Terrorist Trained in Iraq

[ANAV]

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

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.

I almost pissed myself laughing when I read that you think you bi-partisan. You're the biggest Republican basher on this board. How come you defend everything Democratic and curse everything Republican? Please don't answer that, my bladder can't take it.

You want specifics? So do I. That's why I want the documents released. Part of being bi-partisan is keeping an open mind until the facts are presented and not having a prejudice opinion.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Is this another one of theose instances in which the ever honest presenter of facts, Mr. Hayes, is dubbing Iraqi Secret police terrorists?

 

[G-Man]

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

All very nice but no proof presented whatsoever. I seem to remember being told we had 'photographs, documents and intelligence' providing concrete proof of WMD but all that turned out to be crap. The info. hasn't even been released yet and you are making conclusions already. Don't you think you should read/see the info. itself before forming a judgement - unless you have already formed an opinion and just disregard all the facts presented before you?? Maybe you should take off your Bush blinkers and form an opinion of your own after studying the available intelligence...not just blindly agreeing with the commentator.

One point I would make about the article :-


The official continued: "[Saddam] used these groups because he was interested in extending his influence and extending the influence of Iraq. There are definite and absolute ties to terrorism. The evidence is there, especially at the network level. How high up in the government was it sanctioned? I can't tell you. I don't know whether it was run by Qusay [Hussein] or [Izzat Ibrahim] al-Duri or someone else. I'm just not sure. But to say Iraq wasn't involved in terrorism is flat wrong."

The commentator states 'Saddam used these groups' but in the same breath acknowledges he does not know how high up the govt. it went or who was involved. Even if he can prove Iraq was connected in this (whenever he releases his evidence) he has admitted he can find no ties between the Iraqi govt. hierachy (ie Saddam) and the terrorists so I don't know what the point is??

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Stinger:
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.

Your arguement is a joke and full of innuendo. Where do you get off thinking that I support Hussein? You jump to a lot of conclusions and offer no evidence to support any of your claims.

The proof is in the pudding. So far the pudding has not been released for consumption. Until it does, your arguement has no merit whatsoever. It is completly conjecture at this point. Get your facts, then we will discuss it.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by ANAV:
I almost pissed myself laughing when I read that you think you bi-partisan. You're the biggest Republican basher on this board. How come you defend everything Democratic and curse everything Republican? Please don't answer that, my bladder can't take it.

You want specifics? So do I. That's why I want the documents released. Part of being bi-partisan is keeping an open mind until the facts are presented and not having a prejudice opinion.

I have never bashed a Republican that didn't deserve it. Maybe you should do your homework first before saying untruths like I "...defend everything Democratic..."

 

[Stinger]

Is this another one of theose instances in which the ever honest presenter of facts, Mr. Hayes, is dubbing Iraqi Secret police terrorists?

Are you claiming the article is totally specious or something? If so then how about some specific rebuttle of what it says, your simple dismissals are very unconvincing.

 

[Billo_Really]

Orginally posted by Stinger:
Are you claiming the article is totally specious or something? If so then how about some specific rebuttle of what it says, your simple dismissals are very unconvincing.

Why is a specific rebuttal required when your article is not?

 

[Stinger]

Why is a specific rebuttal required when your article is not?

Is not what?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Are you claiming the article is totally specious or something? If so then how about some specific rebuttle of what it says, your simple dismissals are very unconvincing.

I didn't make a claim. My statement was interrogative. I'm asking a question. In our previous discussions we've noticed that Mr. Hayes is somehwat loose and liberal with his definitions of words like "terrorist." I"m asking of he bothered to detail who he was talking about or if it perhaps it was another case where he was using pre-stretched definitions.
That's all. If you don't know, that's fine. You don't have to know what exactly he's talking about.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did we persue all "...non-violent avenues of civil redress..." before attacking?
You're avoiding the question.
Have the INSURGENTS persue non-violent avenues of redress.
No. They haven't.

We already addressed this point.

The same right the CIA had to be in Chilli, El Salvador and Nicaragua.
Again, you;re avoiding the issue.

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

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

Again, you;re avoiding the questions.

Given that you;ve avoided all the questions regarding the legitimacy of your claim that the Iraqi insurgents have a right to resist, you've clearly coceeded the point.

 

[tecoyah]

I think its time we all admitted something.....We Screwed Up. In the endless search for justification of a full blown invasion of a nation....we seem to be missing the big picture, and I think its worth pointing out the obvious. Regardless of what we decide in hindsight, as to the "Why" of this war in Iraq....we are there, and our reasons for commiting this action are not going to change that. As I look at the seemingly endless string of ever changing explanations for the invasion.....one thing becomes exceedingly clear.

WE F@CKED UP

 

[Hoot]

Stephen Hayes is a known liar.

If I want to read a book of fiction, I'll pick up the latest Harry Potter novel. There's more truth to it then ever comes from the pen of Stephen Hayes. Here's my own example of the type of logic utilized by Mr. Hayes..

We know there are terrorists hiding within the United States.

Iraq is the approximate land mass size of California.

Therefore, there are terrorists hiding and training in the State of California.

Conclusion: Governor Arnold Schwarzneggar aids and abets the training of terrorists in California.

 

[Stinger]

I didn't make a claim. My statement was interrogative. I'm asking a question. In our previous discussions we've noticed that Mr. Hayes is somehwat loose and liberal with his definitions of words like "terrorist."

I don't think we've noticed anything of the sort.

If you care to try and rebut the article please do so and with facts not assertions please.

 

[Stinger]

Stephen Hayes is a known liar.

That's the best you have? That's it, baseless assertions and character attacks. What is the lie in the article cited?

If I want to read a book of fiction, I'll pick up the latest Harry Potter novel. There's more truth to it then ever comes from the pen of Stephen Hayes. Here's my own example of the type of logic utilized by Mr. Hayes..

We know there are terrorists hiding within the United States.

Iraq is the approximate land mass size of California.

Therefore, there are terrorists hiding and training in the State of California.

Conclusion: Governor Arnold Schwarzneggar aids and abets the training of terrorists in California.

Show where it the article that type of logic is used. Bet you can't and bet you don't respond.

The truth is you don't want it to be the truth because it would blow your agenda.

 

[oldreliable67]

Stephen Hayes is a known liar.

Thats quite a strong assertion. Got any evidence to back that up?

I'm not a regular reader of the blog cited, but I did read this particular article and the previous article dealing with the exploitation of the Iraqi documents. The subject is interesting and Haye's frustration shows: he is convinced, rightly or wrongly, that there is solid information in those docs that is not being taken advantage of (i.e., being used to advance our knowledge of what exactly went on in certain aspects of Saddam's Iraq). Consequently, if you have any thing that bears on the Hayes' credibility, please post it.

 

[Stinger]

As I look at the seemingly endless string of ever changing explanations for the invasion.....one thing becomes exceedingly clear.

What changing explaintions. They have been the same from the get-go. And one of the more important was the Saddam was allowing and supporting terrorist training camps inside of Iraq. Seems the government is turning over even more evidence of just that everyday.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I don't think we've noticed anything of the sort.

Perhaps you failed to notice for your own personal reasons. However, in this thread it was explicitly revealed that Mr. Hayes wasn't above playing fast and loose with a story in his attempt to show that aQ and Hussein were in cahoots.
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=155769&highlight=hayes#post155769

Originally Posted by Stinger
Of as Stephen Hayes in the Weekly Standard writes

"The Senate report summarized the findings on Iraqi Intelligence support for terrorism this way: "The CIA provided 78 reports, from multiple sources, [redacted] documenting instances in which the Iraqi regime either trained operatives for attacks or dispatched them to carry out attacks....Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s." No wonder the Clinton administration cited Iraqi support for terrorism as one of the main reasons that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a threat to the United States."
​

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...4/339finwc.asp


Notice that this paragraph is intentionally vague as to who the "operatives" were. It does not say that these were al-Qa'ida "operatives" as is implied by the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs in Mr. Hayes article. A review of the actual Senate Report reveals that these were Iraqi IIS agents.

Notice that the first two sentence of the paragraph in situ were not included (Why would Mr. Hayes leave those out AND put the quote right next to his paragraph about al-Qa'ida? Hmmm?). From the report, the missing sentences:

One of the strongest links identified by the CIA between the Iraqi regime and terrorist activities was the history of IIS involvement in training, planning, and conducting terrorist operations. Beginning before the 1991 Gulf War, intelligence reports and public records documented that Saddam Hussein used IIS operatives to plan and attempt terrorist attacks.
​

Reasonably, this deliberate attempt at deception might tarnish Mr. Hayes credibility in your eyes. But, it's possible his credibility is protected from oxidation by eyes tight shut.
​

 

[Stinger]

Perhaps you failed to notice for your own personal reasons. However, in this thread it was explicitly revealed that Mr. Hayes wasn't above playing fast and loose with a story in his attempt to show that aQ and Hussein were in cahoots.
http://debatepolitics.com/showthread.php?p=155769&highlight=hayes#post155769

I find nothing of the sort not in the first nor in this one. I find that instead of factual debate and rebuttle you throw out assertions.

Notice that this paragraph is intentionally vague as to who the "operatives" were.

No I don't find it "intentionally vague" it reads like most CIA intelligence reports and I find your assigning motives not very convincing at all.

Once again can you rebut the findings with facts or is it just you self-serving assertions that you have?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I find nothing of the sort not in the first nor in this one.

Too bad.

No I don't find it "intentionally vague" it reads like most CIA intelligence reports and I find your assigning motives not very convincing at all.

Actually, the Senate report is not vague. It defines who it is talking about. Only Mr. Hayes' version of the prargraph is vague. He omitted the first two sentences of the report. These two sentences contain the fact that the "operatives" are Iraqi IIS and not the al-Qa'ida as is implied in the article.
This may be too subtle of a distinction for some folks, but nonetheless, it is there.

Perhaps it wasn't intentional. Perhaps you're right and Mr. Hayes 'accidentally' left out that part.

Once again can you rebut the findings with facts or is it just you self-serving assertions that you have?

I get no service from pointing out Mr. Hayes' "looseness". It is merely a service that I'm providing to you as a lagniappe.

 

[Hoot]

I've heard Mr Hayes speak on more then one occasion on talk radio.

His deliberate insistance that Saddam and Al Qaeda were working together has never been proven...even within the pages of the 9/11 commission report, yet Mr. Hayes continues to present this false connection as varifiable truth.

Rather then me presenting web sites for perusal, I suggest all of you do a search of Stephen Hayes and read both pro and con and decide for yourself if the man is being honest.

While you're at it, do a search of the Weekly Standard, and read about all the times they've been caught with egg on their face.

Suffice it to say, the Weekly Standard is not a bastion of accurate information.

 

[oldreliable67]

Simon,

You assign some subtle mischeivous intention to Hayes' choice of the term 'operatives', but in doing so, are we overlooking the documented presence of Islamic radicals in Iraq during the relevant time frame? You quote from the Senate report,

"Beginning before the 1991 Gulf War, intelligence reports and public records documented that Saddam Hussein used IIS operatives to plan and attempt terrorist attacks."

Hayes wrote,

"...Iraq continued to participate in terrorist attacks throughout the 1990s."

Certainly the presence of Islamic radicals in Baghdad in 1993 has been verified by Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, as recounted by Hayes (cf. post nbr 7 in this thread). Given their presence and support of Saddam (if Newsweek is correct), is it not logical for Saddam to form alliances with these Islamic radical groups and pursue training of both IIS agents and radical Islamic terrorists at the same time, or more precisely, following Gulf War I, when the radical Islamists seem to be rallying to Iraq's cause (for example, bin Laden's fatwa)? Clearly, Saddam was not so "intensely secular" that he didn't use Islamic beliefs when he felt it was to his advantage to do so: he erected many statues to himself portraying himself in some aspect of Islamic belief, added "Allah Akbhar" to the Iraqi flag, liberally salted his public pronouncements with Islamic references, etc., etc., etc.

Though it is still unproven, it begins to sound to me like Hayes' usage of the more broadly encompassing term "operatives" could well be the more accurate description. I begin to see why Hayes is pushing so hard for more rapid disclosure of the contents of those docs.

 

[oldreliable67]

Hoot,

Ah, usually the way it works is that someone who puts forth an assertion has the obligation to substantiate it. You, on the other hand, are asking me/us to substantiate your assertion? Bizarre!

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by Stinger
Is not what?

Is not specific.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
You're avoiding the question.
Have the INSURGENTS persue non-violent avenues of redress.
No. They haven't.

Again, you;re avoiding the questions.

Given that you;ve avoided all the questions regarding the legitimacy of your claim that the Iraqi insurgents have a right to resist, you've clearly coceeded the point.

I'm not avoiding anything. Once again, you are trying to put the cart before the horse. If there was no US attack, there would be no insurgency.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally Posted by oldreliable67:
Ah, usually the way it works is that someone who puts forth an assertion has the obligation to substantiate it. You, on the other hand, are asking me/us to substantiate your assertion? Bizarre!

I could say the same thing about your inference that I was crazy for saying we started the war back in April of 2002.