The article fails to mention where Zarqawi received his NBC training.

Zarqawi is believed by European intelligence agencies to be Al Qaeda's main specialist in chemical and biological terrorism. Al Qaeda's original biochemical effort was centered at a site near Kandahar in Afghanistan, but was also probably transferred to the allied Ansar al Islam laboratory in Northern Iraq at around the same time as Zarqawi. But where did Zarqawi, and possibly his minions, learn their tradecraft? Who sponsored that training? Well here's the kicker, DEBKAfile notes that, "Zarqawi was [...] known for certain to have undergone extensive terrorist training in Iraq’s notorious Salman Pak special weapons facility."

Here's a little background on said Salman Pak facility - Iraq‘s own terrorist training camp

[T]here were mixed nationality units including Saudi‘s, Egyptians and Chechens at Salman Pak. Usually about 40 strong, these terrorist units received upto five months of intensive training. However the terrorist units were actually under the control of Iraq‘s Al- Mukhabarat Intelligence Service and in particular a section called the Division of Special Operations.

The [...] training program included assassination, kidnapping, sabotage or hijacking of aircraft, buses, trains, sabotage of public utilities and most importantly of all, in the use of Chemical, Biological and possibly crude nuclear devices.

"[T]hey [came] with the intention to do some real suicidal operations. "

We now know that Iraq had the capability to produce biological weapons (finding the weaponised product
- as well as the production facilities, ricin precursors and nuclear components already unearthed - would be politically expedient but is materially irrelevant) and with every graduate of the Salman Pak facility, regardless of affiliation (al Qaeda or otherwise), the regime had another walking potential delivery mechanism.

I refute entirely the argument that a terrorist group would decline WMD from Iraq on the basis of ideological differences. That is simply naive. I am also sick of hearing from the likes of Clair Short how Iraq posed no threat whilst it funded and trained operatives found attempting to use WMD in my country.

I did not of course advocate regime change for the sake of this one terrorist - I advocated regime change to end Iraqs
institutionalized links to terror, to close the terror training camps and to stop the funding that would have inevitably led to the horrors of Halabja being visited on me and mine in my own county as so nearly happened here in January.

Usama bin Ladin in some of his video's has made some Muslim historical references. It is thought by some middle east historians that he (Usama) has aspirations to the title of "caliph". The most revered Muslim places are in Saudi Arabia but because the last caliphate's seat (throne or whatever) was in Baghdad, it is considered to be the 2nd most historically important place to Islam. I have NO doubt Usama bin Ladin has a GREAT interest and is upset by the idea that it is occupied by our American troops. It is not hard to believe he has sent terrorists to Baghdad to fire on our brave American boys. Or that he had ties to Sadam long before we arrived there!

I tend to agree both with Simon and Mary.
Of course, having a terrorism expert as a best friend helps to get the facts straight.
There are a lot of people among the liberal segments of western society who continuously voice the opinion that because Militant Organization(MO) A is Sunni, MO B is Shiite and MO C is infidel and all are overtly religiously opposed, that there is a wall between them, ie "How could MO A deal with MO B, or MO C? They hate each other!"
They fail to take into account that in the overall scheme of things, all three regard everyone else as a common enemy, and this leads, as such, to a Strange Bedfellows scenario.
Even though MO A might hate everything MO C stands for, they hate MO C's enemy(also their enemy) worse.
So all three MOs work together against their enemy. That includes every kind of networking from training together to sharing intelligence and sources of armaments. If a benefactor represents all they despise, who cares? He is still a benefactor. If he can supply a training facility, a respite from governments hunting them and/ or weapons(including WMDs) they will put their disagreements with him aside for the sake of their mutual cause(any port in a storm).
It really is time a whole lot of people woke up to the fact that we are facing a united international terrorist front, whether it comes to us in the form of the ETA, the Hezbollah, the Chechens, Hamas or any of the many organizations in places like Southeast Asia, Pakistan or even, as a blanket to include anyplace I've left out, Bumfuk, Egypt.

Seth, I think you are "right on". I think they share a big "hate America" or at least hate the west and would act as a group to defeat their enemies. Of course that will never happen!!! I'm a little old lady but I would go fight, too, if I could find someone to push my wheelchair!

The egghead theory the Al Qeada and Iraq would never work together because of theoretic differences of opinion were the most naive things amongst all the anti-war naivety. Ask the Polish if ideological enemies wont work together when it benefits them. If you can find any that survived Stalin and Hitler.

Mary

We'll chip in and buy you an electric motor driven, armored wheelchair with a GE Minigun mounted on the front, and those SOBs better hit the bricks, triple time!

Thanks Seth. That's what I need! I'll clean that mess up. I'm mean as cat do-do, ask my grandkids. When they know granny's coming they'll start behaving.