NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, despite "conventional" wisdom from Sen Reid being that "there was no connection between Saddam and terrorism...

I remember the grounded jet used for training terrorists at Salman Pak, but I guess Reid never read that one or saw the intel photos...

And now this - apparently millions of documents and source material that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam trained thousands of terrorists, including people from groups affiliated with al-Qaeda - so much source material that it will take years to go through it all.

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

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.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. 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. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis. According to three officials with knowledge of the intelligence on Iraqi training camps, White House and National Security Council officials were briefed on these findings in May 2005; senior Defense Department officials subsequently received the same briefing.

I may be wrong, as I am with pretty much everything, but didn't the US administration toss that as a legitimate excuse to go to war because at the time it wasn't credible? Didn't they turn to WMD as a more reliable reason to invade Iraq because they couldn't make the link between Sadam and terrorism (or perhaps they could link to terrorism, but just not the al Qaeda network)?

Despite what the biased leftwing "mainstream media" want us to believe, this is old news and of no surprise to people who actually took time to examine the public evidence available to us. I highly recommend Stephen Hayes' book THE CONNECTION which explores the prewar intelligence (some confirmed, some not) that was known before the Iraq invasion.

When the assertions are confirmed by someone outside the Weekly Standard, a journal only slightly more cred on Iraq than, say, Worldnet Daily, then I'll consider it. They've been making this charge for, oh, about a decade now, and they've used specious reasoning in the past, to say the least.

The fact that this training was directed by Iraqi military units is news to me. If true, then I was wrong.

Despite what the biased leftwing "mainstream media" want us to believe

This always makes me stop reading what follows.

*sigh*

More neocon attempts to justify a pointless war...

I think I'd have to see a news source more credible than the almost-tabloid the Weekly Standard to take that seriously.

Well, despite "conventional" wisdom from Sen Reid being that "there was no connection between Saddam and terrorism...

I remember the grounded jet used for training terrorists at Salman Pak, but I guess Reid never read that one or saw the intel photos...

And now this - apparently millions of documents and source material that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam trained thousands of terrorists, including people from groups affiliated with al-Qaeda - so much source material that it will take years to go through it all.

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

I note that the "Weekly Standard" has not seen this evidence?

And, further, does not actually name anyone that has?

It does - however, detail at least three 'top level' persons, who have asked to see some of this evidence, and been diasappointed.

Even when their 'anonymous' informers detail material.. it still has that hazy edge to it.... "a financial connection between that group and the regime" (talking about alleged terrorist cells, in Baghdad). There were financial links between the London bombers and the British government, too.... they lived in England, and were involved in the English 'commerce' structure.

I also note that the last third of the 'report' is nothing more than speculations and assumptions... that seems to consider political-reporters as 'damning evidence'... and conferences as the equivalent of terror-camps.


I'm not saying that Saddam was necessarily uninvolved in organising or fostering terrorism.

But, this article.... and everything to trickle out thus far, has been pretty far from conclusive support.

:) Donald Rumsfeld linked to Saddam !

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

When can we expect the United States to invade itself ?

Wow, the article is set nine days from now. I'm glad they have psychics working for them.

And didn't we already know this stuff already and still not have a direct link to Al-Queda? Which is the problem.

I expected better from Deep Kimchi. How disappointing. How sad.


This is more along the lines of the garbage Corneliu posts as a deflector screen for his man Bush.

lol.

There are more links to 9/11 and pan-islamist salafi terrorism to KSA and Pakistan than ANY other country in the world.

For ex, Gen. Mahmoud Ahmad, ex chief of Pakistani intelligence (ISI), wired $100K to Mohd. Atta on the eve of 9/11. He was in Afghanistan during the murder of Ahmad Shah Massood (the NA commander and the only bulwark against the total dominance of taliban) and he was in the US on the morning of 9/11 hosted by none other than current CIA head spook Peter Goss. Do people even know of Mahmoud Ahmad's role in this? All we keep hearing is Saddam-Osama, Saddam-Osama..Saddamaosama...saddama...

Mahmoud Ahmad's protege, Omar Sheikh (who killed Daniel Pearl), who wired the amount on the instructions of Mahmoud Ahmad, is in a prison in Pakistani custody and he has never been questioned by the US.

AQKhan who gave nuclear designs to Al Qaeda has also never been questioned by the US. The two Pakistani nuclear scientists of Pakistan who made visits to Osama pre 9/11 have also never been questioned by the US.

No investigations are being done on this line and no public debates on the role of KSA and Pakistan in 9/11 and terrorism.

BUT we keep hearing that Saddam (possibly the only ruler on the region who positively hated pan-islamist idealogy...he was a pan-Arab..not a pan-islamist) had links to Osama.

I, for one, am sick and tired of this.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan , but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

Now unless something new has come to light I'd suggest this article is smoke designed to camouflage the absence of a real fire.

For a few minutes there I was wondering why this wasn't plastered all over the evening news - "Truth of Saddams regime emerges" etc.........."The weekly standard" is essentially the publication of the PNAC. Most of the contributors are members of either PNAC or the American Enterprise Institute. Its even in the same building, lest the "commute" prove a strain.

This isnt a news article, its a party political broadcast from the inhouse rag. Tut tut.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/2891

I expected better from Deep Kimchi. How disappointing. How sad.


This is more along the lines of the garbage Corneliu posts as a deflector screen for his man Bush.
Why on earth would you expect that?

Is the Weekly Standard a real source or another fake news source from the pentagon or white house?

I checked the NY times for something similar...nada

I'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that a reliable source like The daily Show covers it on Monday

We train terrorists, too. Even some Al Quaeda members. If we bombed every place with links to training Al Qaeda members we'd lose few states here in the US that I've grown sort of accustomed to having around.

We train terrorists, too. Even some Al Quaeda members. If we bombed every place with links to training Al Qaeda members we'd lose few states here in the US that I've grown sort of accustomed to having around.

Didn't the 9/11 pilots get their training in the US?

Didn't the 9/11 pilots get their training in the US?
Sshhhhh....

Didn't the 9/11 pilots get their training in the US?
No, I don't believe they were trained to kill people here. They learned how to fly a plane, if that's what you mean.

Quit the stupid comparisons. It's annoying.

No, I don't believe they were trained to kill people here. They learned how to fly a plane, if that's what you mean.

Quit the stupid comparisons. It's annoying.

It's not a comparison. (Stupid, or otherwise).

The 'terrorists' who carried out the 9/11 attacks were trained to carry out that attack, in this country. They used aircraft as their 'weapon'... for which they received their training in this country.


Look back at the original basis of this thread... the article claims links between the Iraqi regime and the 'terrorists'.

Now, look at the fact that the pilots of the 9/11 attacks were 'linked' to the US regime.

It isn't as 'stupid' as you seem to think... it is no more 'stupid' than the links the original source claims.

It's not a comparison. (Stupid, or otherwise).

The 'terrorists' who carried out the 9/11 attacks were trained to carry out that attack, in this country. They used aircraft as their 'weapon'... for which they received their training in this country.


Look back at the original basis of this thread... the article claims links between the Iraqi regime and the 'terrorists'.

Now, look at the fact that the pilots of the 9/11 attacks were 'linked' to the US regime.

It isn't as 'stupid' as you seem to think... it is no more 'stupid' than the links the original source claims.
No, they weren't "linked" to the U.S. regime. that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Congrats.

Being linked to a regime means you are doing something with their knowledge and blessing, and ussually with their finacnial support.

What you're doing is making a comparison, and a damned hilarious one, at that.

No, they weren't "linked" to the U.S. regime. that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Congrats.

Being linked to a regime means you are doing something with their knowledge and blessing, and ussually with their finacnial support.

What you're doing is making a comparison, and a damned hilarious one, at that.
WHISC anybody? Or SOA as it was formerly called.

No, they weren't "linked" to the U.S. regime. that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard in my entire life. Congrats.

Being linked to a regime means you are doing something with their knowledge and blessing, and ussually with their finacnial support.

What you're doing is making a comparison, and a damned hilarious one, at that.

Perhaps the altitude is affecting your diplomacy. It's not surprising you seem so abrasive... that's one of the highest horses I've seen in some time.

Re-read my post. Re-read the article. Examine the evidentiary 'support' given for the 'links' between 'terrorists' and Saddam.

Then you can perhaps explain (without resorting to "La, la, la... I don't want it to be so...") how the two situations are so obviously unalike, as to justify the vitriol in your rhetoric.

An apology would also be nice, but I shall reserve my commitment to holding my breath....

Saddam did support terrorism. He gave $20,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

On US & Al-Qaeda

Back when Al-Qaeda was an Islamist group focused on driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the US did train them. Why? Because they were fighting the Russians! After the USSR withdrew, and then collapsed, Al-Qaeda turned its attention to the West. You could say they turned on us.

Could the US have forseen this? Possibly. Did they forsee it? Not likely. The late Cold-War US was not known for thinking long-term. They were simply interested in fighting the Soviets. After all, "my enemy's enemy is my friend." The US helped Al-Qaeda against the Russians for the same reason we helped the Russians against Hitler.

Say, I'm noticing a pattern here. The US helped the Russians against Hitler in WWII. They then turned on us and became the new Big Bad Guys. Later, the US helped Al-Qaeda against the Russians in Afghanistan. They then turned on us and became the new Big Bad Guys.

Anyone we're helping against Al-Qaeda who might turn on us?

Is the Weekly Standard a real source or another fake news source from the pentagon or white house?

I checked the NY times for something similar...nada

I'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that a reliable source like The daily Show covers it on Monday


Post 12 on this thread.......

Yea, yea, he trained terrorists, had WMD's stached in mobile chemical laboratories in trucks, which is a great place to store dangerous, instable and fragile chemicals. He had also drones that could hit the US yada yada yada.

Thank god that hummongous threat called Saddam is gone. Hell, I mean, that evidently stopped worldwide terrorism.

Anyone we're helping against Al-Qaeda who might turn on us?

Britain? Israel? Those are the only ones I can think of.

Anyone we're helping against Al-Qaeda who might turn on us?

Dictators. They'll be the big enemy of 2020.

Britain? Israel? Those are the only ones I can think of.
Pakistan????

Pakistan????

I thought of putting that there but they seem to be more passive than active. It's not like the Russians or Al-Qaeda who were active against their adversaries.

I thought of putting that there but they seem to be more passive than active. It's not like the Russians or Al-Qaeda who were active against their adversaries.
Tell that to Aryavartha. ;)

Pakistan is the number one front if we actually wanted to weaken Islamist Terrorism to the point where it doesn't matter anymore.
But instead, Musharraf can't do anything because his whole army, intelligence services and people are integrated into this system in which Islamism flourishes.
Pakistan doesn't spend money on education - so Madrassas take over, and many teach things that you wouldn't think anyone should hear anymore these days.

So as long as the Pakistani government doesn't do anything, the climate will be there. Not to mention what happens once Musharraf's reign ends and those Islamist elements will actually take hold officially.

And all the while, LeT and other Pakistani groups blow up Indians en masse.

"We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda co-operated on attacks against the United States."

"There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda also occurred after Bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan , but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,"

from The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States report

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," (referring to Iraq & Al Qaeda)

Donald Rumsfeld
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

"I have not seen one.... I have never seen any evidence to suggest there was one." Colin Powell on the allegation of Iraq/Al Qaeda link - interview, Sept 9th 2005 to "20/20"

Now unless something new has come to light I'd suggest this article is smoke designed to camouflage the absence of a real fire.
*sighs* Those quotes about linking Iraq directly to 9/11, not about whether at any point Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Two different topics.

Tell that to Aryavartha. ;)

Pakistan is the number one front if we actually wanted to weaken Islamist Terrorism to the point where it doesn't matter anymore.
But instead, Musharraf can't do anything because his whole army, intelligence services and people are integrated into this system in which Islamism flourishes.
Pakistan doesn't spend money on education - so Madrassas take over, and many teach things that you wouldn't think anyone should hear anymore these days.

So as long as the Pakistani government doesn't do anything, the climate will be there. Not to mention what happens once Musharraf's reign ends and those Islamist elements will actually take hold officially.

And all the while, LeT and other Pakistani groups blow up Indians en masse.

:eek: So Mirkana may be right after all....

Didn't Pervez Musharaff take power in a coup, and didn't the US condemn it at the time?

Didn't Pervez Musharaff take power in a coup, and didn't the US condemn it at the time?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/472803.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/473143.stm
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/06/20030624-3.html

Fact of the matter is that Musharraf's official line has changed from "strong Pakistan" and a somewhat anti-Indian policy to the "Great Ally in the War on Terror" and "Peacemaker".

His actions leave much to be desired though. To attack Iraq because of unproven attempts to link Saddam to anything, while not only leaving Musharraf there, but supporting him actively is hypocritic to say the least.

Personally, I don't even think he's such a bad man. But he's got a good life, and he's got no reason to try and clean up his government and change the culture in his country. The rest of the world has to somehow put pressure on him.

*sighs* Those quotes about linking Iraq directly to 9/11, not about whether at any point Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda. Two different topics.

I'd spare the sighs...Rumsfeld was speaking generally about Iraq and Al Qaeda and the commission did not say "there were ties but they were not involved in 9/11", it says there was no working relationship.

Lies among lies, when will they learn. Saddam is not in anyway affiliated with terrorist, in fact, he was the most secular leader in the region. So much secular, that many religious groups and some fanatics (especially Osama) wished for his demise and now they got it thanks to Bush. Now, thanks to "democracy in Iraq" religious fanatics are gaining power in Iraq. Does the rest of Americans know some of the policies that religious Shias want? Look over the border and see what's happening in Iran. These fanatics want women to be out of public, or escorted by a man, they should wear a veil (like in Iran or worse like Afghanistan with the Taliban). The country is heading backwards. Destroying the Iraqi society is not primarily the issue right now but American pullout is. I mean, is that Americas policies from now on, "lie, destroy, lie, get out", the rest of the world is watching and no one is satisfied. Bush also mentioned how the rest of the region wants to be like Iraq, and I bet no one in the middle east wants to trade their lives for an Iraqi. I wish Colin Powell was the chief in charge, he would have done it much better than that idiot America got for a president. :p I mean, the government couldn't even help out to their own citizens in New Orleans how else are they going to help non-Americans (like Iraqis). Now, I know most Americans voted for this guy (Bush) so they can laugh at every clumsy stuff he does when he's on TV but people, this man is harming the rest of the world.

This always makes me stop reading what follows.

Ditto......

His actions leave much to be desired though. To attack Iraq because of unproven attempts to link Saddam to anything, while not only leaving Musharraf there, but supporting him actively is hypocritic to say the least.
Never stopped the US before.

These fanatics want women to be out of public, or escorted by a man, they should wear a veil (like in Iran or worse like Afghanistan with the Taliban).
To be fair, wearing a veil is compulsory I think in Iran, but they are little more than scarf, nothing like in Afghanistan.

Women in the Russian countryside are more veiled than that.

I'd spare the sighs...Rumsfeld was speaking generally about Iraq and Al Qaeda and the commission did not say "there were ties but they were not involved in 9/11", it says there was no working relationship.
The quote from the BBC article is as follows.
Mr Rumsfeld was asked by a New York audience about connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden.

"To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two," he said, though he later issued a statement saying he was misunderstood.

Without the question, the answer is meaningless.

Is the Weekly Standard a real source or another fake news source from the pentagon or white house?

I checked the NY times for something similar...nada

I'm gonna cross my fingers and hope that a reliable source like The daily Show covers it on Monday
Actually, Jon Stewart hammered Stephen Hayes, the author of this so-called article, when Hayes released his book, The Connection. The video, in real media file, is available here (http://www.overspun.com/video/DailyShow.StephenHayes.rm). Stewart bitches him around nicely.

The quote from the BBC article is as follows.


Without the question, the answer is meaningless.

Sweet Divine Jesus..........

"Terrorists" and "Al Queda" aren't always synonyms, I'm afraid, Kimchi.

Despite what the biased leftwing "mainstream media" want us to believe, this is old news and of no surprise to people who actually took time to examine the public evidence available to us. I highly recommend Stephen Hayes' book THE CONNECTION which explores the prewar intelligence (some confirmed, some not) that was known before the Iraq invasion.

You're a typical ignorant American, the media is clearly Zionist controlled and biased towards the right.

"Terrorists" and "Al Queda" aren't always synonyms, I'm afraid, Kimchi.

It was hardly the Animal Liberation Front, was it?

You're a typical ignorant American, the media is clearly Zionist controlled and biased towards the right.

They aren't biased towards anything but profit. And they most definatly aren't Zionist controlled.

It was hardly the Animal Liberation Front, was it?
No, but claiming some unreleased documents have been found which state that Hussein may have funded a few terrorists, some of whom might have later gone on to join al queda doesn't prove that he was in the habit of supporting them, does it?

It was hardly the Animal Liberation Front, was it?

Attempting to trivialise it doesn't carry...

There are other 'terrorist' organisations that do not fall under the "Al Qaeda" umbrella. The IRA is a good example to start with.

For a few minutes there I was wondering why this wasn't plastered all over the evening news - "Truth of Saddams regime emerges" etc.........."The weekly standard" is essentially the publication of the PNAC. Most of the contributors are members of either PNAC or the American Enterprise Institute. Its even in the same building, lest the "commute" prove a strain.

This isnt a news article, its a party political broadcast from the inhouse rag. Tut tut.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/2891

Just to bump up some information as to the provenance of the article.

Attempting to trivialise it doesn't carry...


Hah. Guilty as charged.