You've shown absolutely no direct evidence that he supported terrorism against the United States under his regime. You've taken instances of current cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraqi forces and blown them up to something more than they are at face value, and you even admitted that the alliance was probably newly formed. Now you're saying that the fact that Hussein allied with terrorists when we invaded is a legitimate reason to invade!

You claim that al-Qaeda?s support for Iraq isn?t just off-the-cuff, but absolutely spontaneous. That within eleven days? time, representatives of various splint groups braved the trip to Baghdad and were able to make headway in convincing the Baathi regimé to place certain groups of irregulars (on the front line, mind you) under control of an organization which clearly tried to kill him in years past.

The entire substance of my argument rests on the simple fact that that does not have to be the case; try reading what I write next time. As soon as Bush began training his guns on Iraq, al Qaeda could have conceivably approached Hussein and told him that the US was coming and that he'd probably appreciate help from their guys so they could both kill Americans. What is so insanely hard to believe about this?

You suggest that this isn?t indicative of a wider connection but is in fact an expected result of our invasion. But if that?s true ? which I doubt highly -, it?s still a danger. Bush was right to suggest that Hussein was a danger and fostered links to terrorism. It implies that Saddam, if cornered, would seek and receive aid from al-Qaeda. And with or without war, Saddam absolutely had to be cornered.

You can't use this alliance with al Qaeda spawned because of our invasion to justify that invasion. I can't believe that such extremely basic reasoning escapes you.

Months at the least. There is no way that something like this could have been cooked up within eleven days? time. As Marina said, Iraq is too conditioned. Training ? or, at the very least, coordination ? takes time that the invasion didn?t entail.

Again, I never said it was cooked up in eleven days. I said it was cooked up when Bush began training his sights on Iraq, which is the simplest, most straightforward interpretation of the facts.

And again, if Hussein cultivated clandestine ties with al-Qaeda after September 11th and our inclusion of Iraq in the ?Axis of Evil,? how does that excuse him? It?s still cooperation with terrorists that puts the United States in real and present danger.

I can't believe I'm actually reading this. "We should invade Iraq because they'll take aid from terrorists if we invade them"? Do you seriously think this is valid reasoning?

It is however indicative of cooperation that had to be stamped out.

So we have to stamp out cooperation by pushing Saddam to cooperate with terrorists and then stamp it out? It didn't fucking exist in the first place!

?Silly and absurd?? No. The evidence points to the fact that in the months leading up to the invasion, Bush was right to call out Saddam Hussein. Whether or not this was the result of Iraq?s feeling threatened, it?s still a legitimate cause for concern.

Bullshit. He's taking help from anyone who's offering against a vastly superior enemy, genius. Do the fucking math.

And be careful. We?re not going to Iraq solely because of its ties to al-Qaeda, but also because Saddam must be divested of weapons of mass destruction.

Of course not, but links to terrorism are not among the list of legitimate reasons to invade and depose him.

[Axis Kast]

Bush accused Iraq of supporting terrorism. Hussein and al Qaeda deciding to work together to kill Americans in the past few months does not support this claim in any way. It tells us that Hussein won't discriminate when he needs help.

It also lends strong evidence to the argument that Hussein had been cultivating ties with terrorist groups prior to the start of the war.

“Hussein and al-Qaeda deciding to work together to kill Americans in the past few months” is clearly evidence of Iraq’s link with terror whether or not you’d like to admit it. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Saddam is providing members of that group safe haven and even the benefits of a temporary alliance. He has most likely been doing so for some time. That the Baath could have coordinated this level of cooperation in the past eleven days is extremely unlikely.

You base your argument on the assumption that we tilted Saddam’s hand and somehow forced him into willing collusion with al-Qaeda. But if your argument is correct and Osama’s agents made an appeal to Saddam’s situation – i.e., “They’re coming no matter what!” -, then isn’t it conceivable that they would have made this case even had we backed down, gone the route of inspections, and played “containment” just a bit longer? After all, Saddam was already convinced that he was dead. The man no longer appears in public but once or twice every six months. How much more paranoid can you get?

The current position of al-Qaeda in Iraq tells us that ties probably go back to the months before the war. Bush – whether or not you want to chalk this up to fancy footwork on al-Qaeda’s part – was correct. There is a danger that Saddam might function with terrorists.

Excuse him from what? You've shown absolutely no direct evidence that he supported terrorism against the United States under his regime. You've taken instances of current cooperation between al Qaeda and Iraqi forces and blown them up to something more than they are at face value, and you even admitted that the alliance was probably newly formed. Now you're saying that the fact that Hussein allied with terrorists when we invaded is a legitimate reason to invade!

No. I am telling you that the fact that Hussein allied with terrorists when we invaded is probably evidence of deeper and more lasting ties than you’d like to admit.

Saddam Hussein is admittedly in support of Palestinian terrorism and for certain offered both money and training prior to the Gulf War. Palestinian terrorists have in the past several months killed numerous American citizens. Bingo. Guilt by extension and empowerment.

The entire substance of my argument rests on the simple fact that that does not have to be the case; try reading what I write next time. As soon as Bush began training his guns on Iraq, al Qaeda could have conceivably approached Hussein and told him that the US was coming and that he'd probably appreciate help from their guys so they could both kill Americans. What is so insanely hard to believe about this?

Hussein would probably have been susceptible to that argument even if containment was the chosen method of approach. He was already convinced we planned to put a bullet in his skull regardless. I don’t see how our invasion did more than speed up what now appears to have been inevitable collusion.

You can't use this alliance with al Qaeda spawned because of our invasion to justify that invasion. I can't believe that such extremely basic reasoning escapes you.

Why not? First of all, it’s not the only basis on which I support the President’s actions. Secondly, the entire situation smacks of long-term communication, not an off-the-cuff embrace.

I can't believe I'm actually reading this. "We should invade Iraq because they'll take aid from terrorists if we invade them"? Do you seriously think this is valid reasoning?

No. We should invade Iraq because they refuse to disarm and are probably a source of aid for al-Qaeda.

It doesn’t hurt my argument that Iraq is now working with operatives of the al-Qaeda movement however. You’ve got to look beyond the immediate. You’re not. This current collusion indicates deeper ties.

So we have to stamp out cooperation by pushing Saddam to cooperate with terrorists and then stamp it out? It didn't fucking exist in the first place!

That last sentiment is opinion. And poor one at that.

Earlier, you argued that from the moment Bush lumped Iraq with the Axis of Evil, Saddam was on the road to welcoming al-Qaeda as a source of possible assistance. Thus President Bush was correct to say that Baghdad was in league with terrorists. You try and rest your argument on the fact that if we are going to invade, Saddam will pull out all the ropes anyway. But he was already convinced we were going to invade from the moment Bush went on television. And this situation implies that any attempt at containment on our part would have left the Baath susceptible to al-Qaeda pressure for collusion on the basis of potential invasion. You’re caught in your own web.

Bullshit. He's taking help from anyone who's offering against a vastly superior enemy, genius. Do the fucking math.

It implies he’s been preparing to do so for some time. He would have likely taken such steps whether or not we decided to invade. His point of view is different from ours. Once he appeared on our radar, he began getting shifty. Even had Hans Blix stuck around and containment been our only goal, Saddam still would have been open to al-Qaeda’s argument – and probably cooperation or the beginning of a working relationship as well. Baghdad would have become a mecca for terrorists who could render potential service. Unacceptable.

Of course not, but links to terrorism are not among the list of legitimate reasons to invade and depose him.

Certainly they are. Just not in a way with which you jive.

[Vympel]

The irregulars are ostensibly linked to Baghdad and coordinate with regular troops. CNN and FOX news continually report on battles between Coalition forces and "a mix of regular and irregular troops." Hell, the Fedyaheen Saddam are irregulars.

Leap in logic. Fighting in battles where regular troops are engaged does not mean "coordinating with regular troops" or "ostensibly linked to Baghdad". Quite frankly, the claim that Baghdad has any sort of control over irregulars while they can't even move their regular troops effectively is fucking stupid, and your "i think it's probable" opinion does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Your skepticism is based on generality. "All media have made mistakes and so all reporting is probably false."

No, it's all media have made mistakes and so this report should be taken with a grain of salt until proven otherwise, especially considering it has appeared in ONE Australian newspaper and you can't even PRESENT the article for analysis so everyone can see exactly what it says. Your evidence sucks at this point.

The scenario is probable.

No, it's not probable. For all the reasons I have already stated.

You still haven't considered whether Saddam would merely retract a standing order of execution of captured al-Qaeda operatives eleven days into a war.

No, I'll repeat myself again: how the fuck does Saddam have any authority over irregulars hundreds of miles out of the influence of his shattered C&C system? Would you care to explain that? Present the goddamn article- I have already said that for all we know this is some Arab from Saudi Arabia kicking a few butts so they can go kill Americans. And I'll repeat the question I just asked, and you ignored: why is it a question of time?

It can be used as evidence of the correctness of the White House allegations.

Considering that noone has used it as evidence of the correctness of White House allegations, your argument is bloody flimsy. Single articles from a newspaper that you won't even present for analysis do not good evidence make.

Given that it is unlikely agents of al-Qaeda would "show up" within eleven days time to fight for Iraq and enjoy a passable welcome - and avoid being shot -, I'd say lines of communication - at the least - are in clear existence. Do we really want Hussein speaking with al-Qaeda? No.

Of course you don't want him talking with them. Too bad it's your own bloody fault.

They might turn down a few dozen al-Qaeda operatives. They didn't according to this article.

It'd be good if we could READ the article ... especially considering you have presented no evidence that anyone would be in a position to turn down anyone even if they wanted to.

That indicates a few things - namely ties with al-Qaeda splinter groups.

Only in your mind.

Keep in mind that we've feared that they'd cooperate all along - al-Qaeda and Iraq, that is. We feared we'd have to go in and then face this kind of thing anyway if Saddam made the first move.

Saddam make the first move? Lol!!!

Again, see the regulars and irregulars argument.

And again, you can see my response to it. That you think the partisans come under central military control, especially with Iraq's shattered C&C system that can't even handle their regular forces, and the complete lack of organized resistance, is amazing.

But it wasn't. Deal.

No, this is YOUR problem to deal with. Until you present the article for objective analysis, rather than the spin you wish to put on it, your argument is anemic- quite frankly if you do post the article I wouldn't be surprised if I find that you've imputed all sorts of accusations that weren't in the original article, and then you'll claim that you were 'misquoted'.

The lines lasted long enough for al-Qaeda to gain immediate and localized command over some irregulars.

Assuming your conclusion as a premise, and repeating your asinine belief that all forces in Iraq come under a destroyed C&C system. I guess all the irregular forces have radio contact with Iraqi high command

[Axis Kast]

Leap in logic. Fighting in battles where regular troops are engaged does not mean "coordinating with regular troops" or "ostensibly linked to Baghdad". Quite frankly, the claim that Baghdad has any sort of control over irregulars while they can't even move their regular troops effectively is fucking stupid, and your "i think it's probable" opinion does nothing to strengthen your argument.

Fighting in battles during which regular troops are engaged usually means “coordinating with regular troops” and “ostensibly linked to Baghdad.” Despite their inability to sustain communications, those units probably receive periodic – if dated – orders.

No, it's not probable. For all the reasons I have already stated.

Your only reason is, “We can’t trust the media.”

No, I'll repeat myself again: how the fuck does Saddam have any authority over irregulars hundreds of miles out of the influence of his shattered C&C system? Would you care to explain that? Present the goddamn article- I have already said that for all we know this is some Arab from Saudi Arabia kicking a few butts so they can go kill Americans. And I'll repeat the question I just asked, and you ignored: why is it a question of time?

How does Saddam have any influence? Via regulars who can relay commands to al-Qaeda. Hussein himself doesn’t need to provide the orders; the irregulars merely need to coordinate with the Iraqi Army and obey some semblance of a general plan. Periodic radio communication is probably possible.

Of course you don't want him talking with them. Too bad it's your own bloody fault.

Incorrect. As I pointed out before, this might have been a logical evolution of the process of containment, not only invasion.

Saddam make the first move? Lol!!!

That’s an opinionated subject.

And again, you can see my response to it. That you think the partisans come under central military control, especially with Iraq's shattered C&C system that can't even handle their regular forces, and the complete lack of organized resistance, is amazing.

Impromptu battlefield control. It’s amazing!

No, this is YOUR problem to deal with. Until you present the article for objective analysis, rather than the spin you wish to put on it, your argument is anemic- quite frankly if you do post the article I wouldn't be surprised if I find that you've imputed all sorts of accusations that weren't in the original article, and then you'll claim that you were 'misquoted'.

No. It’s speculation.

Assuming your conclusion as a premise, and repeating your asinine belief that all forces in Iraq come under a destroyed C&C system. I guess all the irregular forces have radio contact with Iraqi high command.

From time to time? I wouldn’t doubt it.

[Vympel]

I'm tired of this merry-go-round.

Fighting in battles during which regular troops are engaged usually means “coordinating with regular troops” and “ostensibly linked to Baghdad.” Despite their inability to sustain communications, those units probably receive periodic – if dated – orders.

Probably recieve orders? How? The C&C system in Iraq is shattered. More speculation on your part based on an article which you refuse to present for analysis.

Your only reason is, “We can’t trust the media.”

Oh for fuck's sake: your evidence is non-existent. You won't present the article. You have no confirmation from any other sources. You steadfastly cling to the belief that his article is absolute fact, when all previous experience should tell you otherwise.

How does Saddam have any influence? Via regulars who can relay commands to al-Qaeda. Hussein himself doesn’t need to provide the orders; the irregulars merely need to coordinate with the Iraqi Army and obey some semblance of a general plan. Periodic radio communication is probably possible.

Having fun speculating on the basis of conjecture? Go get the article, or drop it. I tire of this.

Incorrect. As I pointed out before, this might have been a logical evolution of the process of containment, not only invasion.

No, because if it's the case, which right now I doubt considering your non-existent evidence which I cannot even find on the newspaper's own site, the US clearly forced Iraq's hand. That you continue to think that using what would happen if the US attacked as a justification for an attack is stupid beyond words.

That’s an opinionated subject.

If anyone seriously believed that Saddam was going to attack anyone with his decrepit bunch of incompetents, I'd say they should be committed to an asylum. Which reminds me- why hasn't Iraq used WMD yet?

Impromptu battlefield control. It’s amazing!

No argument here, move along folks.

No. It’s speculation.

What's speculation, exactly? We already have a precedent for it, if you don't remember. For all I know, you have the article bookmarked, but upon re-reading it you've decided posting it would hurt your argument rather than helping it. This could all be so easily solved, too.

Basically, post the article in its entirety, or concession accepted. I am sick of debating on the basis of evidence which you will not even present.