Saddam told his militia to avoid al Qaeda

Saddam told his militia to avoid al Qaeda

IAN BRUCE and MICHAEL SETTLE
January 15 2004

SADDAM Hussein warned his fedayeen militia against throwing in their lot with the Islamic militants flocking to Iraq to fight US forces, according to a document found with the deposed dictator when he was captured.

The ousted leader told Iraqi militants that Muslim extremists had a different agenda to the Ba'ath party because they wanted to launch a religious war and establish an Islamic state in Iraq. In contrast, the aims of Saddam's supporters were limited to the expulsion of US-led coalition invaders and a return to secular power in Baghdad.

Following the end of the main military campaign last year, it had been feared thousands of foreign fighters would flood Iraq seeking an Islamic jihad similar to the way in which Arabs rushed to Afghanistan in the 1980s to resist the Soviet occupation.

However, US military and intelligence agencies now believe the number of foreign fighters inside Iraq is in the low hundreds. Only 300 non-Iraqis are in American custody while another 150 to 200 are known to have been killed.

<snip>

The document, which officials say is genuine, also throws more doubt on earlier claims by Washington and London that Saddam had links with al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

More: http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/8030.html

TYY

There are too many people who just assume that all Arabs and Muslims think alike, belong to the same organizations and have the same attitudes about the US.

...CONservative rednecks who threw around words like "camel jockeys", "dune coons" and "sand niggers" now are claiming to be behind Bu$h in wanting to "liberate the Iraqi people"(yeah right).


I love asking them this question: "Oh so they are people now?" which, in turn, highlights their stupid hypocisy.
They kinda look at me dumbfounded.

go figure.

that wanted Iraq and Afghanistan turned into parking lots. What are the odds of convincing them.

I wonder when and if it will show up in any American papers.

This is a good article and definitely worth reading.

The New York Times did run this the other day:

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 13 — Saddam Hussein warned his Iraqi supporters to be wary of joining forces with foreign Arab fighters entering Iraq to battle American troops, according to a document found with the former Iraqi leader when he was captured, Bush administration officials said Tuesday.

The document appears to be a directive, written after he lost power, from Mr. Hussein to leaders of the Iraqi resistance, counseling caution against getting too close to Islamic jihadists and other foreign Arabs coming into occupied Iraq, according to American officials.

It provides a second piece of evidence challenging the Bush administration contention of close cooperation between Mr. Hussein's government and terrorists from Al Qaeda. C.I.A. interrogators have already elicited from the top Qaeda officials in custody that, before the American-led invasion, Osama bin Laden had rejected entreaties from some of his lieutenants to work jointly with Mr. Hussein.

Officials said Mr. Hussein apparently believed that the foreign Arabs, eager for a holy war against the West, had a different agenda from the Baathists, who were eager for their own return to power in Baghdad. As a result, he wanted his supporters to be careful about becoming close allies with the jihadists, officials familiar with the document said. . . . . . . "

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/14/international/middleeast/14INTE.html?ei=5062&en=5318cd886395c66d&ex=1074661200&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=

So, maybe the US media actually did run this one (that'd be a first eh?)

It does look like at least one U.S. newspaper printed a similar story. Hopefully, other U.S. papers will run the story as well.

TYY:kick:

Oh, they must have planned 9/11 together then.

:eyes:

Just wondering. I mean, everyone's picking on Dean nowadays, why shouldn't I?

Repubs are attacking Dean because he is glad that there's a separation of church and state, and so does Saddam. Yet even the Repubs don't want an extremist Islamic state. I guess separating church and state is only bad when it's Christians who stand to lose power and influence.

This is a weird news report.

Weren't the previous reports that Saddam didn't have radios, communications gear, etc, and thus couldn't be involved in running the uprising?

One of these stories stinks!