- Joined
- Feb 4, 2005
- Messages
- 7,297
- Reaction score
- 1,002
- Location
- Saint Paul, MN
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
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.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.
shuamort said: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:
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.
#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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?someone said: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.
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.someone said: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.
No one else has evidence that he was there either.someone said: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.
Hussein was involved with terror.someone said:Other than that, I feel like this report pretty well argues the ties between Saddam and terror.
Then it was presented with outdated info. Perhaps this was on purpose, perhaps from from negligence, perhaps from incompetence.someone said:Despite your claims that it's outdated, it was presented in Sep 2004, and much of its evidence is from late 2004.
Not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.someone said:1) What do you make of the fact that Saddam was giving money to suicide bombers in Palestine?
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.someone said:2) Does the fact that these bombers were then killing both Israeli's and Americans constitute an attack on America?
Why do I have to? Why would I want to?someone said: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?
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.someone said: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?
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.someone said: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.someone said:6) How do you defend Al-Zarquai's medical treatment at a special state hospital after the US wounded him while invading Afghanistan?
Strange compared to what? Being a terrorist is outright bizarre to me.someone said: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?
As strange as when the 9-11 terrorists got into the US.someone said: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?
Odder than the FBI having similar documents?someone said: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?
mehsomeone said: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:
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.someone said: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?
A critical reading reveals that this isn't as revelatory or radical as some might suppose. Compare and contrast:someone said: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:
And the nature of these contacts? Despite more than a decade of efforts the two were unable reach a mutually acceptable agreement.someone said: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 SPAIN and the US of Al Qaeda members, including some that have been in MADRID and CHICAGO.someone said: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 the UK, US & PAKISTAN who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities.someone said: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 the US has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of the USE OF JETS AS WEAPONS.someone said:The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
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?someone said: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.
Simon W. Moon said:Not worth hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands of dead and wounded, not worth helping aQ's recruiting efforts.
ad hominem
As strange as when the 9-11 terrorists got into the US.
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.Odder than the FBI having similar documents?
And the nature of these contacts? Despite more than a decade of efforts the two were unable reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Yea, except the ones in Baghdad, during peacetime, weren't suicide bombing them.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.
Are you contending that the US have not allocated hundreds of billions of dollars to this enterprise?RightatNYU said: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.
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.htmAnd even if your bullshit claim about helping Aq's recruiting was true...
Perhaps they've been able to hand out some promotions over the years.RightatNYU said:... it'd be hard for them to do much when the vast majority of their leadership has been killed or captured.
If I wouldn't've helped make the job of terrorist recruiters easier, what would I have done? Hmm. That's a toughie.RightatNYU said:If you wouldn't have done this, then what would you have done?
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.RightatNYU said:Let them keep killing people? I don't place a price on the freedom of millions, nor do I make excuses for dictators.
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.RightatNYU said:Things like that can never be known. All we knew is that they talked, frequently. That's dangerous.
Simon W. Moon said: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.
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?nefarious_plot said: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 said: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.nefarious_plot said:Simon W. Moon said: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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?