• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Iraq-Al Qaeda Lie Was From Al Qaeda

Simon W. Moon said:
FYI: The US has yet to find any evidence that backs up the Salman Pak story that's been told.

Which part of the story and your source for such a claim. If you merely relying on Democrat proclimations that won't carry much weight. And the more salient point, what were the intelligence agencies saying before we removed Saddam?

But here are a few sources for you and then you can post what you have that you claim debunks them

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iraq/salman_pak.htm

" Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility at Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations."

http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock040703.asp

"[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, Clinton Iraqi policy adviser Laurie Mylroie, former Iraqi nuclear chief Khidir Hamza and émigré Iraqi army colonel Sabah Khodada are among those who say that Saddam Hussein used Salman Pak to instruct terrorists in bomb making, assassination, and hijacking (see "The 9/11 Connection"). Key to this objective was an airplane fuselage in which Islamic extremists honed their air-piracy skills. Initial reports from the camp vindicate those suspicions."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Helvetica,Sans-serif]Sabah Khodada was a captain in the Iraqi army from 1982 to 1992. He worked at what he describes as a highly secret terrorist training camp at Salman Pak (see Khodada's hand-drawn map of the camp), an area south of Baghdad. In this translated interview, conducted in association with The New York Times on Oct. 14, 2001,


[/FONT] [SIZE=+1]9/11 Bombshell: Judge Rules Saddam Trained Hijackers [Salman Pak][/SIZE]
Newsmax ^ | 5/9/03 | Newsmax wires

Posted on 05/09/2003 5:47:49 AM PDT by =Intervention=

In a bombshell finding virtually ignored by the American media, a U.S. District Court judge in Manhattan ruled Wednesday that Salman Pak, Saddam Hussein's airplane hijacking school located on the outskirts of Baghdad, played a material role in Sept. 11's devastating attacks on America.


That's the case where Fitzgerald, the attorney in the Plamegate case, stated that the evidence of Saddam's involvement with Alqaeda was clear and convincing
 
Last edited:
Stinger said:
As far as the American Intl Community can tell, operational ties did not exist. So, either we can believe you, or we can believe the US Intel Community.

Stinger said:
What is your position on this then perhaps I can more target my response.
You could show me the parts that demonstrate "the planning and the training that WAS going on ... with Alqaeda [and Hussein]."
 
Stinger said:
Which part of the story and your source for such a claim. But here are a few sources for you and then you can post what you have that you claim debunks them
Can't help but notice all of your citations are from before we even took Baghdad. Here's a citation from after we had a chance to go in and look around a bit

No proof found to link Al Qaeda with Hussein
March 3, 2004

Iraqi defectors alleged that Hussein's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists. The allegation made it into a September 2002 report the White House issued.
The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.
Stinger said:
And the more salient point, what were the intelligence agencies saying before we removed Saddam?
They were saying that there was neither an operational nor a collaborative relationship between Hussein and aQ. They were saying the Hussein was unlikely to attack us in the forseeable future either directly or by proxy.
Didn't we just go over all of this?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
As far as the American Intl Community can tell, operational ties did not exist. So, either we can believe you, or we can believe the US Intel Community.

So what? They did not engage in a mutual operation together. Are you saying that alone proves there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda no contacts at all, no discussions, no aid and assistence?

You could show me the parts that demonstrate "the planning and the training that WAS going on ... with Alqaeda [and Hussein]."[/quote]

By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
The issue arose again this month after the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported there was no "collaborative relationship" between the old Iraqi regime and bin Laden.

Democrats have cited the staff report to accuse Mr. Bush of making inaccurate statements about a linkage. Commission members, including a Democrat and two Republicans, quickly came to the administration's defense by saying there had been such contacts.
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
Mr. Bush cited the linkage, in part, to justify invading Iraq and ousting Saddam. He said he could not take the risk of Iraq's weapons falling into bin Laden's hands.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Shortly after the embassy bombings, Mr. Clinton ordered air strikes on al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and on the Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan.
To justify the Sudanese plant as a target, Clinton aides said it was involved in the production of deadly VX nerve gas. Officials further determined that bin Laden owned a stake in the operation and that its manager had traveled to Baghdad to learn bomb-making techniques from Saddam's weapons scientists.
Mr. Cohen elaborated in March in testimony before the September 11 commission.
He testified that "bin Laden had been living [at the plant], that he had, in fact, money that he had put into this military industrial corporation, that the owner of the plant had traveled to Baghdad to meet with the father of the VX program."
He said that if the plant had been allowed to produce VX that was used to kill thousands of Americans, people would have asked him, " 'You had a manager that went to Baghdad; you had Osama bin Laden, who had funded, at least the corporation, and you had traces of [VX precursor] and you did what? And you did nothing?' Is that a responsible activity on the part of the secretary of defense?"
 
aps said:
Oh, there's Stinger discounting everything I say and providing an excuse for his position. :yawn:

Oh, there's aps unable to carry on a reasonable debate based on facts.
 
Stinger said:
So what? They did not engage in a mutual operation together. Are you saying that alone proves there were no ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda no contacts at all, no discussions, no aid and assistence?
It shows they were not in cahoots. The US has had ties, contacts and discussions w/ Hussein and aQ.
Stinger said:
The Clinton administration talked about firm evidence linking Saddam Hussein's regime to Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network years before President Bush made the same statements.
And it turned out to be bullshit. we bombed an aspirin factory and had to pay compensation.
How does Clinton's screw-up really mean anything?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It shows they were not in cahoots. The US has had ties, contacts and discussions w/ Hussein and aQ.

Are you claiming that our relationship with Saddam and Al Qaeda was no different from the relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda themselves? Please elaborate.

We know they were "inchaoots" in Sudan, we know his intelligence agency people were meeting with Al Qaeda, we know Saddam wanted to further a friendly relationship with Al qaeda, we know he harbored them. You are saying that is no different from our, the US, relationship with either party. Please elaborate.

And it turned out to be bullshit. we bombed an aspirin factory and had to pay compensation.
How does Clinton's screw-up really mean anything?

Actaully it turned up both did want to produce chemical weapons there, but the salient point it is was believe to show the ties, and both Clinton and Bush believed it, it was not a lie.
 
Stinger said:
Are you claiming that our relationship with Saddam and Al Qaeda was no different from the relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda themselves? Please elaborate.
I'm merely showing how vague the terms are. While it is techniaclly correct to say these things re aQ and Hussein, the connotations are not also correct.

Stinger said:
We know they were "inchaoots" in Sudan ...
You might want to double check this. The factory that we bombed was not owned by UbL nor by an aQ affiliated person. Oopsie! Yet another Clinton screw-up.

Stinger said:
... we know his intelligence agency people were meeting with Al Qaeda, we know Saddam wanted to further a friendly relationship with Al qaeda ...
They spent ten years and weren't able to work anything out. Not much of a relationship.

Stinger said:
... both Clinton and Bush believed it, it was not a lie.
Well, you are correct in that belief can turn a liar into merely an incompetent person. If the two folks believed it then saying wouldn't be a lie. However, it's contrary to the reporting that Bush was getting from the US Intel Community. [I've not seen a statement from the US's IC re what they told Clinton.] So, perhaps you're right and Bush decided to believe what the OSP and the PCTEG were getting from the INC's ICP. That merely makes him incompetent instead of mendacious. Sort of a lateral move if you ask me.
 
Back
Top Bottom