0
   

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:26 pm
old europe wrote:
... excerpt from 9/11 Commission Report ...

All that you excerpted from the Commission's report is assumed by me to be true and accurate.

However, all that you excerpted from the Commission's report is irrelevant to my arguement that the al Qaeda based in northern Iraq were a threat to the US and/or to Americans. Also, don't overlook the fact that the report alleges that bin Laden had ties to both Turabi and Zawahiri (they were members and major leaders of elements of terrorist groups in bin Laden's al Qaeda confederation), Turabi had ties to Iraq, and Zawahiri had ties to Iraq. "It follows as the night follows the day" that through Turabi and Zawahiri bin Laden also had ties to Iraq. I assume all that too is true and accurate.

As I've previously repeatedly posted, one can find all this in Chapters 2.4 and 2.5 of the Commission's report.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:32 pm
According to the 9/11 Comission Report, Al Qaeda continued to collaborate closely with the many Middle Eastern groups-in Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia, Somalia, and elsewhere-with which it had been linked when Bin Ladin was in Sudan.

If your case for invading Iraq is supported only by the comparatively weak link via Turabi, Zawahiri or Ansar al-Islam, what is your argument for not invading Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia or Somalia?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:35 pm
old europe wrote:
...But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.


Absence of evidence of a relationship with Iraq is not evidence of the absence of that relationship with Iraq.

But evidence of "ties" between Turabi and Iraq, and evidence of "ties" between Zawahiri and Iraq, and evidence of a relationship between bin Laden and Turabi, is most certainly evidence of a relationship between bin Laden and Iraq trough Turabi and Zawahiri.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:43 pm
old europe wrote:
If the justification for not invading Saudi Arabia is that they froze bin Laden's financial assets and revoked his citizenship, then not having a collaborative operational relationship with al Qaeda or not cooperating with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States certainly must be a justification for not invading Iraq?

I a not trying to justify not invading Saudi Arabia anymore than I am trying to justify yes invading Saudi Arabia. I merely inferred that you were trying to justify invading Saudi Arabia. I apologize if my inference was wrong.

Sigh! My justification for invading Iraq is exactly what I have repeatedly said it was. Please pay close attention this time. Ready, get set, go:

Quote:
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

References:

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:59 pm
ican711nm wrote:
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "harbor" terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that "support" terrorists. [Reference A]


Yes, he did.

ican711nm wrote:
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]


Obviously not, unless you imply there where al Qaeda bases in the US, or the al Qaeda terrorism in the US was not successfully perpetrated.

ican711nm wrote:
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]


... or they must hunt down Osama bin Laden....

ican711nm wrote:
4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]


On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in Iraq? Either you are talking about terrorist training bases with no connection to al Qaeda whatsoever. Or you are talking about Ansar al-Islam camps, which had a connection to Musab al-Zarqawi, which had a connection to bin Laden. But Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001. So, it didn't exist on 9/11/2001.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 07:59 pm
old europe wrote:
...If your case for invading Iraq is supported only by the comparatively weak link via Turabi, Zawahiri or Ansar al-Islam, what is your argument for not invading Egypt, Algeria, Yemen, Lebanon, Morocco, Tunisia or Somalia?

If pigs had adequate wings pigs could fly.

Do you truly not understand what my case is for invading Iraq?

Unbelievable!

I will repeat it over and over until such time that you and everyone else here finally understand what my case for invading Iraq actually is:

Quote:
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

References:

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf


My case for not invading all the rest of the countries with tyrannical governments that do not attempt to remove al Qaeda bases from their countries is that:
The US currently lacks the means to invade all these countries now.

Perhaps the US won't have to invade these other countries once the US successfully completes its missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps that will be because these other the governments of these other countries will by that time be adequately motivated to themselves attempt to remove the al Qaeda bases from their countries.

NOTE: I currently possess what I consider zero persuasive evidence that my perhaps is anything more than my wish.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 08:27 pm
Whoopie! Finally someone is dealing with my actual argument.
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]


Yes, he did.

ican711nm wrote:
2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]


Obviously not, unless you imply there where al Qaeda bases in the US, or the al Qaeda terrorism in the US was not successfully perpetrated.

My statement makes no claim as to the necessary location of the necessary bases. Nor should it! Al Qaeda needs bases somewhere to recruit and train its terrorist personnel. It seems the Afghanistan bases, Sudan bases, Afghanistan bases again, and Iraq bases worked well enough for them.

ican711nm wrote:
3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]


... or they must hunt down Osama bin Laden....
Do you really think al Qaeda would collapse with the death or incarceration of bin Laden? Not me! Not for one second! Hell, for all we know he died months ago of the kidney desease he was alleged to be suffering.

ican711nm wrote:
4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]


On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in Iraq? Either you are talking about terrorist training bases with no connection to al Qaeda whatsoever. Or you are talking about Ansar al-Islam camps, which had a connection to Musab al-Zarqawi, which had a connection to bin Laden. But Ansar al-Islam was formed in December 2001. So, it didn't exist on 9/11/2001
Now that's a date worth knowing. I cannot find anything that alleges that month and day in 2001 when al Qaeda bases were established in northeastern Iraq.

Please supply a reference that supports that claim? But even December 2001 occurred well before our invasion of Iraq 3/20/2003. And therefore represented a growing threat in March 2003.

By the way, I never claimed and will never claim that those 19 terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 were trained in al Qaeda bases in northeastern Iraq. I can claim that Powell reported in his speech to the UN on 2/5/2003 that the US twice tried to get Saddam's regime to attempt to remove those bases.

Hmmm! Why did you stop here? I'll post the rest of my argument in order to make it convenient for you to continue.


Quote:
[size=8]1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D][/size]

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

References:

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 08:34 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Now that's a date worth knowing. I cannot find anything that alleges the month and day in 2001 when al Qaeda bases were established in northeastern Iraq. Reference please?

However, I never claimed and will never claim that those 19 terrorists who perpetrated 9/11 were trained in al Qaeda bases in northeastern Iraq. I can claim that Powell reported in his speech to the UN on 2/5/2003 that the US twice tried to get Saddam's regime to attempt to remove those bases.

Hmmm! Why did you stop here? I'll post the rest of my argument in order to make it convenient for you to continue.


reference

I've got a transcript of Powell's 2/5/2003 speech here... Where exactly did he say that "US twice tried to get Saddam's regime to attempt to remove those bases"?

I think this is an important point, which is why I stopped here. We can continue later, if you want to...
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 08:51 pm
old europe wrote:
I've got a transcript of Powell's 2/5/2003 speech here... Where exactly did he say that "US twice tried to get Saddam's regime to attempt to remove those bases"?

I think this is an important point, which is why I stopped here. We can continue later, if you want to...


I posted this several times.

Powell to the UN 2/5/2003 wrote:
Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.


I infer extraditing Zarqawi and locating his close associates helping run those al Qaeda bases is tantamount to removing those bases. Once Zarqawi and his close associates were captured, those bases would be effectively removed unless and until re-established by new leaders.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:00 pm
ican711nm wrote:
... that the US twice tried to get Saddam's regime to attempt to remove those bases.


Powell to the UN 2/5/2003 wrote:
Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.


ican711nm wrote:
I infer extraditing Zarqawi and locating his close associates helping run those al Qaeda bases is tantamount to removing those bases. Once Zarqawi and his close associates were captured, those bases were effectively removed unless and until re-established by new leaders.


Ican, where did Powell talk about "al Qaeda bases"? Why should Iraq help in finding those bases, if the US already knew where they were?

How did the invasion help further those plans? Are Zarqawi and his close associates captured?

What did Powell refer to when he said "The network remains in Baghdad"? As Baghdad is under US control - has "the network" been found?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:11 pm
So Zarqawi left Afghanistan due to the US invasion, only to set up new bases in Iraq. When Iraq was invaded, he wasn't captured either. He may have left the country to set up new bases elsewhere.

So what is the purpose of invading one country after another? Eventually, the US would have to invade all rogue nations in the world. Something the US are obviously incapable to do.

On the other hand: when the US had the chance to 'take out' Zarqawi - why wasn't it done?

read more:

Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:23 pm
In his speech to the UN Powell said that the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And that this camp was located in northeastern Iraq.

This has been proven to be utter BS.

In the paragraph immediately following, Powell then went on to describe how insidious the poison ricin is to whip up the American public into a frenzy of terrorized support for our invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Powell, in that selfsame speech, then alleged that the US asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates, and that we passed details to Saddam that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi.

Can and should this incompetent be trusted in anything he had to spew in that infamous speech of his to the UN?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:25 pm
old europe wrote:
... Ican, where did Powell talk about "al Qaeda bases"?
I'll post the entire relevant Powell speech sequence at the end of these responses (with my boldface added). This sequence occurred near the end of his speech.

Why should Iraq help in finding those bases, if the US already knew where they were?

We didn't request help finding those bases. We requested extradition of Zarqawi and his close associates.

How did the invasion help further those plans? Are Zarqawi and his close associates captured?
We removed the Saddam regime government that chose not to remove those bases. We are struggling despite numerous bungles to catch Zarqawi and all his close associates in Iraq. We have captured several but not all and not Zarqawi.

What did Powell refer to when he said "The network remains in Baghdad"? As Baghdad is under US control - has "the network" been found?
Powell gave his speech 2/5/2003 before we invaded Iraq 3/20/2003. So at the time of his speech he was asserting that "The network remains in Baghdad"? Baghdad was not then under US control. As far as I know, only parts of "the network" has been found.
[/quote]

near final part of his speech to UN, Powell wrote:
But what I want to bring to your attention today is the potentially much more sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaida terrorist network, a nexus that combines classic terrorist organizations and modern methods of murder. Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants.

Zarqawi, Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialties, and one of the specialties of this camp, is poisons.

When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp, and this camp is located in northeastern Iraq. You see a picture of this camp.
The network is teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons. Let me remind you how ricin works. Less than a pinch -- imagine a pinch of salt -- less than a pinch of ricin, eating just this amount in your food, would cause shock, followed by circulatory failure. Death comes within 72 hours and there is no antidote. There is no cure. It is fatal.

Those helping to run this camp are Zarqawi lieutenants operating in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein's controlled Iraq. But Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization Ansar al-Islam that controls this corner of Iraq. In 2000, this agent offered al-Qaida safe haven in the region.

After we swept al-Qaida from Afghanistan, some of those members accepted this safe haven. They remain there today.
Zarqawi's activities are not confined to this small corner of northeast Iraq. He traveled to Baghdad in May of 2002 for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months while he recuperated to fight another day.

During his stay, nearly two dozen extremists converged on Baghdad and established a base of operations there. These al-Qaida affiliates based in Baghdad now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they have now been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months.

Iraqi officials deny accusations of ties with al-Qaida. These denials are simply not credible. Last year, an al-Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly.
We know these affiliates are connected to Zarqawi because they remain, even today, in regular contact with his direct subordinates, include the poison cell plotters. And they are involved in moving more than money and materiel. Last year, two suspected al-Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to associates of the Baghdad cell and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide.

From his terrorist network in Iraq, Zarqawi can direct his network in the Middle East and beyond. We in the United States, all of us, the State Department and the Agency for International Development, we all lost a dear friend with the cold-blooded murder of Mr. Laurence Foley in Amman, Jordan, last October. A despicable act was committed that day, the assassination of an individual whose sole mission was to assist the people of Jordan. The captured assassin says his cell received money and weapons from Zarqawi for that murder. After the attack, an associate of the assassin left Jordan to go to Iraq to obtain weapons and explosives for further operations. Iraqi officials protest that they are not aware of the whereabouts of Zarqawi or of any of his associates. Again, these protests are not credible. We know of Zarqawi's activities in Baghdad. I described them earlier.

Now let me add one other fact. We asked a friendly security service to approach Baghdad about extraditing Zarqawi and providing information about him and his close associates. This service contacted Iraqi officials twice and we passed details that should have made it easy to find Zarqawi. The network remains in Baghdad. Zarqawi still remains at large, to come and go.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:28 pm
Quote:
The intelligence shows that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leading member of al-Qa'eda, was treated in hospital in Baghdad last spring but provides absolutely no evidence of any contacts with Iraqi officials.

It also shows that some members of a small Kurdish Islamic fundamentalist group, Ansar al-Islam, which controls a small area inside northern Iraq, were trained by al-Qa'eda. But this also shows no credible evidence of contacts with the Iraqi regime.

It is the attempt by both the White House and the Pentagon to make a clear and definite link between al-Zarqawi, Ansar al-Islam and Saddam Hussein that has infuriated many within the United States intelligence community.

"The intelligence is practically non-existent," one exasperated American intelligence source said. Most of the intelligence being used to support the idea of a link between al-Qa'eda and Saddam Hussein comes from Kurdish groups who are the bitter enemies of Ansar al-Islam, he said.

"It is impossible to support the bald conclusions being made by the White House and the Pentagon given the poor quantity and quality of the intelligence available. There is uproar within the intelligence community on all of these points, but the Bush White House has quashed dissent."

This could all be dismissed as a turf war between rival intelligence agencies were it not for the near unanimity across the British and American intelligence communities, including the Defence Intelligence Agency analysts whose bosses produced the line the White House wanted to hear.


source
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:40 pm
old europe wrote:
... Ican, where did Powell talk about "al Qaeda bases"?

ican711nm wrote:
I'll post the entire relevant Powell speech sequence at the end of these responses (with my boldface added). This sequence occurred near the end of his speech.


Yes, but re-posting Powell's speech doesn't answer my question. Where did Powell talk about al Qaeda baes in Iraq? Nowhere....

ican711nm wrote:
We didn't request help finding those bases. We requested extradition of Zarqawi and his close associates.


So why wasn't Zarqawi captured when his whereabouts had been known? Why did the White House decide to let him escape?

ican711nm wrote:
We removed the Saddam regime government that chose not to remove those bases. We are struggling despite numerous bungles to catch Zarqawi and all his close associates in Iraq. We have captured several but not all and not Zarqawi.


All sources reveal that the Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq where outside Baghdad's control. How could the Saddam regime have removed bases outside the control of the Saddam regime? On the other hand, the area was controlled by the Kurdish opposition leader, Jallal Tallabani. Tallabani was an ally of the US. Why did he not provide help in removing the Ansar al-Islam camps?

ican711nm wrote:
Powell gave his speech 2/5/2003 before we invaded Iraq 3/20/2003. So at the time of his speech he was asserting that "The network remains in Baghdad"? Baghdad was not then under US control. As far as I know, only parts of "the network" has been found.


And what did Powell refer to as "the network"? The Saddam regime? Or al Qaeda? Or something else altogether?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:43 pm
InfraBlue wrote:
In his speech to the UN Powell said that the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And that this camp was located in northeastern Iraq. This has been proven to be utter BS.

By who was it proven to be utter BS? When was it proven to be utter BS?

All the Duelfer report did on the WMD subject was conclude Saddam's regime did not possess ready-to-use WMD after 1991.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 09:49 pm
Zarqawi not even part of al Qaeda:

Quote:
... Much of the debate revolves around claims that Saddam had large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons - stockpiles that so far have not been found. But an equally fierce debate has been taking place behind the scenes about the handling of sketchy, and at times, contradictory evidence relating to Saddam's supposed connections with Al Qaeda.

Zarqawi was at the center of those claims. In a Cincinnati speech delivered Oct. 7, on the eve of a congressional vote authorizing him to wage war on Iraq, President Bush asserted that "Iraq and Al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade." His chief example was that "one very senior Al Qaeda leader" had "received medical treatment in Baghdad" - an obvious reference to Zarqawi, who had his leg amputated there in 2002.

Zarqawi received even more prominence in secretary of State Colin Powell's Feb. 5 presentation to the United Nations Security Council. In that address, Powell described Zarqawi as "an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda lieutenants." During his stay in Baghdad, Powell claimed that "nearly two dozen 'al Qaeda affiliates' converged on the Iraqi capital and "established a base of operations there."

But the German interrogations of Shadi Abdallah present a more complex and somewhat different picture of Zarqawi's role in international terrorism. According to Abdullah, Zarqawi's Al Tawhid group focuses on installing an Islamic regime in Jordan and killing Jews. And although Al Tawhid maintained its own training camp near Herat, Afghanistan, Zarqawi competed with bin Laden for trainees and members, Abdallah claimed.

A Jordanian native who migrated to Europe in the mid l990s and became involved in militant Islamic activities in an effort to escape personal problems stemming from his acknowledged drug use and homosexuality. Shadi Abdallah is now on trial in Duesseldorf, Germany on charges of plotting with Zarqawi and other members of an alleged Al Tawhid cell in Germany to attack Jewish or Israeli targets inside Germany. Abdallah could get ten years if convicted on the charges, but is believed to have become a key German government informant and witness against other Al Tawhid operatives who will be tried later.

Transcripts of Abdallah's interrogations over several months last year by investigators from Germany's Federal Criminal Police are perhaps the most important hard evidence collected by any Western intelligence or law-enforcement agency about the terrorist activities and aims of Zarqawi and his associates.

The transcripts indicate that while there was certainly interaction between members of Zarqawi's Jordanian-focused terror group and Al Qaeda, the organizations largely operated separately and had different aims.


Newsweek article
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 10:00 pm
old europe wrote:
Yes, but re-posting Powell's speech doesn't answer my question. Where did Powell talk about al Qaeda baes in Iraq? Nowhere....
More than once. Read the speech again! I'll edit those references with boldface.

So why wasn't Zarqawi captured when his whereabouts had been known? Why did the White House decide to let him escape?

I guess (not knowing anything about any such opportunity--remember we asked Saddam to extradite Zarqawi) we delayed our invasion too long and lost that opportunity. Or maybe the US bungled again like it did when Clinton was offered bin Laden by the Sudanese, and we failed to take advantage of that opportunity.

All sources reveal that the Ansar al-Islam camps in northern Iraq where outside Baghdad's control. How could the Saddam regime have removed bases outside the control of the Saddam regime?

Attack them like we eventually did when they were outside the US's control, before they were inside the US's control.

On the other hand, the area was controlled by the Kurdish opposition leader, Jallal Tallabani. Tallabani was an ally of the US. Why did he not provide help in removing the Ansar al-Islam camps?
Some of the Kurds did after we invaded Iraq

And what did Powell refer to as "the network"? The Saddam regime? Or al Qaeda? Or something else altogether?

al Qaeda
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 10:17 pm
NOTE: I say nothing here about any relationship between Zarqawi and Saddam. All I do say is that the US invaded Iraq to remove Saddam's government because Saddam's government did not choose to attempt to remove the al Qaeda bases in northeastern Iraq. The US did choose to attempt to remove those bases after it removed Saddam's governement to reduce the chance that the al Qaeda bases once removed would not be re-established after the US left Iraq.

Quote:
1. President Bush announced to the nation, Tuesday night, 9/11/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “harbor” terrorists. President Bush announced to the nation, to Congress and to the rest of the world, Thursday night, 9/20/2001, that our war was not only with the terrorists who have declared war on us, it is also with those governments that “support” terrorists. [Reference A]

2. Al Qaeda terrorist bases are necessary for the successful perpetration by al Qaeda terrorists of al Qaeda terrorism. [Reference A]

3. The US must remove those governments that persist in knowingly providing sanctuary for al Qaeda terrorist bases. [Reference A]

4. On 9/11/2001 there were terrorist training bases in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The terrorist training bases in Afghanistan were established in 1988 after the Russians abandoned their war in Afghanistan. The terrorist training bases in Iraq were re-established in 2001 after the Kurds had defeated them a couple of years earlier. [References A, B, C, D]

5. We invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 without obtaining UN approval and removed Afghanistan's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Afghanistan. [Reference A]

6. We invaded Iraq in March 2003 without obtaining UN approval and removed Iraq's tyrannical government, because that government refused to attempt to remove the terrorist bases from Iraq. [References A, B, D, E]

7. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Afghanistan people’s own design in Afghanistan primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

8. We are attempting to secure a democratic government of the Iraq people’s own design in Iraq primarily because such a government is presumed less likely to permit the re-establishment of terrorist bases there. [Reference A]

9. I think that only after this enormously difficult work is completed successfully, will the US again possess sufficient means to seriously consider invasions to remove any other tyrannical governments that refuse to attempt to remove terrorist bases from their countries.

References:

A. 9-11 Commission, 9/20/2004
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm

B. Secretary of State, Colin Powell’s speech to UN, “sinister nexus,” 2/5/2003:
NEW LINK:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm

C. “The Encyclopedia Britannica, Iraq”
www.britannica.com

D. "American Soldier," by General Tommy Franks, 7/1/2004
“10” Regan Books, An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers

E. Charles Duelfer's Report, 30 September 2004
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2005 10:37 pm
There is no evidence that there was ever a poison lab in that camp in northern Iraq.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/01/2024 at 01:24:24