Talk:Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations/Archive 1

message: That title is/was better. zen master    T  07:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened is that Tony jumped in and moved the page without talking it over.  You want to move it, go through the regular procedure.  I am strongly opposed, since the weight of evidence suggests some links exist (even if only in the form of diplomatic feelers).  ObsidianOrder 07:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I liked Tony's version but I went one better with Alleged non-operational links between Al-Qaeda and pre-invasion Iraq, the citation for that is above, the congressional bipartisan commission concluded unanimously that there were "no operational links".   Which actually means this article should be deleted, not renamed, but I digress.  zen master    T  07:59, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Training, diplomatic connections, funding, sanctuary, etc are "links" which are "non-operational".  There is no alleged operational (i.e. joint op) link in the whole list. ObsidianOrder 09:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: csloat - I don't think it was just diplomatic feelers, I said that there is overwhelming evidence that (at a minimum) such existed, therefore there is a link, although the extent of it is debatable.  Put forth all the evidence and let everyone decide for themselves.  The 911 Commission report is interesting, but it is not the last word on the subject, and it does not say what most people who use it to support their points claim it says.  And yes, a summary of its findings is probably the top thing that should be added to this article.  As for state sponsorship, I think it was actually van Creveld that first stated the notion of "sanctuary" as a prerequisite for an insurgency, it applies just as well to terrorism, and I don't think you can refute it because it is obviously correct (also see ).  ObsidianOrder 10:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The state sponsorship thesis does not apply to al Qaeda and similar groups. "Sanctuary" comes from failed states, not from states with strong central authorities (since such groups are a big threat to such states).  Failed states - or areas of near-anarchy - are where such groups thrive, hence their extensive bases in Afghanistan, and their pervasiveness in places like parts of pakistan, yemen, and even northern Iraq when it was under US/UK control with the no-fly zones.  And the theory that al Qaeda specifically was sponsored by a state has been refuted over and over in counterterrorism literature, despite the crap that is published in trade paperbacks like Mylroie's book.  So van Creveld's theory is not "obviously correct" here; it doesn't apply at all; al Qaeda is not an "insurgency" unless you consider it a global insurgency -- one that specifically pits itself against such states as Hussein's, which it was considered a threat to (legitimately so since it wanted to overthrow them).--csloat 10:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "global insurgency" - now that you mention it, yes, that is exactly right.  Al-Qaeda operates from sanctuaries just like any insurgency, and all of the states which have served as sanctuaries are part of "The Gap" (as per Thomas Barnett's "The Pentagon's New Map" ).  Yes, some are "failed states", but other are rigidly authoritarian, the two are not as different as you might think.  ObsidianOrder 10:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes and according to your logic, the US, UK, and Germany, are among the states who have given terrorists "sanctuary" and "sponsored" al Qaeda.  That's the problem here.  There is no state-sponsored organization.  There is an organization who manages to get a variety of sponsorship from a variety of states, without being controlled by any one state.  It makes it very difficult to destroy them; attacking one of the states often plays right into their hands.--csloat 11:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Sanctuary" is where you're safe from the locals (for example from the police and military) and also protected by them to some extent from external threats.  Presumably while in Afghanistan bin Laden was not particularly worried about being arrested by the Taliban, or about them allowing a US snatch team to get to him.  That is hardly true in the US/UK/Germany, obviously. ObsidianOrder 11:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh.  That's one guy.  We're talking about a large international organization.  But you presumably know that.  Again, my point is that the theory of state sponsorship, where a single state - or a small group of states working together - sponsors the group in order to influence what the group does; in order to use the group as an instrument of policy.  That isn't happening with al Qaeda.  And, to return to your definition of sanctuary, that is most certainly not something al Qaeda as an organization ever had in Iraq prior to 2003.  Now, of course, it is a different matter. --csloat 16:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened to [[Alleged links between Al-Qaeda and pre-invasion Iraq]]?