So someone please explain the link between Al Qaeda and Saddam to me ...

[mercurial]

I have been doing a lot of reading over the weekend regarding the link between Saddam Hussein's regime and terrorists.

Most of the articles I have read seem to suggest that there is no link ... or that any link suggested is either un-substantiated, tenous, or even completely made up.

I am as always wary of newspapers and websites - so I put it to you Netphorian's who see a case for war - where is this irrefutable link? Surely it is vital that the link be substantiated to legitimize the call for this war - pre-emptive strike in self defense against a regime that supports and uses terrorists.

I can already guess what some you will suggest ... I have seen a lot of it in earlier posts, and I will save my rebuttal for the less convincing arguments till they are posted.

So go for it ... convince me Netphoria.

[Jaggie]

There is little evidence I could render that would convince you. Are they linked somehow? Most likely. Did anyone make a strong enough case to be convincing? Nah. Then again, there needent be a link between Al Queda and Hussein for the war to be justified.

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Jaggie


Are they linked somehow? Most likely.

Then again, there needent be a link between Al Queda and Hussein for the war to be justified.

This isn't good enough - If you haven't got anything worthwhile to offer Jaggie I suggest you stfu ... Im not interested.

Bush's keynote speech after the Spetember 11 attacks (you remember - the axis of evil speech?) warned that not only terrorists but "governments that shield terrorists" were in the frame.

They have said this is not a unilateral war ... it is a pre-emptive strike in self defense. The US ambassador to New Zealand even went on TV saying that Iraq poses a "Clear and Present danger" to world security.

When asked what that "Clear and Precent danger" was - he said it was a known fact that Iraq harboured, co-operated with, and supported terrorists and their activities.

So there you have it - from the highest ranking American official in my country. He justified the war as an act of self defense. So Im questioning that justification as I can't see what is "clear" or "present" about the "danger" here.

[Donkey]

there is no clear and present danger and there is no "proven" link.the 9-11 hijackers came from Eqypt and Saudi Arabia, we should be invading them according to Bush's policy. read my last post in this message, maybe you will "feel" some of the things I have stated.


http://www.netphoria.org/forums/show...threadid=18739

[Jaggie]

Originally posted by mercurial


This isn't good enough - If you haven't got anything worthwhile to offer Jaggie I suggest you stfu ... Im not interested.

At first I thought you were joking, but now I realize you've said enough about yourself and your lack of intellect here that I can safely disregard this thread.

[jared]

how would any of us be able convince you unless you have access to classified military info?

[mercurial]

Originally posted by bittertrance
how would any of us be able convince you unless you have access to classified military info?

News paper articles, press releases, stuff you have seen on tv, read in magazines, books ... on the internet - heck even de-classified military information.

It is not that much to ask - it is hardly uncommon to examine the validity of an argument. If you are yourself convinced of the link, but then cannot substantiate your opinion when asked to - ask yourself whther it is reasonable to still hold that belief.

Christ ... try looking before throwing your hands up in despair.

Now Im not going to spoon feed you guys ... there is stuff out there.

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Jaggie


At first I thought you were joking, but now I realize you've said enough about yourself and your lack of intellect here that I can safely disregard this thread.

You post abosolute rubbish ... "Uh, I know there's a link but I can't prove it - and I don't need to" - and then turn around and say I demonstarte a lack of intellect?

How utterly ludicrous! I asked you to convince me of the link - you said you can't ... you would have done better to just not post at all is what I was getting at.

Now please, do fuck off and disregard this thread you stupid misreable waste of space.

[Jaggie]

Originally posted by mercurial


News paper articles, press releases, stuff you have seen on tv, read in magazines, books ... on the internet - heck even de-classified military information.

It is not that much to ask - it is hardly uncommon to examine the validity of an argument. If you are yourself convinced of the link, but then cannot substantiate your opinion when asked to - ask yourself whther it is reasonable to still hold that belief.

Christ ... try looking before throwing your hands up in despair.

Now Im not going to spoon feed you guys ... there is stuff out there.

I guess I find it difficult to not pick on you, at least a little bit.

What do you want people to do, half-heartedly throw out some weak evidence so you can bash the shit out of it and look smart? Here, take a sticker, I'll save you the trouble.

The fact of the matter is, there isn't sufficient evidence availible to the general public that you wouldn't call ambigious bullshit. So instead of being the pawn in your game of who's got a bigger brain, we'll just say that there isn't any evidence you asked for. Does that deplete my belief? Not at all. I am not positive, but I believe there to be a link. I don't need "declassified military information" to affirm my beliefs. If you do need that crutch, I pity you.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by mercurial


This isn't good enough - If you haven't got anything worthwhile to offer Jaggie I suggest you stfu ... Im not interested.

So what you're saying then is that you already made your mind up about there not being a connection, and really only posted that question rhetorically. Super!

http://store1.yimg.com/I/herobuilders_1733_982962http://store1.yimg.com/I/herobuilders_1733_686188http://store1.yimg.com/I/herobuilders_1733_482618http://store1.yimg.com/I/herobuilders_1733_457631

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Jaggie



The fact of the matter is, there isn't sufficient evidence availible to the general public that you wouldn't call ambigious bullshit. So instead of being the pawn in your game of who's got a bigger brain, we'll just say that there isn't any evidence you asked for. Does that deplete my belief? Not at all. I am not positive, but I believe there to be a link. I don't need "declassified military information" to affirm my beliefs. If you do need that crutch, I pity you.

ok ... this deserves a proper answer - I think it's a fair enough question.

It is a matter of course that I don't take anything at face value. Im not looking for those half hearted weak ass links they bore me because they are pathetic and ill thought out. Your right in that shooting fish in a barrell is no fun whatsoever.

All Im asking for is some sort of evidence that I have not yet read or that has not been shown to be false already by the media. Im not purporting that I have already made up my mind, I am saying that I am not yet convinced because the evidence is either lacking in substance, has been disproven, or that the links are made only through idle confecture (like that "Clear and Present" comment made by the US ambassador)- not based in fact.

And Im bieng very specific ... I'm asking for a link between Saddam Hussein's regime ... and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son


So what you're saying then is that you already made your mind up about there not being a connection, and really only posted that question rhetorically. Super!

Not what Im saying at all -

Telling me there is a link but that it cannot be proved, and that there it doesn't need to proved is not an adequate answer to my question thats all.

Truisms are not enough to convince me.

[Jaggie]

Originally posted by mercurial


ok ... this deserves a proper answer - I think it's a fair enough question.

It is a matter of course that I don't take anything at face value. Im not looking for those half hearted weak ass links they bore me because they are pathetic and ill thought out. Your right in that shooting fish in a barrell is no fun whatsoever.

All Im asking for is some sort of evidence that I have not yet read or that has not been shown to be false already by the media. Im not purporting that I have already made up my mind, I am saying that I am not yet convinced because the evidence is either lacking in substance, has been disproven, or that the links are made only through idle confecture (like that "Clear and Present" comment made by the US ambassador)- not based in fact.

And Im bieng very specific ... I'm asking for a link between Saddam Hussein's regime ... and Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda.

And I will again reiterate that you will not find an answer here that will suffice for you. If you are so curious about the sources your ambassador used, why not write him, or call his office?

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Jaggie


And I will again reiterate that you will not find an answer here that will suffice for you. If you are so curious about the sources your ambassador used, why not write him, or call his office?

It has already been done by a journalist called Russell Brown.

If you'd like to read his wrap up of the interview (Russell Brown is somewhat of a media watchdog in this country) here it is ...
http://www.publicaddress.net/default,hardnews.sm
third blog down called "All the news"

There are two problems with your answer to me Jaggie ...

1) You assume I will not be satisfied without having even attempted ... either you assume I am close minded (I assure you I am very impartial ... if somewhat sceptical),

2) or you assume there isn't actually any substantial evidence out there. The latter would only serve to affirm my opinion that there isn't a substantial link to be made, and therefore this cannot be shown to be a war of self defence.

edit: should have re-read the second assumption - conclusion is perhaps not correct - perhaps it still can be shown as a war in self defence if they were to uncover some sort of ICBM's or long range delievery system

[Debaser]

ANSWER: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A DIRECT LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QUAEDA.


Though Saddam has, in the past, sent millions of dollars to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers — whose attacks have killed not only Israelis but also American citizens — to date there's no credible evidence he sponsored, or knew in advance of, the 9/11 attacks. Indeed, Saddam's brand of secular Islam is rejected by the religious zealots who comprise Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda group. This is no comfort however. Though Osama and Saddam detest one another, they're nevertheless united by their hatred of the United States — and the possibility that Saddam might pass along WMDs to Osama cannot be dismissed. Consider: Iraq and Iran actually used WMDs on one another during their war from 1980-1988, which ended in a stalemate with over a million dead. They were mortal enemies, yet during the Gulf War in 1991, Iran allowed Saddam to stash fighter planes on its soil to keep them from being destroyed by American forces. History teaches, time and again, you don't have to like your allies; mutual interests will suffice.

*blah blah blah copied from some article blah*

[BlueStar]

When Powell went before the U.N., he offered evidence that Saddam has harbored Al-Qaeda operatives. And the U.S. never declared a war on Al-Qaeda, it declared a war on terrorism...and there is no denying that Saddam and terrorism are strongly linked. And the Bush administration believes that there is a strong possibility that Saddam could sell WMD to Al-Qaeda (the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing).

And... http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/iraq.html

[BlueStar]

I also find it interesting to note the main reasons bin Laden declared war on the U.S. (yes, he declared war on the U.S. and its allied in 1994 and 1996). There may or may not be any direct links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam, but it is because of the whole U.S.-Saddam thing that Al-Qaeda is pissed off at the U.S.

Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda’s leader, and other Arab militants have given several reasons for declaring a jihad against the United States. High on their list is the belief that the United States has “colonized” the Arab world to protect U.S. access to oil. In particular, bin Laden has expressed outrage at the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad. (U.S. forces remained in Saudi Arabia after the 1991 Gulf War to deter Iraq from attacking the oil-rich country.) The extremists also have accused the United States of supporting authoritarian governments in the Middle East while promoting democracy elsewhere, of helping oppress the Palestinians by backing Israel, and of killing what they claim are millions of Iraqis through U.N. economic sanctions against Saddam Hussein.

Behind the attacks against the United States lies an effort by Muslim extremists to foment a wider Islamist revolution and topple more secular Arab rulers, Middle East observers say. Many Arab Islamists have been killed, tortured, jailed, or banished by the authoritarian governments that rule their home countries—both for attacking the West and for trying to create Islamist states to supplant regimes that the extremists consider corrupt and nonbelieving. “The primary goal of most of these Islamic radicals was to seize power at home, something they failed to do,” says Michael Scott Doran, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton University. “Now these extremists are waging attacks against the United States to discredit these oppressive regimes and gain new followers.”

[kypper]

Originally posted by BlueStar
I also find it interesting to note the main reasons bin Laden declared war on the U.S. (yes, he declared war on the U.S. and its allied in 1994 and 1996).

uh, no. He declared a Jihad, which is a muslim holy war (emphasis on the holy, as it certainly alters how THEY do things).... and since Saddam's approach is pretty secular, there is good reasonable doubt that the two of them aren't linked.

And as for Isreal, it can rot for all I care; their government scares the living hell out of me.

[BlueStar]

Originally posted by kypper

uh, no. He declared a Jihad, which is a muslim holy war (emphasis on the holy, as it certainly alters how THEY do things).... and since Saddam's approach is pretty secular, there is good reasonable doubt that the two of them aren't linked.

The words used by bin Laden were "declaration of war"...and, yes, it is a Jihad...I never said it wasn't...he issued a formal (for lack of a better word) declaration with a list of grievances. And all I said regarding an explicit link between Al-Qaeda and Saddam was that Powell put forth some evidence that Saddam has recently been harboring Al-Qaeda operatives. What I did say/what I posted an excerpt of was that the Gulf War/Saddam/Iraq was the main reason behind bin Laden's declaration of war/Jihad. Thus, they are, in a way, linked.

[sawdust restaurants]

Originally posted by BlueStar
When Powell went before the U.N., he offered evidence that Saddam has harbored Al-Qaeda operatives. And the U.S. never declared a war on Al-Qaeda, it declared a war on terrorism...and there is no denying that Saddam and terrorism are strongly linked. And the Bush administration believes that there is a strong possibility that Saddam could sell WMD to Al-Qaeda (the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing).[/url]

Yeah, but Powell's evidence is tenuous, and the possibility that Hussein might sell WMD to terrorists, while definitely not outside of the realm of reason, is conjecture. My problem is that, although the government has explicitly stated that it has little to no evidence that 9/11 and Iraq are directly related, their rhetoric tends to conflate the two quite often--Bush did it something like seven or eight times in his "moment of truth" press conference.

I realize that al-Qaeda isn't really one of the primary factors figuring into our decision to go to war. I am, however, irked by the government's implication of 9/11 specifically in the war. The way the president often speaks, it suggests a link that doesn't exist; there's a reason why almost half the American people think Iraq and 9/11 are related, and I doubt it's conspiracy theory. It would be fine if the president said something like you said, that he thinks Iraq might sell WMD to terrorist organizations, specifically al-Qaeda, but that's not usually what comes out of his mouth.

[mercurial]

Originally posted by sawdust restaurants


Yeah, but Powell's evidence is tenuous, and the possibility that Hussein might sell WMD to terrorists, while definitely not outside of the realm of reason, is conjecture. My problem is that, although the government has explicitly stated that it has little to no evidence that 9/11 and Iraq are directly related, their rhetoric tends to conflate the two quite often--Bush did it something like seven or eight times in his "moment of truth" press conference.

I realize that al-Qaeda isn't really one of the primary factors figuring into our decision to go to war. I am, however, irked by the government's implication of 9/11 specifically in the war. The way the president often speaks, it suggests a link that doesn't exist; there's a reason why almost half the American people think Iraq and 9/11 are related, and I doubt it's conspiracy theory. It would be fine if the president said something like you said, that he thinks Iraq might sell WMD to terrorist organizations, specifically al-Qaeda, but that's not usually what comes out of his mouth.

I think that one of the questions that has to be asked (especially inlight of things such as PNAC's stated objectives in the Rebuilding America's Defenses report) is ...

"Is it legitimate to assume that Saddam would support terrorists when the evidence remains tenuous? Is conjecture convincing enough to build a case?"

In a court of law ... the answer to the above would be "no"

"Are the issues brought up by the terrorist attack on September the 11th and the issue of Saddam not complying with the terms of UN sanctions bieng confused?"

The second question does beg a more sinister conclusion than the first - what some journalists are now pointing out is that the American government is using the sum fears created by the terrorist attack on the US to justify actions taken against Iraq.

"If the two are un-related - how can one be used to justify the other?"

Is anyone here aware of the fact that Saddam has been branded a heretic by the Shia muslim world? That whole Iraq-Iran thing didn't sit very well with them.

[Salena Child]

From Guardian Unlimlited


'Saddam controlled the camp'



The Iraqi connection

As evidence linking Iraqi intelligence to the 11 September hijackers begins to emerge, David Rose gathers testimony from former Baghdad agents and the CIA to reveal the secrets of Saddam's terror training camp

War on Terrorism: Observer special

David Rose
Observer

Sunday November 11, 2001


His friends call him Abu Amin, 'the father of honesty'. At 43, he is one of Iraq's most highly decorated intelligence officers: a special forces veteran who organised killings behind Iranian lines during the first Gulf war, who then went on to a senior post in the unit known as 'M8' - the department for 'special operations', such as sabotage, terrorism and murder. This is the man, Colonel Muhammed Khalil Ibrahim al-Ani, whom Mohamed Atta flew halfway across the world to meet in Prague last April, five months before piloting his hijacked aircraft into the World Trade Centre.

Evidence is mounting that this meeting was not an isolated event. The Observer has learnt that Atta's talks with al-Ani were only one of several apparent links between Iraq, the 11 September hijackers and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network. Senior US intelligence sources say the CIA has 'credible information' that in the spring of this year, at least two other members of the hijacking team also met known Iraqi intelligence agents outside the United States. They are believed to be Atta's closest associates and co-leaders, Marwan al-Shehri and Ziad Jarrah, the other two members of the 'German cell ' who lived with Atta in Hamburg in the late 1990s.

In the strongest official statement to date alleging Iraqi involvement in the new wave of anti-Western terrorism, on Friday night Milos Zeman, the Czech Prime Minister, told reporters and Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, that the Czech authorities believed Atta and al-Ani met expressly to discuss a bombing. He said they were plotting to destroy the Prague-based Radio Free Europe with a truck stuffed with explosives, adding: 'Yes, you cannot exclude also the hypothesis that they discussed football, ice hockey, weather and other topics. But I am not so sure.

In Washington and Whitehall, a furious political battle is raging over the scope of the anti-terrorist war, and whether it should eventually ******* action against Iraq. According to the Foreign Office, British Ministers have responded to this prospect with 'horror', arguing that an attack on Saddam Hussein would cause terrible civilian casualties and cement anti-Western anger across Middle East.

Meanwhile, Paul Wolfowitz, the US Deputy Defence Secretary, heads a clique of determined, powerful hawks, most of them outside the administration - among them James Woolsey, the former director of the CIA. The doves argue that an al-Qaeda-Iraq link is improbable, given the sharp ideological differences between Saddam's secular Baathism and Islamic fundamentalism. They also say that claims of Iraqi involvement are being driven by the agenda of the hawks - a group which has for years been seeking to finish the job left undone at the end of the Gulf war in 1991.

Nevertheless, Saddam does not lack a plausible motive: revenge for his expulsion from Kuwait in 1991, and for the continued sanctions and Western bombing of his country ever since. In this febrile atmosphere, hard information about who ordered the 11 September attacks remains astonishingly scarce.

US investigators have traced the movements of the 19 hijackers going back years, and have amassed a detailed picture of who did what inside the conspiracy. Yet what lay beyond the hijackers is an intelligence black hole. If they had a support network in America, none of its members has been traced, and among the hundreds of telephone records and emails the investigators have recovered, nothing gets close to identifying those ultimately responsible.

It still seems almost certain, intelligence sources say, that parts of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network actively backed the conspiracy: about half of the estimated $500,000 the hijackers used reportedly came from al-Qaeda sources, while some of the terrorists are believed to have passed through bin Laden's camps in Afghanistan. At the same time, however, evidence is emerging of direct Iraqi links with the US hijackers in particular, and with radical Islamic terror groups in general.

In the early period after the attacks, Western intelligence agencies said they knew of nothing to suggest an Iraqi connection. That position has now changed. A top US analyst - a serving intelligence official with no connection to the 'hawks' around Wolfowitz - told The Observer: 'You should think of this thing as a spectrum: with zero Iraqi involvement at one end, and 100 per cent Iraqi direction and control at the other. The scenario we now find most plausible is somewhere in the middle range - significant Iraqi assistance and some involvement.'

Last night, Whitehall sources made clear that parts of British intelligence had reached the same conclusion. Uncomfortable as it may be, this reassessment is having a political impact. Last month, when the CIA was still telling him it did not believe Iraq was involved in 11 September, Powell said there were 'no plans' to attack Iraq. Last Thursday, speaking in Kuwait, he abruptly reversed his earlier pronouncements. He promised that after dealing with bin Laden and Afghanistan, 'we will turn our attention to terrorism throughout the world, and nations such as Iraq'.

The FBI is now sure that Atta, the Egyptian who had studied in Germany, was the hijackers' overall leader. He personally handled more than $100,000 of the plot's funds, more than any other conspirator, and he made seven foreign trips in 2000 and 2001 - all of which appear to have had some operational significance. Investigators lay heavy stress on a captured al-Qaeda manual which emphasises the value of conducting discussions about pending terrorist attacks face to face, rather than by electronic means.

Two of those trips were to meet al-Ani in Prague. The Iraqi's profile has been supplied by defectors from Saddam's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, who are now being guarded by the London-based opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress (INC). CIA sources have confirmed its crucial details. 'There's really no doubt that al-Ani is a very senior Iraqi agent,' one source said.

The Observer has interviewed two of the defectors. They began to tell their stories at the beginning of October, and have been debriefed extensively by the FBI and the CIA. Al-Ani's experience in covert 'wet jobs' (assassinations), gives his meetings with Atta a special significance: his expertise was killing.

According to the defectors, he has an unusual ability to change his appearance and operate under cover. One defector recalls a meeting in the early 1990s when al-Ani had long, silver hair, and wore jeans, silver chains and sunglasses. Al-Ani explained he was about to undertake a mission which required him to look like a Western hippy. A member of Saddam's Baathist party since his youth, al-Ani also has extensive experience working with radical Islamists such as Mohamed Atta.

Since the 1980s, Saddam has organised numerous Islamic conferences in Baghdad, expressly for the Mukhabarat to find foreign recruits. Al-Ani has been seen at at least two of them. On one occasion, the defectors say, he took on the cover of a Muslim cleric at a fundamentalists' conference in Karachi, presenting himself as a delegate from the Iraqi shrine of the Sufi mystic Abdel-Qadir al-Gaylani, whose followers are numerous in Pakistan.

Last Wednesday, Iraq made its own response to the news of the meetings between al-Ani and Atta. Tariq Aziz, Saddam's Deputy Prime Minister, denied Iraq had anything to do with the hijackings, saying: 'Even if that [the meetings] happened, that would mean nothing, for a diplomat could meet many people during his duty, whether he was at a restaurant or elsewhere, and even if he met Mohamed Atta, that would not mean the Iraqi diplomat was involved.'

Yet the striking thing about the meetings is the lengths to which Atta went in order to attend them. In June last year, he flew to Prague from Hamburg, only to be refused entry because he had failed to obtain a visa. Three days later, now equipped with the paperwork, Atta was back for a visit of barely 24 hours. He flew from the Czech Republic to the US, where he began to train as pilot. In early April 2001, when the conspiracy's planning must have been nearing its final stages, Atta was back in Prague for a further brief visit - a journey of considerable inconvenience.

On 17 April, the Czechs expelled al-Ani, who had diplomatic cover, as a hostile spy. Last night, a senior US diplomatic source told The Observer that Atta was not the only suspected al-Qaeda member who met al-Ani and other Iraqi agents in Prague. He said the Czechs monitored at least two further such meetings in the months before 11 September.

The senior US intelligence source said the CIA believed that two other hijackers, al-Shehri and Jarrah, also met known Iraqi intelligence officers outside the US in the run-up to the atrocities. It is understood these meetings took place in the United Arab Emirates - where Iraq maintains its largest 'illegal', or non-diplomatic, cover intelligence operation, most of it devoted to oil exports and busting economic sanctions.

The source added that Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which has now effectively merged with al-Qaeda, maintained regular contacts with Iraq for many years. He confirmed the claims first made by the Iraqi National Congress - that towards the end of 1998, Farouk Hijazi, Iraq's ambassador to Turkey and a key member of the Mukhabarat leadership - went to Kandahar in Afghanistan, where he met bin Laden.

The FBI believes many of the 11 hijackers who made up the conspiracy's 'muscle', Saudi Arabians who entered the US at a late stage and whose task was to overpower the aircrafts' passengers and crew, trained at Afghan camps run by al-Qaeda. But they have no details: no times or places where any of these individuals learnt their skills. Meanwhile, it is now becoming clear that al-Qaeda is not the only organisation providing terrorist training for Muslim fundamentalists. Since the early 1990s, courses of this type have also been available in Iraq. At the beginning of October, two INC activists in London travelled to eastern Turkey. They had been told that a Mukhabarat colonel had crossed the border through Kurdistan and was ready to defect. The officer - codenamed Abu Zeinab - had extraordinary information about terrorist training in Iraq. In a safe house in Ankara, the two London-based activists took down Zeinab's story. He had worked at a site which was already well known - Salman Pak, a large camp on a peninsular formed by a loop of the Tigris river south of Baghdad.

However, what Zeinab had to say about the southern part of the camp was new. There, he said, separated from the rest of the facilities by a razor-wire fence, was a barracks used to house Islamic radicals, many of them Saudis from bin Laden's Wahhabi sect, but also Egyptians, Yemenis, and other non-Iraqi Arabs.

Unlike the other parts of Salman Pak, Zeinab said the foreigners' camp was controlled directly by Saddam Hussein. In a telephone interview with The Observer, Zeinab described the culture clash which took place when secular Baathists tried to train fundamentalists: 'It was a nightmare! A very strange experience. These guys would stop and insist on praying to Allah five times a day when we had training to do. The instructors wouldn't get home till late at night, just because of all this praying.'

Asked whether he believed the foreigners' camp had trained members of al-Qaeda, Zeinab said: 'All I can say is that we had no structure to take on these people inside the regime. The camp was for organisations based abroad.' One of the highlights of the six-month curriculum was training to hijack aircraft using only knives or bare hands. According to Zeinab, women were also trained in these techniques. Like the 11 September hijackers, the students worked in groups of four or five.

In Ankara, Zeinab was debriefed by the FBI and CIA for four days. Meanwhile he told the INC that if they wished to corroborate his story, they should speak to a man who had political asylum in Texas - Captain Sabah Khodad, who had worked at Salman Pak in 1994-5. He too has now told his story to US investigators. In an interiew with The Observer, he echoed Zeinab's claims: 'The foreigners' training *******s assassinations, kidnapping, hijacking. They were strictly separated from the rest of us. To hijack planes they were taught to use small knives. The method used on 11 September perfectly coincides with the training I saw at the camp. When I saw the twin towers attack, the first thought that came into my head was, "this has been done by graduates of Salman Pak".'

Zeinab and Khodad said the Salman Pak students practised their techniques in a Boeing 707 fuselage parked in the foreigners' part of the camp. Yesterday their story received important corroboration from Charles Duelfer, former vice chairman of Unscom, the UN weapons inspection team.

Duelfer said he visited Salman Pak several times, landing by helicopter. He saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told Unscom it was used by police for counter-terrorist training. 'Of course we automatically took out the word "counter",' he said. 'I'm surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq. Like, derrrrrr! I mean, what, actually, do you expect? Iraq presents a long-term strategic threat. Unfortunately, the US is not very good at recognising long-term strategic threats.'

At the end of September, Donald Rumsfeld, the far from doveish US Defence Secretary, told reporters there was 'no evidence' that Iraq was involved in the atrocities. That judgment is slowly being rewritten.

Many still suspect the anthrax which has so far killed four people in America has an ultimate Iraqi origin: in contrast to recent denials made by senior FBI officials, CIA sources say there simply is not enough material to be sure. However, it does not look likely that the latest anthrax sample, sent to a newspaper in Karachi, can have come from the source recently posited by the FBI - a right-wing US militant. 'The sophistication of the stuff that has been found represents a level of technique and knowledge that in the past has been associated only with governments,' Duelfer said. 'If it's not Iraq, there aren't many alternatives.'

If the emerging evidence of Iraqi involvement in 11 September becomes clearer or more conclusive, the consequences will be immense. In the words of a State Department spokesman after Powell's briefing by the Czech leader on Friday: 'If there is clear evidence connecting the World Trade Centre attacks to Iraq, that would be a very grave development.'

At worst, the anti-terrorist coalition would currently be bombing the wrong country. At best, the world would see that some of President Bush's closest advisers - his father, Powell and Vice President Dick Cheney, to name but three - made a catastrophic error in 1991, when they ended the Gulf war without toppling Saddam.

The case for trying to remove him now might well seem unanswerable. In that scenario, the decisions Western leaders have had to make in the past two months would seem like a trivial prelude.

Additional reporting by Ed Vulliamy in New York and Kate Connolly in Berlin.

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Salena Child


...

"Mohamed Atta in Prague":
For a long time it was claimed that the leader of the 11 September hijackers, Mohamed Atta, had met an Iraqi agent in Prague in April, 2001.

This originated from a report by the Czech authorities.

After an investigation, the Czech President Vaclav Havel concluded that the report could not be substantiated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2709233.stm

[thebunk]

Originally posted by mercurial


This isn't good enough - If you haven't got anything worthwhile to offer Jaggie I suggest you stfu ... Im not interested.

thebunk: Knock, knock.
mercurial: Who's there?
thebunk: FUCK OFF!!!!!!

[Jaggie]

hmmmm, we're getting warmer....

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ain030401.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82751,00.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/893489.asp?0cv=CB10

[mercurial]

Originally posted by Jaggie
hmmmm, we're getting warmer....

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ain030401.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82751,00.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/893489.asp?0cv=CB10

yes ... this is all new to me - I haven't read about these yet.

There seems to some confusion out amongst the press when I did a search for Ansar Al Islam ... some report it as an autonomous group of kurdish "freedom fighters" or terrorists - others seem to imply that it is an offshoot of Al-Qaeda (they present it as fact).

One particular report I have read suggests that this is because a rival group in the area (PUK) has insisted they are connected, and that many of Ansar Al Islam members trained and fought in Afghanistan - I think though that the link may be substantiated here - and if it is, it certainly isn't far fetched to assume Saddam would have supported them in some way as he is not too fond of the PUK.

However, this is still assumption - and in itself is not sufficient to say that Saddam supported the Al-Qaeda network. I'll wait a few weeks for something a bit more substantial, and a few more press reports before making up my own mind on this one.

cheers for the links.

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by Jaggie
hmmmm, we're getting warmer....

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world...ain030401.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,82751,00.html

http://www.msnbc.com/news/893489.asp?0cv=CB10

The Ansar al-Islam training camps here bear a striking resemblance to al-Qaida bases in Afghanistan, thriving in desolate areas beyond the control of local officials.

See, this is the confusing part. They're implying a completely autonomous unit here, unsupported by those in control. Also, the Kurdish-controlled region in north Iraq is not under the jurisdiction of Baghdad, so who exactly is to blame for letting them thrive here?

And as far as the jihad bit goes, remember it's jihad not jihad™.

[jared]

Originally posted by DeviousJ


And as far as the jihad bit goes, remember it's jihad not jihad™.

oh snap, im about to claim jihad on mcdonalds for always forgetting my fucking fries!

[DeviousJ]

Originally posted by bittertrance


oh snap, im about to claim jihad on mcdonalds for always forgetting my fucking fries!

You could do, but make sure they're not Freedom Fries™ or you'll look like a total hypocrite