The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri,
visited Iraq under a false name in September 1999 to take part
in the ninth Popular Islamic Congress,

In an interview, Allawi made public information discovered by
the Iraqi secret service in the archives of the Saddam Hussein
regime, which sheds light on the relationship between Saddam
Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network.

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda.

"The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a
person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to
Turkey and arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried
to re-enter Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the
country and directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the
Halbija area," he said.

Incident wrote:

If you recall the pretext for war in Iraq was that belief that
Saddam had A-bombs and poison gas hidden away.

Actually, I don't recall anyone in any official capacity being
brain-dead enough to claim that Saddam Hussein already possessed
nuclear weapons. Not that I doubt Cheney kicked around whether he
could shovel something that inane down the gullible maw of the public.

Saddam's bluff was so good, it provaked a war which
ultimately destroyed him.

Not really. Saddam simply found himself a target after 09/11. Whether
he had WMD or not was utterly irrelevant. He was going to be invaded
anyway, for some reason or other. Thus the (futile and laughable)
attempts to link the Iraqi government to a meeting with Mohammad Atta
in Prague. This the (beyond moronic) attempts to hold Iraq responsible
for the fact that Ansar al-Islam had a base of operations technically
within Iraqi borders, but in the Kurdish north where the Iraqi
government had failed to hold control since 1991.

As for "poison gas", oh please. If there's a more overblown bugaboo, I
don't know what it is. While I'm sure dying from sarin ain't fun, I
don't see death from shrapnel or a .50-cal round is any better.
Invading a country because it possesses such a cumbersome, inefficient,
marginally militarily useful weapon as chemical weapons is idiotic in
the extreme.

So is the absurd notion that Saddam gave enough of a ***** about
fundamentalist terrorists to aid them in any substantive way.

Incident, what do you think of the following very recent (May 23, 2005)

report quoting former Iraqi prime minister Allawi?

It pertains to
connections between Hussein's government and al Qaeda.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Le­vel.php?cat=Terrorism&loid=8.0­.16985217...


The number two of the al-Qaeda network, Ayman al-Zawahiri, visited Iraq
under a false name in September 1999 to take part in the ninth Popular
Islamic Congress, former Iraqi premier Iyad Allawi has revealed to
pan-Arab daily al-Hayat. In an interview, Allawi made public
information discovered by the Iraqi secret service in the archives of
the Saddam Hussein regime, which sheds light on the relationship
between Saddam Hussein and the Islamic terrorist network. He also said
that both al-Zawahiri and Jordanian militant al-Zarqawi probably
entered Iraq in the same period.

"Al-Zawahiri was summoned by Izza Ibrahim Al-Douri - then deputy head
of the council of the leadership of the revolution - to take part in
the congress, along with some 150 other Islamic figures from 50 Muslim
countries," Allawi said.

...

In Allawi's view, Saddam's government "sponsored" the birth of al-Qaeda

in Iraq, coordinating with other terrorist groups, both Arab and
Muslim. "The Iraqi secret services had links to these groups through a
person called Faruq Hajizi, later named Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and

arrested after the fall of Saddam's regime as he tried to re-enter
Iraq. Iraqi secret agents helped terrorists enter the country and
directed them to the Ansar al-Islam camps in the Halbija area," he
said.

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 14:19:28 GMT, Mick White
<mwhite13BOGUS@rochester.rr.com> wrote:

If Bush had to strike at the heart of Muslim fundamentalism, why not
invade Saudi Arabia?

Can't. You cannot be seen holding hands together one day then wack
him the next.

AC wrote:

On 12 Jun 2005 12:01:04 -0700,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.

As unlikely as Rome's, England's or the United States'. Quite frankly I'm
not sure that any nation has the idea of becoming a great power, but rather
cultural and historical forces ultimately leave little choice. The US, in
fact, did seem to try to escape at times its great power status,
particularly between the two World Wars when isolationism was at its
strongest. In the end, it simply had no choice.

"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military control
of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and his
comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world. Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "

AC wrote:

On 12 Jun 2005 12:01:04 -0700,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.

As unlikely as Rome's, England's or the United States'. Quite frankly I'm
not sure that any nation has the idea of becoming a great power, but rather
cultural and historical forces ultimately leave little choice. The US, in
fact, did seem to try to escape at times its great power status,
particularly between the two World Wars when isolationism was at its
strongest. In the end, it simply had no choice.

"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military control
of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and his
comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world. Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "
http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html

AC wrote:

On 12 Jun 2005 12:01:04 -0700,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.

As unlikely as Rome's, England's or the United States'. Quite frankly I'm
not sure that any nation has the idea of becoming a great power, but rather
cultural and historical forces ultimately leave little choice. The US, in
fact, did seem to try to escape at times its great power status,
particularly between the two World Wars when isolationism was at its
strongest. In the end, it simply had no choice.

"China's external behavior during the Maoist era was a contradictory
phenomenon. Despite its tendency toward using force, Mao's China was
not an expansionist power. It is essential to make a distinction
between the pursuit of centrality and the pursuit of dominance in
international affairs in terms of the fundamental goal of Chinese
foreign policy. While Mao and his comrades were never shy about using
force in pursuing China's foreign policy goals, what they hoped to
achieve was not the expansion of China's political and military control
of foreign territory or resources -- which was, for Mao and his
comrades, too inferior an aim -- but, rather, the spread of their
influence to other "hearts and minds" around the world. Mao fully
understood that only when China's superior moral position in the world
had been recognized by other peoples would the consolidation of his
continuous revolution's momentum at home be assured. "

http://www.ibiblio.org/uncpress/chapters/chen_maos.html

<snip>

--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com

AC wrote:

On 12 Jun 2005 12:01:04 -0700,
maff <maff91@yahoo.com> wrote:

Shaping China's Future Power
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/12/weekinreview/12cohen.html

http://forums.delphiforums.com/atheistrefuge/messages?msg=1786.8493
By ROGER COHEN
It seems unlikely that China can be dissuaded from the notion that its
future involves a great-power destiny.

As unlikely as Rome's, England's or the United States'. Quite frankly I'm
not sure that any nation has the idea of becoming a great power, but rather
cultural and historical forces ultimately leave little choice. The US, in
fact, did seem to try to escape at times its great power status,
particularly between the two World Wars when isolationism was at its
strongest. In the end, it simply had no choice.

....and it is just as well the USA is a cosmopolitan land full of all types of
folks. Doubt China would want to bomb SanFrancisco, half of those killed
would be Chinese!

<snip>

--
mightymartianca@hotmail.com