Nice little search engine on the 9/11 fact finding commision's final report.
- Thread starter Drift3r
- Start date
Interesting....
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the ini tiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin?s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin?s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the ini tiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin?s public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin?s Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.
To protect his own ties with Iraq,Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad?s control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin?s help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam.There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
Bin Ladin?s impressive array of offices covertly provided financial and other support for terrorist activities. The network included a major business enterprise in Cyprus; a ?services? branch in Zagreb; an office of the Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo, which supported the Bosnian Muslims in their conflict with Serbia and Croatia; and an NGO in Baku, Azerbaijan, that was employed as well by Egyptian Islamic Jihad both as a source and conduit for finances and as a support center for the Muslim rebels in Chechnya. He also made use of the already-established Third World Relief Agency (TWRA) headquartered in Vienna, whose branch office locations included Zagreb and Budapest. (Bin Ladin later set up an NGO in Nairobi as a cover for operatives there.)36 Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad con federation. In Sudan, he established an ?Islamic Army Shura? that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea.Al Qaeda also established cooperative but less formal relationships with other extremist groups from these same countries; from the African states of Chad, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Uganda; and from the Southeast Asian states of Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Bin Ladin maintained connections in the Bosnian conflict as well.37 The groundwork for a true global terrorist network was being laid.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney?s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations.The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had ?reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.?109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was ?probably a direct result of the Iraq?Al Qida agreement.? Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the ?exact formula used by Iraq.?110 This language about al Qaeda?s ?understanding? with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.
Hey even Clarke agrees with Iraq and Al-Qaeda ties.
Hrm no evidence they say they found about Iraq and Bin Laden but both just keep popping up huh.Funny Scott Peterson didn't have much evidence pointing to him being guilty and he still got found guilty kinda funny.
Bin Ladin?s impressive array of offices covertly provided financial and other support for terrorist activities. The network included a major business enterprise in Cyprus; a ?services? branch in Zagreb; an office of the Benevolence International Foundation in Sarajevo, which supported the Bosnian Muslims in their conflict with Serbia and Croatia; and an NGO in Baku, Azerbaijan, that was employed as well by Egyptian Islamic Jihad both as a source and conduit for finances and as a support center for the Muslim rebels in Chechnya. He also made use of the already-established Third World Relief Agency (TWRA) headquartered in Vienna, whose branch office locations included Zagreb and Budapest. (Bin Ladin later set up an NGO in Nairobi as a cover for operatives there.)36 Bin Ladin now had a vision of himself as head of an international jihad con federation. In Sudan, he established an ?Islamic Army Shura? that was to serve as the coordinating body for the consortium of terrorist groups with which he was forging alliances. It was composed of his own al Qaeda Shura together with leaders or representatives of terrorist organizations that were still independent. In building this Islamic army, he enlisted groups from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Oman, Algeria, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco, Somalia, and Eritrea.Al Qaeda also established cooperative but less formal relationships with other extremist groups from these same countries; from the African states of Chad, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, and Uganda; and from the Southeast Asian states of Burma, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Bin Ladin maintained connections in the Bosnian conflict as well.37 The groundwork for a true global terrorist network was being laid.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request.55 As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.
Though intelligence gave no clear indication of what might be afoot, some intelligence reports mentioned chemical weapons, pointing toward work at a camp in southern Afghanistan called Derunta. On November 4, 1998, the U.S. Attorney?s Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed its indictment of Bin Ladin, charging him with conspiracy to attack U.S. defense installations.The indictment also charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Sudan, Iran, and Hezbollah.The original sealed indictment had added that al Qaeda had ?reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.?109 This passage led Clarke, who for years had read intelligence reports on Iraqi-Sudanese cooperation on chemical weapons, to speculate to Berger that a large Iraqi presence at chemical facilities in Khartoum was ?probably a direct result of the Iraq?Al Qida agreement.? Clarke added that VX precursor traces found near al Shifa were the ?exact formula used by Iraq.?110 This language about al Qaeda?s ?understanding? with Iraq had been dropped, however, when a superseding indictment was filed in November 1998.
Hey even Clarke agrees with Iraq and Al-Qaeda ties.
Hrm no evidence they say they found about Iraq and Bin Laden but both just keep popping up huh.Funny Scott Peterson didn't have much evidence pointing to him being guilty and he still got found guilty kinda funny.
Again because they have no evidence doesn't mean they didn't.We didn't have evidence that they planned an attack beforehand did we.Face it US intel isn't the best in the middle east so it would be easy for stuff to go unnoticed.Also Saddamn doesn't have to do sh!t with Bin Laden but we know for sure Bin Laden had Al-Qaeda in Iraq and thats enough for me to go in since Al-Qaeda attacked us.
So why not attack Saudi Arabia, Beowulf? They had many more connections than Saddam. Or Jordan? Egypt?
No evidence means we have no credible proof that they did. While we do have
credible evidence that the potential relationship between the two was not strong enough
to support the arguements connecting Iraq with 911.
Didn't the 911 commision indicate that we did have such evidence, but we did not
credit that evidence to indicate such a large scale effort on the parts of the terrrorists?
I don't have any evidence you didn't kill Kennedy but it doesn't mean you didn't.
I don't have any evidence you don't molest goats but it doesn't mean you don't.
I could have fun with logic like yours!
the evidence is that iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism who would did not pass a moment to
offer their support (including to al-qaeda) or provide actual assistance to a host of terrorist
individuals and groups. case closed.
offer their support (including to al-qaeda) or provide actual assistance to a host of terrorist
individuals and groups. case closed.
Originally posted by: conjur
I don't have any evidence you didn't kill Kennedy but it doesn't mean you didn't.
I don't have any evidence you don't molest goats but it doesn't mean you don't.
I could have fun with logic like yours!
if its any form of creative logic that mimics your own, then ofcourse you can, as you have,
and will no doubt continue to do.
the evidence linked the premier state sponsor of terrorism with the support they offered to
america's worst terrorist enemy. bush made a number of statements, a number of which are
in the commission's report, that called out states who sponsor terrorism. there was no worse
offender than ba'athist iraq.
Didn't the 911 commision indicate that we did have such evidence, but we did not
credit that evidence to indicate such a large scale effort on the parts of the terrrorists?
[/quote]
true. but you're confusing the issue as well. iraq, as a state sponsor of terrorism, was
trying to juggle their evasions of u.n. resolutions while they were cozying up to al-qaeda,
providing haven to abu nidal, funneling funds to the ppk, and sending their monetary
condolences to palestinian terrorist groups.
What was the straw man I just introduced? :laugh: I asked a question. You seem very sure of yourself so I want to know if you have a two-bit answer of where the WMDs are. Thanks.
stupid boy. your last morsel of intellectual welfare . . the thread topic is the subject which i
was addressing, not wmd. oh, as if there is anything so obvious that you cannot see . . .
Great. That is not a strawman though.
But since you're into logic why don't you offer evidence for your claim that Iraq aided al-quada...Originally posted by: Infohawk
Great. That is not a strawman though.
oh, no ? i would dare you to define the strawman fallacy without linking to a dictionary defintion,
just for humor's sake, but i'm not that cruel. the point made was whether saddam supported -
or did not support - terrorism. no mention of wmds was made; none needed to be made. the
evidence in support of whether saddam showed repeated favor and/or willingness to assist
terrorist groups is provided in the excerpts from the commission's report copied above by
beowulf. there were others in the report as well.
since i dont care to run through all the evidence, here is a link to a previous thread that
quickly reviews the basics.
So because you say it wasn't given as justification for the invasion that its not anygood???
I can have fun with your logic there too.
wrong, as usual, on a number of levels, as usual. it appears you have read the commission's
report. it also appears that you highlighted portions that you felt favored your partisan bias -
and ignored everything that didn't. the report was not intended as fodder for your liberal
drive-bys.
you need to re-read the report and look for president bush's statements on state-sponsors
of terrorism, who he groups under this title, and what he promises to do against them. iraq's
longstanding history as a terrorism sugar daddy should make the answer easy in the post
9/11 world.
even a cursory understanding of al-qaeda's record would you have keyed you in on the fact
that they needed state patronage to operate (to commit mass murder, threaten local regimes,
spread a unisersal fear). from the sudan to afghanistan to saddam's offer of his state as safe
haven for al-qaeda. case closed.
WMDs were the sole justification given to the Senate and the UN by Colin Powell and also mentioned by even Paul Wolfowitz. Iraq as a state sponsor of terror is tenuous, at best, and certainly no reason to invade it. Iran has much closer ties to being a state sponsor of terror, esp. since it helped support the Khobar Towers attack in 1996. Why didn't we invade Iran?Originally posted by: Beowulf
So because you say it wasn't given as justification for the invasion that its not anygood???
I can have fun with your logic there too.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter