The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: hysterical 'whack Iraq now' piece from today's Guardian

Hello, all. This looks to me like an outright lie, the kind of thing people 
like Safire do in times like these. My guess is Saddam would never 
seriously engage with the "Arab Afghan" types because he would see them as 
the primary threat to his regime. Everyone in Iraq is beginning to see 
Saddam and his regime as weak and corrupt, and the illusion of rectitude 
and strength that these fundamentalist terrorists project might speak to 
many, especially in the north, where there was less modernization, less 
equality for women, etc. ...

A question: Does anybody have concrete information that can be used to 
refute these claims, and, in fact, any allegations of connection between 
bin Laden and Hussein?

As far as my reading has taken me, al-Qaeda does not have Iraqi members. 
Presumably the Iraq connection is partly to provide a satisfying target to 
bomb, partly to take the opportunity to remove a thorn while they get the 

In solidarity,

Rahul Mahajan

>You can e-mail your letters to the Guardian at
>Best wishes,
>Bite the bullet and target Iraq
>William Safire in Washington
>Tuesday September 25, 2001
>The Guardian
>"We're looking for links" between Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terrorist group
>and Iraq's Saddam Hussein, said Colin Powell yesterday. So far, the US
>secretary of state can see "no clear link" between Bin Laden's forces in
>Afghanistan and the America-hater publicly laughing at our grief in Baghdad.
>Powell does not want to acknowledge any evidence of sponsorship of Bin Laden
>by Iraq because that would demand a crushing blow at an Arab state. It might
>limit the diplomatic convoy of consensus he is assembling, which will travel
>at the rate of its most grudging member.
>The clear link between the terrorist in hiding and the terrorist in power
>can be found in Kurdistan, that northern portion of Iraq protected by US and
>British aircraft from Saddam's savagery.
>Kurdish sources tell me (and anyone else who will listen) that the Iraqi
>dictator has armed and financed a fifth column of al-Qaida mullahs and
>terrorists that calls itself the Jund al Islam ("Soldiers of Islam"). Its
>purposes are to assassinate the leaders of free Kurdistan, to sabotage the
>relief efforts of the UN and to whip up religious fervor in that free Muslim
>region. That is how Saddam plans to reconquer the no-flight zone that has
>been a thorn in his side for a decade.
>According to a key member of the Kurdish resistance reached by cellphone in
>Suleymaniyah, some 400 "Arab Afghan" mercenaries armed with Katyusha rockets
>transported by Toyota Land Cruisers, have been infiltrated into the
>liberated region by Saddam's secret intelligence force, the Mukhabarat. They
>have already murdered a high Kurdish official as well as a Muslim scholar
>who dared to interpret the Koran humanely. This current, direct threat by
>Muslim fanatics doing Saddam's bidding is uniting the two squabbling
>democratic parties in the free zone. These Kurds are not Arabs or
>anti-Turkish terrorists. Nor are they pseudo-religious extremists
>humiliating women and moderates; on the contrary, the Muslim faith practised
>in northern Iraq has long been marked by tolerance.
>That brings us to the strategic decision now being debated in President
>Bush's war council. Do we respond to our initial, catastrophic defeat in a
>wholly multilateral way? That would mean seeking intelligence crumbs from
>Saudi and Egyptian potentates, negotiating cautious UN resolutions,
>hunkering down to limit the damage of suicide bombers, and beginning a
>phased air and ground assault on Bin Laden's "base" in Afghanistan to be
>followed up with joint police work for years around the world. It would
>fight yesterday's terrorist war.
>Or do we recognise now the greater danger of germ warfare or nuclear attack
>from a proven terrorist nation, and couple expected retribution for this
>month's attack with a strategy of pre-emptive retaliation? Such use of our
>superpower need not require our "going it alone"; civilised nations unafraid
>of internal revolt will understand the threat to their citizens and stand
>with us.
>Iraqi scientists today working feverishly in hidden biological laboratories
>and underground nuclear facilities would, if undisturbed, enable the
>hate-driven, power-crazed Saddam to kill millions. That capability would
>transform him from a boxed-in bully into a rampant world power.
>It's troubling when Powell says that President Bush "has not worked out what
>he might do in later stages". Now is the time to work out how to strike down
>terrorism's boss of all bosses. "Later" may be a stage too late.
>This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
>For removal from list, email
>CASI's website - - includes an archive of all postings.

This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq
For removal from list, email
CASI's website - - includes an archive of all postings.

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]