Terrorist Trained in Iraq

[Stinger]

As I noted several weeks ago Stephen Hayes is doing a bang up job reporting the facts about Saddam and is continuing to expose the truth, he was more a threat than we had imagined (a conclusion also reached by Dr. Kay in is ISG interim report). More and more of the documents the US discovered are being declassified and made public including the latest to be reported in the next issue of the Weekly Standard and cited on NewsMax already

[FONT=Arial,helvetica] Friday, Jan. 6, 2006 11:07 p.m. EST[/FONT] [FONT=Arial,helvetica]New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training
[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,helvetica]
...............[/FONT] "The secret training took place primarily at three camps in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak," reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, who adds that the operations began two years before the 9/11 attacks and were "directed by elite Iraqi military units.".............


this being confirmed by no less than eleven officials so far




...................... Hayes reports that the materials currently being reviewed for release include photographs, handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes and videotapes - plus information recovered from compact discs, floppy discs and computer hard drives.
Taken together, the material chronicles a massive operation that trained 2,000 terrorists to attack Western interests each year from 1999 to 2002............




No ties to terrorism?
No danger to anyone?
He was just a good old fellow who should have been left alone?


This was one of the primary reasons we removed him, will the left still defend their position after this disclosure?

Just noticed the entire article is available online at

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/550kmbzd.asp

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
As I noted several weeks ago Stephen Hayes is doing a bang up job reporting the facts about Saddam and is continuing to expose the truth, he was more a threat than we had imagined (a conclusion also reached by Dr. Kay in is ISG interim report). More and more of the documents the US discovered are being declassified and made public including the latest to be reported in the next issue of the Weekly Standard and cited on NewsMax already

Friday, Jan. 6, 2006 11:07 p.m. EST New Saddam Documents Detail Terror Training
............... "The secret training took place primarily at three camps in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak," reports the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes, who adds that the operations began two years before the 9/11 attacks and were "directed by elite Iraqi military units.".............

this being confirmed by no less than eleven officials so far
...................... Hayes reports that the materials currently being reviewed for release include photographs, handwritten notes, typed documents, audiotapes and videotapes - plus information recovered from compact discs, floppy discs and computer hard drives.
Taken together, the material chronicles a massive operation that trained 2,000 terrorists to attack Western interests each year from 1999 to 2002............
No ties to terrorism?
No danger to anyone?
He was just a good old fellow who should have been left alone?

This was one of the primary reasons we removed him, will the left still defend their position after this disclosure?

Just noticed the entire article is available online at

What kind of bullshit is this? What did the training involve? Dirty bombs? Flight school? What the f_ck was the specific training involved at these sites?

This is a country that barely has running water and electricity. They were a threat to nobody. Including their neighbors. Prove to me just what kind of training was going on there before you start shooting off your mouth.

 

[robin]

'Left' or 'right' doesn't interest me. Only the truth interests me, so I keep an open mind. In fact I find the 'left right' thing a little juvenile, rather like supporting a football team or something. The left scoff at anything the right says & vica versa. Somewhere, all too often, the truth lies wounded somewhere in between. I believe in free markets & capitalism but also social justice & fair pay for workers.

'Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000.'

I find it hard to believe supposedly 8,000 terrorists were trained in Iraq, yet none attacked the west. It sounds far fetched to me.
We know the terrorists come from Pakistan, Morroco, Suidi etc etc.... not Iraq.
However I keep an open mind. I'd just like to more see concrete evidence.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Robin:
'Left' or 'right' doesn't interest me.. whatever those terms mean.
Only the truth interests me, so I keep an open mind.

'Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000.'

I find it hard to believe supposedly 8,000 terrorists were trained in Iraq, yet none attacked the west. It sounds far fetched to me.
We know the terrosits come from Pakistan, Morroco, Suidi etc etc.... not Iraq.

John Entwistle was trained in Iraq. He and his 3 buddy's attacked America. What do you have to say to that?

 

[robin]

John Entwistle was trained in Iraq. He and his 3 buddy's attacked America. What do you have to say to that?

'Who' are you talking about

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Robin:
'Who' are you talking about

Nice to see you speak "Oxen!"

 

[oldreliable67]

Prove to me just what kind of training was going on there before you start shooting off your mouth.

Er, what? Prove something to you before speaking about it? What form of communication do you then suggest, smoke signals? :2razz:

The Stephen Hayes article mentions the "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad." I recall seeing a CNN report on that, reported IIRC by Peter Arnett, who was still in Saddam's good graces at the time, just after Gulf War I. I still recall being quite puzzled by Arnett's description of the conference as being sponsored by a 'secular' Saddam, yet everything that Arnett reported about the conference had to do with radical Islamic terrorism.

Hayes goes on to quote another attendee to that conference, Newsweek's Christopher Dickey. Hayes describes Dickey's impressions this way:

"Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state." Dickey continued:

Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it."

Yet, we are to believe that February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment of Iraq. The relevant passage reads: "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

 

[cnredd]

I've always questioned that in my mind too, oldreliable...

The US is incredibly secular, but many here will say it really isn't because of the current administration and how it trys to force their brand of Christianity down everyone's throat...

And yet when someone says "Saddam was incredibly secular", those same people will sit back and accept it at face value...and in fact, use it as a DEFENSE of the radical fundamental accusations...

:shrug:

 

[Stinger]

What kind of bullshit is this? What did the training involve? Dirty bombs? Flight school? What the f_ck was the specific training involved at these sites?

This is a country that barely has running water and electricity. They were a threat to nobody. Including their neighbors. Prove to me just what kind of training was going on there before you start shooting off your mouth.

Tone down the rhetoric and speak civily and we may be able to have a discussion. What I posted says enough, the article is much more detailed. Try reading it.

 

[Stinger]

However I keep an open mind. I'd just like to more see concrete evidence.

"THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials."

And the article goes into much more detail, what more do you need and with all that we already know where does the doubt come from and why? Seems you simply do not want to believe what has been known for quite some time.

 

[Stinger]

I've always questioned that in my mind too, oldreliable...

The US is incredibly secular, but many here will say it really isn't because of the current administration and how it trys to force their brand of Christianity down everyone's throat...

And yet when someone says "Saddam was incredibly secular", those same people will sit back and accept it at face value...and in fact, use it as a DEFENSE of the radical fundamental accusations...

:shrug:

Secular or not, this information only proves what the Bush administration has said all along and many have here have provided the various sources only to be dismissed out of hand by the Saddam appeasor here. Do I have any doubt that they will once again baseless dismiss this evidence simply because they are so invested in having Bush and our mission dinegrated and dismissed? No, just watch.

 

[ANAV]

What kind of bullshit is this? What did the training involve? Dirty bombs? Flight school? What the f_ck was the specific training involved at these sites?

This is a country that barely has running water and electricity. They were a threat to nobody. Including their neighbors. Prove to me just what kind of training was going on there before you start shooting off your mouth.

Of course you think it's bullshit. Anything that does not support your thoughts or proves the administration right is bullshit to you. This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of documents being translated and analyzed.

What would you consider proof?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by aps:
Of course you think it's bullshit. Anything that does not support your thoughts or proves the administration right is bullshit to you.

Wrongo! I'm the most bi-partisan mother-f_cker on this website!

Originally posted by aps:
This is just the tip of the iceberg. There are thousands of documents being translated and analyzed.

What would you consider proof?

Specifics. That's what I would like to see. Specifics. So far, its just, "They had terror camps". What was taught at these camps? And if you say, "Terror", this conversation is over.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Er, what? Prove something to you before speaking about it? What form of communication do you then suggest, smoke signals?

The Stephen Hayes article mentions the "Popular Islamic Conferences" at the al Rashid Hotel that drew the most radical Islamists from throughout the region to Baghdad." I recall seeing a CNN report on that, reported IIRC by Peter Arnett, who was still in Saddam's good graces at the time, just after Gulf War I. I still recall being quite puzzled by Arnett's description of the conference as being sponsored by a 'secular' Saddam, yet everything that Arnett reported about the conference had to do with radical Islamic terrorism.

Hayes goes on to quote another attendee to that conference, Newsweek's Christopher Dickey. Hayes describes Dickey's impressions this way:

"Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, who covered one of those meetings in 1993, would later write: "Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state." Dickey continued:

Every time I hear diplomats and politicians, whether in Washington or the capitals of Europe, declare that Saddam Hussein is a "secular Baathist ideologue" who has nothing do with Islamists or with terrorist calls to jihad, I think of that afternoon and I wonder what they're talking about. If that was not a fledgling Qaeda itself at the Rashid convention, it sure was Saddam's version of it."

Yet, we are to believe that February 2002 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment of Iraq. The relevant passage reads: "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of Islamic revolutionary movements. Moreover, Baghdad is unlikely to provide assistance to a group it cannot control."

This is in the face of American aggression. Every country has a right to resist aggression on its soil. That is International Law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not terrorism to defend your country from an act of aggression from another country.

Your arguement is weak and does not hold water.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
Tone down the rhetoric and speak civily and we may be able to have a discussion. What I posted says enough, the article is much more detailed. Try reading it.

Steve Cambone can go f_ck himself! Release the documents, then we will continue this discussion.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is in the face of American aggression. Every country has a right to resist aggression on its soil. That is International Law. There is nothing wrong with that. It is not terrorism to defend your country from an act of aggression from another country.

For a right of resistance to apply, such as our right to resist the Crown, there have to be certain, narrow conditions.

First and foremost, all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated. This is not the case in Iraq; there is an elected government with functioning courts and a representative, elected parliament. There is freedom of the press. There is a constitution approved by the people which guarantees these things.

Second, a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation. When critics of Bush think they can score points that way, they love to broadcast that a significant part of the "insurgency" is of foreign origin.

Third, the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people (even if they meet outside the offices of the government in charge, as was the case with the Continental Congress) . . . and must obey the accepted rules of warfare.

This sludge in Iraq meets none of these, and in fact seek to impose exactly the kind of "law" which would justify a right of rebellion.

Your arguement is weak and does not hold water.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
For a right of resistance to apply, such as our right to resist the Crown, there have to be certain, narrow conditions.

First and foremost, all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated. This is not the case in Iraq; there is an elected government with functioning courts and a representative, elected parliament. There is freedom of the press. There is a constitution approved by the people which guarantees these things.

Second, a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation. When critics of Bush think they can score points that way, they love to broadcast that a significant part of the "insurgency" is of foreign origin.

Third, the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people (even if they meet outside the offices of the government in charge, as was the case with the Continental Congress) . . . and must obey the accepted rules of warfare.

This sludge in Iraq meets none of these, and in fact seek to impose exactly the kind of "law" which would justify a right of rebellion.

Your arguement is weak and does not hold water.

According to US field commanders, insurgency from foriegn fighters makes up only 10% of the resistance. So catch the clue, we are fighting Iraqis.

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

What the f**k are you talking about? Lets try to get on the same page here. Consider the following:

"Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state."

Remember, this was 1993, just after the coalition had kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. We had not invaded Iraq, in fact, we had permitted Saddam to remain in power (which, of course, many believe to have been a mistake). Given the point in time to which the discussion is referring, your responses are puzzling (among other things).

This thread is about apparent contradictions between those who assert that Saddam was totally secular and would never have countenanced a relationship with radical Islamists and the documented gathering of various radical Islamists groups for a little get-together in Baghdad under Saddam's aegis. Do you not see the contradiction?

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Billo,

What the f**k are you talking about? Lets try to get on the same page here. Consider the following:

"Islamic radicals from all over the Middle East, Africa and Asia converged on Baghdad to show their solidarity with Iraq in the face of American aggression." One speaker praised "the mujahed Saddam Hussein, who is leading this nation against the nonbelievers." Another speaker said, "Everyone has a task to do, which is to go against the American state."

Remember, this was 1993, just after the coalition had kicked Iraq out of Kuwait. We had not invaded Iraq, in fact, we had permitted Saddam to remain in power (which, of course, many believe to have been a mistake). Given the point in time to which the discussion is referring, your responses are puzzling (among other things).

This thread is about apparent contradictions between those who assert that Saddam was totally secular and would never have countenanced a relationship with radical Islamists and the documented gathering of various radical Islamists groups for a little get-together in Baghdad under Saddam's aegis. Do you not see the contradiction?

Bullshit, we invaded in April 2002 under the cover of no-fly zone enforcement!

 

[oldreliable67]

Billo,

Had a good bit to drink last nite, did we? Still feeling the effects, are we? When you sober up, maybe we can continue this in a more rational manner.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by oldreliable67:
Billo,

Had a good bit to drink last nite, did we? Still feeling the effects, are we? When you sober up, maybe we can continue this in a more rational manner.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

[M14 Shooter]

According to US field commanders, insurgency from foriegn fighters makes up only 10% of the resistance. So catch the clue, we are fighting Iraqis.

OK...
And the OTHER points, as well as the REST of the second?


-all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated.

- a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation.

What right do the non-Iraqi Islamofascists have to be there?

-the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people

-the rebellion must obey the accepted rules of warfare.

 

[Axismaster]

The Middle East is so confusing, I don't even see why we bother with it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
OK...
And the OTHER points, as well as the REST of the second?


-all non-violent avenues of civil redress must be abrogated.

Did we persue all "...non-violent avenues of civil redress..." before attacking?

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
- a right of resistance can only be claimed by the actual people of a nation.

We already addressed this point.

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
What right do the non-Iraqi Islamofascists have to be there?

The same right the CIA had to be in Chilli, El Salvador and Nicaragua.

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
-the rebellion must be open, authorized by representatives of the people

If 90% of the fighting is being done by Iraqis, that is the people.

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
-the rebellion must obey the accepted rules of warfare.

Accepted rules of warfare! Like Article 51 of the UN Charter?

 

[Stinger]

Steve Cambone can go f_ck himself! Release the documents, then we will continue this discussion.

It is clear you cannot discuss this in a civil tone and that you supported Saddam training terrorist in his country. So be it, we are all aware of your position in the matter. It's your hill to defend. Thankfully you were not in charge here.