Husseinandterrorism.com (1 Viewer)

[shuamort]

RightatNYU has been cited the website Husseinandterrorism.com (H&T) on this board a couple times. (Here's a quick example.) So, instead of hijacking those threads, I thought I'd start one to address the website and some of the inaccuracies found on it.

#1)The article from CBS:

A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.

That article is dated 5/7/03 which predates the 9/11 Commission report. Because in June '04, 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida.

#2)Next from H&T:
"Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda."
Unfortunately, Yasin was in an Iraqi prison twice And Mr Yasin himself told 60 Minutes that the FBI let him go after interrogating him in the days following the 1993 bombing - even driving him home.

#3)From H&T: The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.16

- Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.

The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

#4)From H&T:Or perhaps Al-Ani saw a former student from Hamburg named Mohamed Atta to discuss more practical matters. The Czech government sticks to their contention that they did observe this Iraqi diplomat meeting with Mohamed Atta just five months before 9-11. As Czech U.N. Ambassador Hynek Kmonicek explained in a letter to Philadelphia attorney James Beasley, Jr.: “In this moment we can confirm, that during the next stay of Mr. Muhammad Atta in the Czech Republic, there was the contact with the official of the Iraqi intelligence, Mr. Al Ani, Ahmed Khalin Ibrahim Samir, who was on 22nd April 2001 expelled from the Czech Republic on the basis of activities which were not compatible with the diplomatic status.” 21 Al-Ani was kicked out of Prague for casing the headquarters of Radio Free Europe and Radio Free Iraq, presumably because he wanted to blow them up.
- The allegation that Sept. 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta met in Prague, Czech Republic, with an Iraqi intelligence officer now is contradicted by FBI evidence that Atta was taking flight training in Florida at the time. The Iraqi, Ahmed Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, is now in U.S. custody and has told interrogators he never met Atta.


George Tenet: "Did Saddam tolerate terrorists? Yes. Was there any evidence Saddam was involved with 9/11? No."

The main problem with that website is that it hasn't been updated to include current information that speaks in direct contrast with it. Not attempting to throw the baby out with the bathwater, it's a bit much to swallow the website as truth and as such, in my opinion, it should be disregarded as a credible source.

 

[RightinNYC]

RightatNYU has been cited the website Husseinandterrorism.com (H&T) on this board a couple times. (Here's a quick example.) So, instead of hijacking those threads, I thought I'd start one to address the website and some of the inaccuracies found on it.

Just to note, the site is www.husseinandterror.com .

Alright.

1)The article from CBS:
Quote:
A federal judge Wednesday ordered Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and others to pay early $104 million to the families of two Sept. 11 victims, saying there is evidence – though meager - that Iraq had a hand in the terrorist attacks.

That article is dated 5/7/03 which predates the 9/11 Commission report. Because in June '04, 9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida.

That article link didn't work for me, but one from the Wash Post also said:

"But the report of the commission's staff, based on its access to all relevant classified information, said that there had been contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda but no cooperation."
"The staff report said that bin Laden "explored possible cooperation with Iraq" while in Sudan through 1996, but that "Iraq apparently never responded" to a bin Laden request for help in 1994. The commission cited reports of contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda after bin Laden went to Afghanistan in 1996, adding, 'but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.'"

So. The fact remains that there WAS contact between Saddam and al-Quaida. The commissions conclusion is not a denial of complicity, but rather a claim that the evidence is not significant enough to prove anything. The absence of proof is not proof of absence.

#2)Next from H&T:
"Recall that Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the al-Qaeda bombers who hit the World Trade Center in 1993, fled to Iraq after that attack and lived there freely, reportedly with a government salary. That’s one clear link to al-Qaeda."
Unfortunately, Yasin was in an Iraqi prison twice And Mr Yasin himself told 60 Minutes that the FBI let him go after interrogating him in the days following the 1993 bombing - even driving him home.

This article that you cite is laughable. To back up its claims, it cites two people: Abdul Rahman Yasin, a terrorist, and Tariq Aziz, Iraq's Foreign Policy Minister.

Here's some background info on Aziz:

When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, Tariq Aziz served as the international spokesman in support of the military action, saying the move was justified because Kuwait's increased oil production was dampening Iraqi oil revenues. He has condemned Arab states for "subservience to the United States' hegemony in the Middle East and their support for punitive sanctions."

Tariq Aziz has survived as an adviser to Saddam Hussein for more than 20 years. Some attribute his survival to his lack of a power base in Iraq, which means he presents no threat to Saddam Hussein.

Tariq Aziz blamed the United States rather than the United Nations for the sanctions that followed the Gulf War, believing they were implemented as a result of U.S. government policies. He used these beliefs to back the expulsion of Americans working for the United Nations Special Commission in 1997.

http://www.iraqinews.com/people_aziz.shtml

Hmmmm, think this guy has a reason to hate the United States much? When the only side of a story being presented is that of two completely discredited propagandists, it's not a very convincing article.

Regarding Abdul being in prison...not according to her:

Former ABC News correspondent Sheila MacVicar looked for Yasin, and here is what she reported on July 27, 1994: “Last week, [television program] Day One confirmed [Yasin] is in Baghdad…Just a few days ago, he was seen at [his father’s] house by ABC News. Neighbors told us Yasin comes and goes freely.”

A little bit more info on that alleged deal, from one of your sources:

Cheney didn't mention that Iraq had offered to turn over Yasin to the FBI in 1998, in return for a U.S. statement acknowledging that Iraq had no role in that attack. The Clinton administration refused the offer, because it was unwilling to reward Iraq for returning a fugitive.

#3)From H&T: The Associated Press reports that Coalition forces shut down at least three terrorist training camps in Iraq. The most notorious of these was the base at Salman Pak, about 15 miles southeast of Baghdad. Before the war, numerous Iraqi defectors said the camp featured a passenger jet on which terrorists sharpened their air piracy skills. This satellite photo shows an urban assault training site, a three-car train for railway-attack instruction, and a commercial airliner sitting all by itself in the middle of the desert.16

- Iraqi defectors alleged that Saddam's regime was helping to train Iraqi and non-Iraqi Arab terrorists at a site called Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. The allegation made it into a September 2002 white paper that the White House issued.

The U.S. military has found no evidence of such a facility.

So what do you suppose the pictures are of? This base didn't disappear magically. Your implication that the base never existed is disputed by Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. He says it DID exist, and managed to draw a picture of it from memory that matched the aerial photo. You neglected to mention that.

From that same article:

Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.

Occasional meetings just about does it for me.

Regarding your 4th claim. Mohammed Atta may not have been in Prague for that meeting. I don't have any evidence that would support that claim. Other than that, I feel like this report pretty well argues the ties between Saddam and terror.

Despite your claims that it's outdated, it was presented in Sep 2004, and much of its evidence is from late 2004.

 

[RightinNYC]

Now, if you'll oblige, I have a few questions for you:


1) What do you make of the fact that Saddam was giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine?
2) Does the fact that these bombers were then killing both Israeli's and Americans constitute an attack on America?
3) How do you defend the fact that Abu Abbas, the infamous cruise ship murderer, escaped jail by virtue of possessing an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport?
4) What about the fact that Abbas lived in Iraq safely and freely for 18 years, until he was captured by the US during the invasion?
5) How do you defend the actions of Iraq's diplomat to the Phillipines, who was expelled from the country after calling terrorists both directly before and after an attack that killed 23 people, including an American?
6) How do you defend Al-Zarquai's medical treatment at a special state hospital after the US wounded him while invading Afghanistan?
7) The immediate escape plan for many of the terrorists in Afghanistan after the US invaded was to enter Iraq. Does it seem strange to you that these terrorists would congregate there, when they knew that it too could be a US target? Doesn't it also seem strange that the Iraqi border police didn't realize that even one of these people entering their country were terrorists?
8) Despite your claim that this site is outdated, does the information from mid 2004 showing that a prized Lieutenant Colonel in the elite Saddam Fedayeen had documents outlining the 93 bombings and another 95 al-Quaida plot, the predecessor to 9/11, seem odd?
9) Many on the left have claimed that even though many officials from both parties went on the record saying that Iraq and 9/11 were tied, they are exempt from responsibility from that because they were believing the words of President Bush, and as President, the responsibility for the Iraq claim rests on him. How would you react to this:

This is an excerpt of the original indictment of Osama bin Laden, filed by President Clinton's Justice Department in 1998.

Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah 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.

Given this evidence, could you argue that the premise of a tie between Iraq and al-Quaida was not created by Bush, but rather by Clinton?

And finally, 10) Not all of the claims put forth before the war have been refuted. George Tenet, whom you quoted in your original post, had the following to say during the hearings, and has since reaffirmed this:

Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank. We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade. Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs. Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of relationship with Al Qaeda suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action.

To me that doesn't seem like an exoneration of Iraq, but rather a sign that although the concrete evidence may not yet be enough to gurantee a conviction in a court, any reasonable person could be expected to believe that there WERE ties, and that the ties were most likely far deeper than we now know.

 

[Squawker]

Very nice rebuttal, RightatNYU. :clap:

 

[Simon W. Moon]

So what do you suppose the pictures are of? This base didn't disappear magically. Your implication that the base never existed is disputed by Sabah Khodada, a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. He says it DID exist, and managed to draw a picture of it from memory that matched the aerial photo. You neglected to mention that.

Just because there is a base doesn't mean that it was used the way this fellow said it was. The question is who do you trust more, the US military or Mr. Khodada?

From that same article:
Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence that Saddam's secular police state and Osama bin Laden's Islamic terrorism network were in league. At most, there were occasional meetings.
Occasional meetings just about does it for me.

The US has had "occasional meetings" with aQ. Does that mean the US is in league with them as well? I suppose this would explain why the US military's involved in a cover up of the Salman Pak issue.

Regarding your 4th claim. Mohammed Atta may not have been in Prague for that meeting. I don't have any evidence that would support that claim.

No one else has evidence that he was there either.
Take a look at the quotes from Cheney as he makes untrue statements in an attempt to distance himself from his earlier comments re the Atta/Prague affair:
Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"
Cheney's crawfishin' for a reason. The reason isn't that the Atta/Prague meeting actually happened. Unless we're back to the US/aQ link and cover up involving the US military as evidenced by the "occasional meetings" between Americans and aQ agents. Don't forget that aQ terrorists received training to help them carry out the 9-11 attacks right here in the US of A. There must be a collaborative relationship of some sort. Look at the cover up by the US military and Cheney too! Both of them are denying evidence of the IRaqi-aQ links.
Or, perhaps not. Perhaps "occasional meetings" don't really mean diddly and the US military really didn't find any sort of terrorist training camp.
I report, you decide.
Here're some more interesting reports (there from the US intel community, so they may be involved in the attempt to cover up the aQ/Iraq conspiarcies):
Iraq and al-Qa’ida: Interpreting a Murky Relationship

The October 2, 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's Continuing WMD Programs

“As with much of the information on the overall [Iraq-al Qaeda] relationship, details on training and support are second-hand or from sources of varying reliability.”​

Iraqi Support for Terrorism

“Iraqi Support for Terrorism,” discusses the lack of “evidence of completed training,” and says most of the reports of training “do not make clear whether training” was “actually implemented.” It indicates that some number of the reports appeared to be based on “hearsay,” and that others were “simple declarative accusations of Iraqi-al Qa’ida complicity with no substantiating detail or other information that might help us corroborate them.”​

all from here: Levin Releases Newly Declassified Intelligence Documents on Iraq-al Qaeda Relationship

Other than that, I feel like this report pretty well argues the ties between Saddam and terror.

Hussein was involved with terror.
He did support an international terrorist organization who has killed Americans and who fought against the US before Baghdad fell. This group were Hussein's enforcers. They carried out the brutal oppression of the Kurds and Shia that so many people are fashionably upset about. The organization is rightfully noted on the H&T website. The organization is called the Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MEK).

This terrorist organization held a convention in the Daughters of the American Revolution's Consititution Hall in Washington DC last week and I was there.​

I had dinner with their spokesman, Ali Safavi, who is said to've been a member of the Iraqi Army who tortured dissenting MEK personel. I recorded an interview with him. Several members of the US Congress gave speeches at the event. Members of Team Bush have helped this terrorist organization of Hussein's raise funds. Members of Team Bush and members of the US Congress are supporting the same international terrorist organization that Hussein used to carry out attacks against Iran and Iraqis. Dwell on that for a moment.
HOWEVER, this is all markedly different from having some sort of collaborative relationship with aQ.
Keep that in mind.

Despite your claims that it's outdated, it was presented in Sep 2004, and much of its evidence is from late 2004.

Then it was presented with outdated info. Perhaps this was on purpose, perhaps from from negligence, perhaps from incompetence.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

part 2

1) What do you make of the fact that Saddam was giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine?

Not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.

2) Does the fact that these bombers were then killing both Israeli's and Americans constitute an attack on America?

If one chose, one could make this case. However, it's not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.

3) How do you defend the fact that Abu Abbas, the infamous cruise ship murderer, escaped jail by virtue of possessing an Iraqi Diplomatic Passport?

Why do I have to? Why would I want to?

4) What about the fact that Abbas lived in Iraq safely and freely for 18 years, until he was captured by the US during the invasion?

What about it? It's not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.

5) How do you defend the actions of Iraq's diplomat to the Phillipines, who was expelled from the country after calling terrorists both directly before and after an attack that killed 23 people, including an American?

Why do I have to? Why would I want to? It's not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.

6) How do you defend Al-Zarquai's medical treatment at a special state hospital after the US wounded him while invading Afghanistan?

Why do I have to? Why would I want to? It's not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.

7) The immediate escape plan for many of the terrorists in Afghanistan after the US invaded was to enter Iraq. Does it seem strange to you that these terrorists would congregate there, when they knew that it too could be a US target?

Strange compared to what? Being a terrorist is outright bizarre to me.

Doesn't it also seem strange that the Iraqi border police didn't realize that even one of these people entering their country were terrorists?

As strange as when the 9-11 terrorists got into the US.

8) Despite your claim that this site is outdated, does the information from mid 2004 showing that a prized Lieutenant Colonel in the elite Saddam Fedayeen had documents outlining the 93 bombings and another 95 al-Quaida plot, the predecessor to 9/11, seem odd?

Odder than the FBI having similar documents?

9) Many on the left have claimed that even though many officials from both parties went on the record saying that Iraq and 9/11 were tied, they are exempt from responsibility from that because they were believing the words of President Bush, and as President, the responsibility for the Iraq claim rests on him. How would you react to this:

meh

Given this evidence, could you argue that the premise of a tie between Iraq and al-Quaida was not created by Bush, but rather by Clinton?

One can argue any number of things. What of it? Clinton was a screw up. Rememeber also that Clinton was saying aQ was going to give chemical weapons to Iraq, not the other way around.

10) Not all of the claims put forth before the war have been refuted. George Tenet, whom you quoted in your original post, had the following to say during the hearings, and has since reaffirmed this:

A critical reading reveals that this isn't as revelatory or radical as some might suppose. Compare and contrast:

We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade.Credible information indicates that Iraq and Al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression.

And the nature of these contacts? Despite more than a decade of efforts the two were unable reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in SPAIN and the US of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in MADRID and CHICAGO.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities.

We have credible reporting that Al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in the UK, US & PAKISTAN who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities.

The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

The reporting also stated that the US has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of the USE OF JETS AS WEAPONS.

To me that doesn't seem like an exoneration of Iraq, but rather a sign that although the concrete evidence may not yet be enough to gurantee a conviction in a court, any reasonable person could be expected to believe that there WERE ties, and that the ties were most likely far deeper than we now know.

To you this speculation was worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and a big boost to aQ's recruiting efforts?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Can tens of thousands of deaths be justified by speculation based on an absence of evidence?​

 

[RightinNYC]

Re: part 2

Not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.
ad hominem

First off, the tally of "hundreds of billions of dollars" shows an ignorance of the economic realities of where the money being spent is going. I outlined to you in another thread why lives have been saved by this war. And even if your bullshit claim about helping Aq's recruiting was true, it'd be hard for them to do much when the vast majority of their leadership has been killed or captured.

If you wouldn't have done this, then what would you have done? Let them keep killing people? I don't place a price on the freedom of millions, nor do I make excuses for dictators.

As strange as when the 9-11 terrorists got into the US.

No, 20 people making it into the US over a period of years during peace time is a lot different then thousands of people flooding into your country after war was declared on a neighboring terrorist regime.

Odder than the FBI having similar documents?

If an FBI agent was killed in Iraq with plans on him to commit a terror attack on an Iraqi civilian target, then that would be the same situation.

And the nature of these contacts? Despite more than a decade of efforts the two were unable reach a mutually acceptable agreement.

Things like that can never be known. All we knew is that they talked, frequently. That's dangerous.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in SPAIN and the US of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in MADRID and CHICAGO.

Yea, except the ones in Baghdad, during peacetime, weren't suicide bombing them.

To you this speculation was worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, and a big boost to aQ's recruiting efforts?[/QUOTE]

It didn't cost hundreds of billions, it saved 10s of thousands of lives, and it didn't help Aq. Other than that, yea I agree with you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Re: part 2

First off, the tally of "hundreds of billions of dollars" shows an ignorance of the economic realities of where the money being spent is going.

Are you contending that the US have not allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to this enterprise?

And even if your bullshit claim about helping Aq's recruiting was true...

It's not my claim, it's the US intelligence community's "bullshit claim." If you care to set them straight, I'm sure that there are ample opportunities for you to email them. You could start here: http://cia.gov/cia/contact.htm

Can you cite a more reliable source that says otherwise?

Take it up w/ Porter Goss:
http://cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/Goss_testimony_02162005.html
Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence
Porter J. Goss
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
16 February 2005

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.​

Here's something to chew on for the moment:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf

• Anti-globalization and opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies.
• Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself.
• Foreign jihadists—individuals ready
to fight anywhere they believe
Muslim lands are under attack by
what they see as “infidel invaders”—
enjoy a growing sense of support
from Muslims who are not
necessarily supporters of terrorism.​

... it'd be hard for them to do much when the vast majority of their leadership has been killed or captured.

Perhaps they've been able to hand out some promotions over the years.

If you wouldn't have done this, then what would you have done?

If I wouldn't've helped make the job of terrorist recruiters easier, what would I have done? Hmm. That's a toughie.
How 'bout rather than viewing the invasion of Iraq as a required action, we first establish a case that it was a required action.
Given that Iraq was did not present a viable threat to the US [I've laid out a very short, truncated case here, Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time" ] what is the US's national interest in an invasion?

Let them keep killing people? I don't place a price on the freedom of millions, nor do I make excuses for dictators.

How very noble of you. I'm sure you'll get your reward in Heaven. However, the affairs of states must be governed by a little bit more than noble idealism. Before a major commitment of resources and troops is undertaken, there should be a compelling national interest in doing so. Without such a compelling national interest and a lack of alternatives, there's no cause to view a military action as required.

Things like that can never be known. All we knew is that they talked, frequently. That's dangerous.

Perhaps that's true; however, it's not "all that we knew." To the best of our knowledge, they were never able to work out an acceptable agreement. It's an odd definition of 'frequently' that characterizes less than a dozen incidents over a decade as frequent.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

RightatNYU,

If you have the time and inclination, would you care expound on your feelings about members of Team Bush and other US Congress members supporting the Islamo-Marxist, terrorist group that Saddam Hussein used to brutally suppress the Kurds in 1991, the Mojahedin-e-Khalq? I'm somewhat curious as to how you feel about this.

Did I mention that the MEK is implicated in the Oil4Food scandal?


Thanks,

Simon

 

[nefarious_plot]

Oh a Judge huh? The Republican party pretty much declared war on all Judges lately. Hardly credible to use a ruling from one to justify this insane war. Hussien was a Stalinst Secular Dictator. He fought Islaimc fundies in his country at every turn. The CIA and every admin prior to G W stated him as such and his actions have always been consitatnt with a stalinst.

This is a dead horse if there ever was one. No war is ever juustified and this is no different. These flimsy attemtps to conenct Hussien with his mortal enemies within his own country and those Islamic fundies whom have condemend him his entire rule is pathetic. The CIA has all the credibilty of Howard Stern. This is laughable.

Secondly. This argument also travels down a absurd path of trying to call Hussien a terrorist based on his dispicable actions. Well you could define a common armed thug as a terrorists if you want. In this argument the definition of terrorists is a Islamic fundies. Hussien was never that. Calling for Jihad just before ducks underground isnt proove otherwise. Thats simply his attempt to try to solidify all players in the region in supporting him. Much like his shelling of Isreal in 1991. He was going down and he knew it. He would have called on little green men in saucers if it would have saved his behind. Its called desperation.

 

[Squawker]

Hi nefarious_plot! :2wave:

 

[myshkin]

Re: part 2

Are you contending that the US have not allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to this enterprise?


It's not my claim, it's the US intelligence community's "bullshit claim." If you care to set them straight, I'm sure that there are ample opportunities for you to email them. You could start here: http://cia.gov/cia/contact.htm

Can you cite a more reliable source that says otherwise?

Take it up w/ Porter Goss:
http://cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2004/Goss_testimony_02162005.html
Testimony of Director of Central Intelligence
Porter J. Goss
Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
16 February 2005

Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-US jihadists.
These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced in and focused on acts of urban terrorism. They represent a potential pool of contacts to build transnational terrorist cells, groups, and networks in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and other countries.​

Here's something to chew on for the moment:
http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf

• Anti-globalization and opposition to
US policies could cement a greater
body of terrorist sympathizers,
financiers, and collaborators.
societies.
• Iraq and other possible conflicts in
the future could provide recruitment,
training grounds, technical skills and
language proficiency for a new class
of terrorists who are “professionalized”
and for whom political
violence becomes an end in itself.
• Foreign jihadists—individuals ready
to fight anywhere they believe
Muslim lands are under attack by
what they see as “infidel invaders”—
enjoy a growing sense of support
from Muslims who are not
necessarily supporters of terrorism.​

Perhaps they've been able to hand out some promotions over the years.

If I wouldn't've helped make the job of terrorist recruiters easier, what would I have done? Hmm. That's a toughie.
How 'bout rather than viewing the invasion of Iraq as a required action, we first establish a case that it was a required action.
Given that Iraq was did not present a viable threat to the US [I've laid out a very short, truncated case here, Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time" ] what is the US's national interest in an invasion?

How very noble of you. I'm sure you'll get your reward in Heaven. However, the affairs of states must be governed by a little bit more than noble idealism. Before a major commitment of resources and troops is undertaken, there should be a compelling national interest in doing so. Without such a compelling national interest and a lack of alternatives, there's no cause to view a military action as required.

Perhaps that's true; however, it's not "all that we knew." To the best of our knowledge, they were never able to work out an acceptable agreement. It's an odd definition of 'frequently' that characterizes less than a dozen incidents over a decade as frequent.

In addition to Iraq being a magnet for jihadists the occupation of Muslim lands by infidels confirms to many Muslims just what bin Laden has been saying.
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20050502-092415-6971r

 

[nefarious_plot]

Its ridiculous and its the EXACT opposite claim they made for almost 30 years prior to this war. The exact oppostie claim they made under George Bush Senior. Anybody colud set them straight. And has. There claims are rubbish they havent substianted one since this mess started. The country has never been fundie under Hussien. Thats what the shites in the south were fighting about. Thats why he fought Iran. And thats why the US backed him that war with Iran. What inept guessers in the CIA say does'nt hold any weight with anybody in this country or world unless your a rabid partisan trying to back up your leader.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

What inept guessers in the CIA say does'nt hold any weight with anybody in this country or world unless your a rabid partisan trying to back up your leader.

Do you have any citations where the CIA said what it seems you're implying they said (that SH was in league w/ aQ)? Though, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure which what in particular you're objecting to. Could you provide some more details on that?

AFAICT, the CIA didn't support this claim. It was merely Team Bush and certain groups of civilian personnel from the DoD.

I'd love to look at new evidence.

This includes a bit about the CIA's and the US's Intel community had to say about Iraq before the invasion: Team Bush and "Best Info Available @ the Time"

 

[nefarious_plot]

Are you contending that the US have not allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to this enterprise?


It's not my claim, it's the US intelligence community's "bullshit claim." If you care to set them straight, I'm sure that there are ample opportunities for you to email them. You could start here: http://cia.gov/cia/contact.htm

Thats what was being talked of.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Are you contending that the US have not allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to this enterprise?


It's not my claim, it's the US intelligence community's "bullshit claim." If you care to set them straight, I'm sure that there are ample opportunities for you to email them. You could start here: http://cia.gov/cia/contact.htm

Thats what was being talked of.

I'm just trying to understand what exactly you're getting at.
I hope you can be patient with me.
Did you notice that the time periods in my post that you quoted are different from the time period you referenced in your rebuttal? You refer to pre-invasion times ("under Hussein") and my comments refer to the invasion and the post invasion era.

 

[nefarious_plot]

Heck. I have confused myself. :lol: Two things I never get right in these forum programs. The quote dealey. and the Reply to:. So I may have been responding to the wrong post.


The starting thread post mentioned Judge awarding to victoms of 9/11 and citing that his ruling is based on Bin laden's attack and Hussiens supposed connection.

Then there was a rubuttle perhaps it wasnt even to my post though I thought it was. That cited CIA made a connection. I think thats just not credible.

As far as insurgents after the invasion. Without Hussiens supression of people and the discontent of American prescence in the region. The invasion surely invited ever fundie that could get into the coutnry to come and fight.