blueveinedthrobber wrote:Lash wrote:BPB--
No. But they did have a relationship, and they did work together.
----------------
Anyway. I appreciate those who admit their beliefs pertinent to the 911 Commission Report.
This entire flambeau was important to me, though not much in the way of light-hearted entertainment.
Some people seem to try to negate any logical inferences that there was a collusion.
I wanted to illustrate that possibility founded on some of the facts presented in the Report.
I am satisfied.
So Rumsfeld and Saddam having a working relationship doesn't mean that Rumsfeld had anything to do with 9/11. but Saddam meeting with OBL means he was complicit in the 9/11 attacks...interesting that....
Not necessarily. It only means to me that they had a working relationship--just like the meetings with Rumsfeld signified.
With Saddam and OBL having a working relationship, your common sense may conclude what they were working on.
or your make anything fit your bush was right to invade Iraq litany.
There is no established fact which states that Hussein and bin Laden had a working relationship, hence your "conclusion" as to what they were working on is as chimerical as a statement that that were fact.
dlowan wrote:Had you stuck to possibility, we would have been satisfied, too, a long weary time ago.
They cooperated on at least one issue.
I never said collusion regarding 911 was anything but a possibility.
Collusion regarding something else is documented in the Report.
Lash wrote:Yes. I think he provided training in Iraq for some AQ terrorists, and may have provided finances for AQ--which may or may not have been used pertinent to 911--but hey, money feed them and pays the rent for them.
I have read a lot of material about Salman Pak, as well as information recieved from former Iraqi nationals. The evidence to me is overwhelming.
Lash, the information on Salman Pak is not by any stretch of the imagination conclusive in any way.
There was never any evidence that that facility was used to train terrorists, other than the word of what? A couple of Iraqi defectors? But I can see how you could believe in the possibility. I personally have no idea whether the stories are true or not, and don't think there is enough information available to guess either way. If this is the lynchpin on which you are basing your belief, it seems pretty weak, when put up against the whole of the 9-11 commission findings.
I also agree with you that Saddam should have been taken out years ago, and if there is any good at all in this whole f*cking quagmire in Iraq, it is that this rotten bastard has been neutralized. But I also believe that there should have been a better way to do it than to take over a whole country, killing thousands of innocents. I also believe that the hawks that pull Bush's strings purposely manipulated information and purposely tried to tie Saddam to 9-11 by using that manipulated information in an effort to dupe the public. And they succeeded. And now we're stuck in the middle of a civil war in the middle of a hornet's nest of **** in one of the most dangerously explosive regions on the planet.
Therefore, I believe that Bush is a piece of **** yes-man, who followed his war hawk buddies' advice blindly like the scumfuck idiot that he is, and is to blame for any and all **** that has flown back in the face of America because of it.
Now, who's up for a big group hug?
The code word "Iraqi defectors," so often bandied about in the "US, UN & Iraq" series before the war, was almost certainly a reference to Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress. How convenient a source, how unlikely a description of an "Iraqi defector."
This thread needs a little levity:
I never said the Salman Pak info was conclusive. I did say it is one more piece of information that, added to a lot more--does lend believability to the assertion that SH provided assistance to OBL.
----
Chalabi was not the only one who mentioned Salman Pak. There were several.
This article is not from a source I suggest I'd use for evidence--but it is offered for the names that are cited, and general information that is believed to be true by many people.
------
Salman Pak - Iraq?'s own terrorist training camp
Two Iraqi Military defectors, an unnamed former Lt. General and a Captain Sabah Khodada recently gave details of an Iraqi school at Salman Pak which includes training for the hijacking of passenger airliners and other modes of transportation. The former Iraqi General said that there was a old Boeing 707 resting next to rail tracks on edge of Salman Pak being used in terrorist training, the existence of this aircraft has been confirmed by UN. Inspectors.
-----
There were many defectors.
Many people believe this contains substantial fact--
-----
From the USA Today article linked to below:
US officials question link between 9/11 and Iraq
Peter Eisler (USA Today)
Washington
Osama bin Laden?'s Al-Qaeda network has ties to Iraqi intelligence that date to the mid-1990s, when they came together in Sudan to support Islamic insurgencies in Algeria and across West Asia. The CIA had convincing evidence at the time that Saddam Hussein?'s regime was funneling money through bin Laden to the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) in Algeria and other terrorist organizations, according to current and former US officials who reviewed intelligence at the time. The scheme was seen as an effort to mask Iraq?'s support for the groups.
It?'s unclear whether the pass-through was directed by bin Laden, then living in Sudan, or by his circle of associates, at least one of whom was identified by 1994 as having close ties to Iraq?'s intelligence service, officials say.
The previously unreported arrangement appears to be the earliest in a series of murky connections between Iraq and bin Laden. It raises new questions in the fiery debate over whether Saddam?'s regime ?- and its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs ?- should be the next target in the war on terrorism.
If US officials can establish a firm Iraq-Al-Qaeda link, particularly with respect to the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, it will give leverage to those in the Bush administration who want to take the war on terrorism to Iraq. So far President Bush has been non-committal, partly because key Gulf allies warn that any military action against Iraq without proof of an Al-Qaeda link would shatter the coalition behind the anti-terror campaign.
Bin Laden was relatively unknown when the Sudan connection surfaced in 1994. He had been expelled from Saudi Arabia, but his fortune, business ventures and budding ideas of Holy War had made him a welcome guest of the radical National Islamic Front, the party that held power in Khartoum, Sudan?'s capital.
Saddam, under intense international scrutiny after the Gulf War, also had strong ties to Khartoum, and Iraqi intelligence was well represented in the stew of Islamic radicals, insurrectionists and foreign agents pouring through the city.
"We were convinced that money from Iraq was going to bin Laden, who was then sending it to places that Iraq wanted it to go," says Stanley Bedlington, a senior analyst in the CIA?'s counterterrorism center from 1986 until his retirement in 1994.
"There certainly is no doubt that Saddam Hussein had pretty strong ties to bin Laden while he was in Sudan, whether it was directly or through (Sudanese) intermediaries. We traced considerable sums of money going from bin Laden to the GIA in Algeria. We believed some of the money came from Iraq."
At the time, bin Laden was just emerging in US intelligence reports on Sudan?'s sponsorship of terrorist groups and the role Iraq, Iran and other Arab states played in those arrangements.
Federal officials now are reviewing those old reports, looking not only for evidence of overt contacts between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, such as Iraqi money passing through bin Laden, but for more covert ties, including the possibility that Iraqi intelligence had penetrated Al-Qaeda.
Interpreting the evidence
Most current and former officials who have tracked Saddam?'s regime and bin Laden?'s organization believe there has been regular contact between the two. Many suspect that Iraqi operatives have helped Al-Qaeda, perhaps with bomb-making materials and expertise, forged identity papers and safe houses ?- the sort of assistance Iraq has provided to any number of terrorist groups. But relatively few believe Iraq is directly involved in the planning and execution of Al-Qaeda attacks.
The debate is based mainly on a handful of known contacts:
Mohamed Atta, the ringleader in the Sept. 11 attacks, met in Prague last April with Ahmed al-Ani, a suspected Iraqi intelligence chief posted at Iraq?'s Czech embassy. Czech Prime Minister Milos Zeman, whose agents monitored the meeting, says Atta and the Iraqi discussed a plot to bomb the Prague offices of Radio Free Europe, which broadcasts US-backed programs into Iraq.
The meeting, according to Czech intelligence, focused only on the radio station, an alleged target of Iraqi agents at least once before, in 1998. But many suspect the Sept. 11 attacks were a topic, too. Atta, who?'d made at least one previous trip to Prague, traveled 72 straight hours from Florida and back to see al-Ani. Upon returning, he used money wired from West Asia to finance the attacks.
Farouk Hijazi, Iraq?'s ambassador to Turkey and reputedly a top official in Saddam?'s intelligence service, went to Afghanistan in 1998, after bin Laden was implicated in the US embassy bombings in East Africa, and offered the accused terrorist sanctuary in Iraq. Iraqi officials deny any such invitation. But Vincent Cannistraro, former counterterrorism chief at the CIA, says the agency has evidence to the contrary: "Hijazi wanted bin Laden to relocate to Iraq, but bin Laden turned it down. He knew Saddam wanted to make him a tool of Iraqi policy."
The meeting was first made public by the Iraqi National Congress, an exiled opposition group that contends that Saddam?'s regime has helped train, equip and plan Al-Qaeda attacks.
Two Iraqi defectors this month provided details on a terrorist training camp south of Baghdad in Salman Pak, first identified by United Nations weapons inspectors in the early 1990s. The defectors, in accounts provided by Iraqi opposition leaders, described a separate, secret compound where non-Iraqi Arabs, most of whom appeared to be Islamic radicals, were drilled in terrorist acts. Among other things, the trainees practiced hijackings in small groups, armed only with knives, on a Boeing 707.
"We always just called them the terrorist camps," says Charles Duelfer, former deputy chairman of the U.N. weapons inspection program in Iraq. "We reported them at the time, but they?'ve obviously taken on new significance."
Other links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq continue to crop up, including reports that at least two other people involved in the Sept. 11 attacks met with Iraqi agents beforehand. But most remain unconfirmed.
Cash and spies in Sudan
Whatever Iraq?'s relationship to Al-Qaeda, its roots seem to be in Sudan. Bin Laden lived there from 1991 to 1996 after leaving his native Saudi Arabia, where his calls for a strict Islamic government had angered the monarchy. By 1994, US officials were concerned that bin Laden was supporting Islamic insurgencies across the region.
The nexus of those efforts, according to US and foreign officials, was Hassan Turabi, who headed Sudan?'s ruling National Islamic Front. Turabi, credited with bringing bin Laden to Sudan, opened the country to Islamic fundamentalists, providing training grounds and safe haven for terrorist operations, the officials say. Money for those efforts flowed in from several Middle Eastern states ?- including Iraq ?- and bin Laden was believed to be helping with its distribution.
"The years when bin Laden was establishing himself in Sudan also happened to be a time when there was a lot of Iraqi-Sudanese activity," says Steven Simon, a counterterrorism advisor for Clinton.
Many people associated with Al-Qaeda came from a loose network of operatives who served a variety of states and terrorist organizations, and there were a lot of "tactical and shifting contacts," adds Simon, now at London?'s International Institute for Strategic Studies. He notes, for example, that it is rumored in London that some of the people Saddam employed to assassinate Iraqi dissidents "were affiliated with Al-Qaeda."
US officials worried at the time that Saddam was sponsoring development of chemical weapons in Sudan, and U.N. inspectors documented visits to Khartoum by officials in Iraq?'s chemical weapons program. Some believe bin Laden and his associates were helping to finance the weapons work.
The recent wave of anthrax-tainted letters to US officials and media outlets has spurred speculation that bin Laden may also have gotten Iraqi help in building his own arsenal. Newly discovered camps in Afghanistan where Al-Qaeda operatives appear to have experimented with chemical weapons may yield new information on any connections.
"There?'s a lot of (intelligence) collection going on in those caves and mountains," says Duelfer, the former UN official. "We?'re going to hear about more ties between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, particularly when it comes to Al-Qaeda?'s efforts to get chemical and biological weapons."
It was also during bin Laden?'s time in Sudan that US intelligence officials began suspecting that Iraq?'s foreign intelligence service was trying to penetrate the then-fledgling Al-Qaeda organization. And the question of whether Iraqi agents are operating secretly within Al-Qaeda?'s ranks is one that the CIA continues to investigate.
"There was a guy in bin Laden?'s entourage in Khartoum ?- he was not what you would call ?'active duty,?' but he had very close connections to Iraqi intelligence," recalls one former CIA operative who declined to be identified. "He was close to bin Laden and dealt with him a lot in his incarnation as factory builder and road builder."
Most officials doubt that anyone in the upper ranks of Al-Qaeda is an Iraqi spy. And there?'s great debate about the extent to which Iraqi agents may have been able to get inside bin Laden?'s organization, which vets recruits extensively.
Even so, virtually no one doubts that Saddam would try to place someone inside Al-Qaeda.
"That?'s the way he works," says Tim McCarthy, a scholar at the Monterey Institute of International Studies who did U.N. inspections in Iraq ?- an operation that itself was penetrated by Iraqi agents. "Saddam believes in getting inside these sorts of organizations."
Wafiq al Samarrai, who headed Iraq?'s military intelligence operation before defecting in 1994, also believes Saddam has agents inside Al-Qaeda, though he doubts they?'re in the upper ranks. The agents "most likely would be from other countries, Egyptians or Jordanians or Yemenis," he says. "It wouldn?'t be Iraqis ?- the Iraqis in Al-Qaeda are few."
A question of proof
Despite the contacts between Iraq and bin Laden?'s organization, there?'s still much debate over the precise nature of the relationship.
"In that part of the universe, the part occupied by Muslims who hate Americans, there are bound to be some (Al-Qaeda) contacts with Iraqi agents, even some who are known as such," says Daniel Benjamin, a former National Security Council advisor on terrorism during the Clinton administration.
But Benjamin, now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, sides with many who doubt that Iraq has any meaningful role in steering Al-Qaeda?'s operations. "We were never aware of any substantial cooperation," he says.
Those who doubt any sort of substantive relationship are quick to note that there are deep philosophical differences between Saddam and bin Laden. The most obvious is that Saddam, a secular autocrat who has repressed Islamic fundamentalists in his own country, seems to be the type of Arab leader that the deeply religious bin Laden often rails against.
Yet there?'s a vocal and powerful group of officials in the US military and intelligence communities who believe Iraq and Al-Qaeda work hand-in-hand. They point to what they see as clear evidence of state sponsorship in Al-Qaeda strikes, such as the use of large amounts of C-4, a hard-to-get military explosive, in the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, a Navy frigate rammed at a Yemen port by a suicide bomber on a small boat.
"People put aside ideological differences to work towards common goals ?- in this case, driving America out of West Asia," says Laurie Mylroie, author of Study of Revenge, which makes a case that Iraq helped plot the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Bin Laden "is not capable of carrying out the kind of major assaults we?'ve seen .... Iraqi intelligence provides the expertise and direction. Proving it is difficult, but many things that are true can?'t be proven."
Many who are pushing to turn the US war on terrorism against Saddam believe there never will be absolute proof of Iraqi involvement in Al-Qaeda attacks. But they say no more evidence is necessary, given Iraq?'s history of sponsoring terrorism, including a foiled 1993 plot to assassinate former President Bush, and Saddam?'s blocking of U.N. weapons inspections.
"I don?'t know what the (Iraq-Al-Qaeda) relationship is, whether it?'s a 90-10 joint venture or a 10-90 joint venture, and it doesn?'t matter," says former CIA director James Woolsey. Some Al-Qaeda attacks "look like a foreign intelligence service was involved, and we have a long history of contacts between Iraqi intelligence and Al-Qaeda," Woolsey adds. "All of that, plus the (blocking) of the U.N. inspections, is enough.
Contributing: Barbara Slavin
kickycan wrote:Lash wrote:Yes. I think he provided training in Iraq for some AQ terrorists, and may have provided finances for AQ--which may or may not have been used pertinent to 911--but hey, money feed them and pays the rent for them.
I have read a lot of material about Salman Pak, as well as information recieved from former Iraqi nationals. The evidence to me is overwhelming.
Lash, the information on Salman Pak is not by any stretch of the imagination conclusive in any way.
There was never any evidence that that facility was used to train terrorists, other than the word of what? A couple of Iraqi defectors? But I can see how you could believe in the possibility. I personally have no idea whether the stories are true or not, and don't think there is enough information available to guess either way. If this is the lynchpin on which you are basing your belief, it seems pretty weak, when put up against the whole of the 9-11 commission findings.
I also agree with you that Saddam should have been taken out years ago, and if there is any good at all in this whole f*cking quagmire in Iraq, it is that this rotten bastard has been neutralized. But I also believe that there should have been a better way to do it than to take over a whole country, killing thousands of innocents. I also believe that the hawks that pull Bush's strings purposely manipulated information and purposely tried to tie Saddam to 9-11 by using that manipulated information in an effort to dupe the public. And they succeeded. And now we're stuck in the middle of a civil war in the middle of a hornet's nest of **** in one of the most dangerously explosive regions on the planet.
Therefore, I believe that Bush is a piece of **** yes-man, who followed his war hawk buddies' advice blindly like the scumfuck idiot that he is, and is to blame for any and all **** that has flown back in the face of America because of it.
Now, who's up for a big group hug?
SO I'm reading this and think to myself "huh."
Let me play with the words a bit and see if you say "huh." as well.
In relation to the newsweek article and other abuse stories.
There was never any evidence that that facility was used to deface the Koran, other than the word of what? A couple of Iraqi prisoners? But I can see how you could believe in the possibility. I personally have no idea whether the stories are true or not, and don't think there is enough information available to guess either way. If this is the lynchpin on which you are basing your belief, it seems pretty weak, when put up against the whole of the US Army investogations findings.
Well, do you say "huh."?
The rest of that made me just roll my eyes, so let me add that in just for good measure.
There was the word of a great many Iraqi prisoners - and more besides. (I need to go and look up my source for the more besides before saying more - can't do that from here.)
EDit:
Here we go:
Dozens Have Alleged Koran's Mishandling
Complaints by inmates in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cuba emerged early. In 2003, the Pentagon set a sensitivity policy after trouble at Guantanamo.
By Richard A. Serrano and John Daniszewski, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON — Senior Bush administration officials reacted with outrage to a Newsweek report that U.S. interrogators had desecrated the Koran at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, detention facility, and the magazine retracted the story last week. But allegations of disrespectful treatment of Islam's holy book are far from rare.
An examination of hearing transcripts, court records and government documents, as well as interviews with former detainees, their lawyers, civil liberties groups and U.S. military personnel, reveals dozens of accusations involving the Koran, not only at Guantanamo, but also at American-run detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq.
ADVERTISEMENT
The Pentagon is conducting an internal investigation of reported abuses at the naval base in Cuba, led by Air Force Lt. Gen. Randall Schmidt. The administration has refused to say what the inquiry, still weeks from completion, has found so far.
But two years ago, amid allegations of desecration and hunger strikes by inmates, the Army instituted elaborate procedures for sensitive treatment of the Koran at the prison camp. Once the new procedures were in place, complaints there stopped, said the International Committee of the Red Cross, which monitors conditions in prisons and detention facilities.
The allegations, both at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, contain detailed descriptions of what Muslim prisoners said was mishandling of the Koran — sometimes in a deliberately provocative manner.
In one instance, an Iraqi detainee alleged that a soldier had a guard dog carry a copy of the Koran in its mouth. In another, guards at Guantanamo were said to have scrawled obscenities inside Korans.
Other prisoners said Korans were kicked across floors, stomped on and thrown against walls. One said a soldier urinated on his copy, and others said guards ridiculed the religious text, declaring that Allah's words would not save detainees.
Some of the alleged incidents appear to have been inadvertent or to have resulted from U.S. personnel's lack of understanding about how sensitive Muslim detainees might be to mishandling of the Koran. In several cases, for instance, copies were allegedly knocked about during scuffles with prisoners who refused to leave their cells.
In other cases, the allegations seemed to describe instances of deliberate disrespect.
"They tore it and threw it on the floor," former detainee Mohammed Mazouz said of guards at Guantanamo Bay. "They urinated on it. They walked on top of the Koran. They used the Koran like a carpet."
"We told them not to do it. We begged. And then they did it some more," said Mazouz, a Moroccan who was seized in Pakistan soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Recently released, he described the alleged incidents in a telephone interview from his home in Marrakech.
Ahmad Naji Abid Ali Dulaymi, who was held at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq for 10 months, singled out a soldier or noncommissioned officer known to detainees only as "Fox." He said prisoners were forced to sit naked, were licked by dogs, and were soaked in cold water and then forced to sit in front of a powerful air-conditioner.
"But frankly," he said, "the worst insult and humiliation they were doing to us, especially for the religious ones among us, is when they, especially Fox, tore up holy books of Koran and threw them away into the trash or into dirty water.
"Almost every day, Fox used to take a brand new Koran, and tear off the plastic cover in front of us and then throw it away into the trash container."
The hunger strikes erupted in 2002 at Guantanamo when word swept the camp that Korans were being desecrated. In response, the Defense Department's Southern Command, which oversees the prison, issued four pages of guidelines instructing soldiers in the proper way of "inspecting and handling" Korans.
In essence, the books are generally to be handled only by Muslim chaplains working for the military, and guards were instructed not to touch the Koran unless absolutely necessary.
Muslims revere the Koran as the word of God and have rules for handling it. It is always kept in a high place with nothing on top of it. A ritual ablution is required before touching a copy, which must be held above the waist. Some Muslims hold that nonbelievers must not touch the holy book.
At that time, the Red Cross was fielding similar complaints from prisoners, and with the January 2003 written policy the problems seemed to cease.
"The ICRC believes the U.S. authorities did take corrective measures," said Simon Schorno, a spokesman in Washington.
Other sensitivity training is continuing. At Ft. Lewis in Washington state, guards and other soldiers headed to Guantanamo Bay and other facilities go through classes and exercises to increase awareness of Arab and Muslim customs, said Lt. Col. Warren Perry. Much of the training deals specifically with the Koran......
Rest of story here
Disrespect of the Koran...
Someone should have told them how we feel about disrespect of human life.
I think we should send some DEA artists to the Middle East, and see how they appreciate works like Mohammad in Urine.
This is quite illogical. Taking the word of war criminals against their captors is like asking the opposing football team to double as line judges. It just won't work.
I'll give it credence when we have an impartial witnes or two.
Lash wrote:Disrespect of the Koran...
Someone should have told them how we feel about disrespect of human life.
I think we should send some DEA artists to the Middle East, and see how they appreciate works like Mohammad in Urine.
This is quite illogical. Taking the word of war criminals against their captors is like asking the opposing football team to double as line judges. It just won't work.
I'll give it credence when we have an impartial witnes or two.
DEA artists? Have those drug enforcement agents been sampling the confiscated items? :wink:
I think you meant NEA Lash but I had a nice laugh picturing DEA agents making art like you described.
As for impartial witnesses; Don't discount at least one army chaplain and several reports from FBI agents about treatment. This isn't just from those being held.
McGentrix wrote:kickycan wrote:Lash wrote:Yes. I think he provided training in Iraq for some AQ terrorists, and may have provided finances for AQ--which may or may not have been used pertinent to 911--but hey, money feed them and pays the rent for them.
I have read a lot of material about Salman Pak, as well as information recieved from former Iraqi nationals. The evidence to me is overwhelming.
Lash, the information on Salman Pak is not by any stretch of the imagination conclusive in any way.
There was never any evidence that that facility was used to train terrorists, other than the word of what? A couple of Iraqi defectors? But I can see how you could believe in the possibility. I personally have no idea whether the stories are true or not, and don't think there is enough information available to guess either way. If this is the lynchpin on which you are basing your belief, it seems pretty weak, when put up against the whole of the 9-11 commission findings.
I also agree with you that Saddam should have been taken out years ago, and if there is any good at all in this whole f*cking quagmire in Iraq, it is that this rotten bastard has been neutralized. But I also believe that there should have been a better way to do it than to take over a whole country, killing thousands of innocents. I also believe that the hawks that pull Bush's strings purposely manipulated information and purposely tried to tie Saddam to 9-11 by using that manipulated information in an effort to dupe the public. And they succeeded. And now we're stuck in the middle of a civil war in the middle of a hornet's nest of **** in one of the most dangerously explosive regions on the planet.
Therefore, I believe that Bush is a piece of **** yes-man, who followed his war hawk buddies' advice blindly like the scumfuck idiot that he is, and is to blame for any and all **** that has flown back in the face of America because of it.
Now, who's up for a big group hug?
SO I'm reading this and think to myself "huh."
Let me play with the words a bit and see if you say "huh." as well.
In relation to the newsweek article and other abuse stories.
There was never any evidence that that facility was used to deface the Koran, other than the word of what? A couple of Iraqi prisoners? But I can see how you could believe in the possibility. I personally have no idea whether the stories are true or not, and don't think there is enough information available to guess either way. If this is the lynchpin on which you are basing your belief, it seems pretty weak, when put up against the whole of the US Army investogations findings.
Well, do you say "huh."?
The rest of that made me just roll my eyes, so let me add that in just for good measure.
I am guessing from what happened earlier today with this thread that you are too delicate for the response I originally gave you, so I'll just say this.
Your response here has absolutely nothing to do with anything we were discussing, and is therefore a childish, worthless attempt to either bait me into attacking you, or derail this thread.
Just for the record.
Carry on...
Have no doubt that he will, indeed, carry on . . .
DEA, NEA...
Would you link the Chaplains and FBI agents who witnessed this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051701315_pf.html
3 different people here that are not detainees.
Quote:James Yee, a former Muslim chaplain at the prison who was investigated and cleared of charges of mishandling classified material, has asserted that guards' mishandling and mistreatment of detainees' Korans led the prisoners to launch a hunger strike in March 2002. Detainee lawyers, attributing their information to an interrogator, have said the strike ended only when military leaders issued an apology to the detainees over the camp loudspeaker. But they said mishandling of the Koran persisted.
Erik Saar, a former Army translator at Guantanamo Bay who has written a book about mistreatment of detainees at the military prison, said in interviews and in his book that he never saw a Koran flushed in a toilet but that guards routinely ignored prisoners' sensitivities by tossing it on the ground while searching their cells.
Yee--wasn't he arrested!!?? I'm pretty sure we can file him neatly in the "disgruntled" category. "Mishandling?" LOL! We even instituted ridiculous procedures so they wouldn't cry about their book.
The other guy--selling a book--not an unbiased source--doesn't even say he saw flushing.
"...ignored sensitivities..."
I can't believe you would submit this as an evidentiary source.
So, you have several reports from FBI agents?
