1
   

Saddam Terrorist Training Camps

 
 
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 01:25 pm
Murtha said on Meet the Press March 19, "There was no terrorism in Iraq before we went there. None. There was no connection with al Qaeda, there was no connection with, with terrorism in Iraq itself." Well, here is some evidence of terrorist training camps.

A study from the Joint Forces Command:
"Beginning in 1994, the Fedayeen Saddam opened its own paramilitary training camps for volunteers, graduating more than 7,200 "good men racing full with courage and enthusiasm" in the first year. Beginning in 1998, these camps began hosting "Arab volunteers from Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, 'the Gulf,' and Syria." It is not clear from available evidence where all of these non-Iraqi volunteers who were "sacrificing for the cause" went to ply their newfound skills. Before the summer of 2002, most volunteers went home upon the completion of training. But these camps were humming with frenzied activity in the months immediately prior to the war. As late as January 2003, the volunteers participated in a special training event called the "Heroes Attack." This training event was designed in part to prepare regional Fedayeen Saddam commands to "obstruct the enemy from achieving his goal and to support keeping peace and stability in the province."

This from a report by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee:
"The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) did not have a focused human intelligence (HUMINT) collection strategy targeting Iraq's links to terrorism until 2002. The CIA had no [redacted] sources on the ground in Iraq reporting specifically on terrorism."

This from the investigative unit of ABC News:
"A newly released prewar Iraqi document indicates that an official representative of Saddam Hussein's government met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan on February 19, 1995, after receiving approval from Saddam Hussein. Bin Laden asked that Iraq broadcast the lectures of Suleiman al Ouda, a radical Saudi preacher, and suggested "carrying out joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia. According to the document, Saddam's presidency was informed of the details of the meeting on March 4, 1995, and Saddam agreed to dedicate a program for them on the radio. The document states that further "development of the relationship and cooperation between the two parties to be left according to what's open [in the future] based on dialogue and agreement on other ways of cooperation." The Sudanese were informed about the agreement to dedicate the program on the radio.
The report then states that "Saudi opposition figure" bin Laden had to leave Sudan in July 1996 after it was accused of harboring terrorists. It says information indicated he was in Afghanistan. "The relationship with him is still through the Sudanese. We're currently working on activating this relationship through a new channel in light of his current location," it states.
This document is handwritten and has no official seal. Although contacts between bin Laden and the Iraqis have been reported in the 9/11 Commission report and elsewhere (e.g., the 9/11 report states "Bin Laden himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995) this document indicates the contacts were approved personally by Saddam Hussein.
It also indicates the discussions were substantive, in particular that bin Laden was proposing an operational relationship, and that the Iraqis were, at a minimum, interested in exploring a potential relationship and prepared to show good faith by broadcasting the speeches of al Ouda, the radical cleric who was also a bin Laden mentor.
The document does not establish that the two parties did in fact enter into an operational relationship. Given that the document claims bin Laden was proposing to the Iraqis that they conduct "joint operations against foreign forces" in Saudi Arabia, it is worth noting that eight months after the meeting--on November 13, 1995--terrorists attacked Saudi National Guard Headquarters in Riyadh, killing 5 U.S. military advisers. The militants later confessed on Saudi TV to having been trained by Osama bin Laden."

From Stars and Stripes concerning the details of the camp:
"About a dozen reinforced concrete buildings line the front edge with a large parade field, concrete and steel obstacle course and even a shooting range within its confines. The camp has many modern amenities, including running and heated water, a large kitchen and electricity. Some buildings had ceiling fans and central air conditioning."

Would you like to refute your statement, Congressman Murtha?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 702 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
RichNDanaPoint
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 07:32 pm
It sounds like El Toro Marine base in California, is that a terroriest trainging camp as well?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 07:47 pm
Some evidence?

Maybe some LACK of evidence..

Fedayeen are militias in Iraq. The National Guard is the militia in the US. There is no reference to training for terrorist activities in the Joint Forces study.



No sources on the ground reporting on terrorism does not provide any evidence of terrorism. It shows there was no source stating anything about terrorism.

A handwritten document that isn't official. Yeah, sounds like some real evidence there. Would that be like the evidence we had of mobile germ labs? Oh, wait.. Saddam agreed to maybe put a religious program on TV. Does that mean the US supports terrorism since Robertson was on US TV proposing to assassinate a foreign leader?

Like Rich points out. Sounds a lot like just about every US military base in the US, buildings and a training ground.
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 07:50 pm
There's always been a strong, verifiable connection between bin Laden and Saddam. Both were armed, trained and funded by Reagan/Bush.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 26 Mar, 2006 07:56 pm
Conclusion: Bomb Reagan and Bush.
0 Replies
 
chr42690
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 07:16 pm
Pre-emptive war is necessary or we would be fighting in our backyards instead of the enemy's.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 07:28 pm
chr42690 wrote:
Pre-emptive war is necessary or we would be fighting in our backyards instead of the enemy's.
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it". George Santayana

I suggest you go read up on a little place called Vietnam. "Street Without Joy" is a good start.

For a lesson on hubris, something the current administration has in no short supply, I suggest Thucydides' "The Peloponessian War."

Then get back to us with more quotes from the Johnson era.
0 Replies
 
chr42690
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 04:48 pm
If there is any suspision a dangerous country has WMDs, we should attack them or else a major U.S. city has the risk of being destroyed.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:46 pm
What nonsense. By your logic, the Cold War would've turned hot and we'd be radioactive cinders glowing in the darkness. Grow a set and realize that it's a fool's errand to keep invading other countries in an endless quest for elusive and ultimately illusive safety.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 08:50 pm
Watch something besides Fox News, fer crissakes....
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:12 am
blacksmithn wrote:
Watch something besides Fox News, fer crissakes....


Speaking of which, how come everytime I turn on Fox News, I see the words "Terror Alert: Elevated" scroll past on the News Ticker. How many freaking terror alert levels do you Americans have?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:17 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
blacksmithn wrote:
Watch something besides Fox News, fer crissakes....


Speaking of which, how come everytime I turn on Fox News, I see the words "Terror Alert: Elevated" scroll past on the News Ticker. How many freaking terror alert levels do you Americans have?


It is merely showing the current level. We are in a war after all.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:17 am
Their name is Legion, for they are many.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:23 am
America is in a war? Funny. I could have sworn Bush said something along the lines of Mission Accomplished.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:26 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
America is in a war? Funny. I could have sworn Bush said something along the lines of Mission Accomplished.


Right. The mission to depose Saddam was accomplished. There are other missions now.

wait a sec, do you really care or were you just trying to be sarcastic?
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:30 am
One of the missions? Is that one of the missions devised after the fact or one of the made up ones?
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:35 am
McGentrix wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
America is in a war? Funny. I could have sworn Bush said something along the lines of Mission Accomplished.


Right. The mission to depose Saddam was accomplished. There are other missions now.

wait a sec, do you really care or were you just trying to be sarcastic?


Gosh, I can't answer that question because I don't really know myself.

Still, the Terror Alert has been "elevated" for far too long. It's like playing the air raid siren non-stop. Every day I check twice and the ticker says the same thing. This has been for weeks on end now. It's ridiculous. You can stir up some real apathy like that, which is counter-productive.

Back on topic, however, pre-emptive war is a ridiculous notion.

Take Japan for example. Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive strike. Look where it got them. Pre-emptive strikes based on perceivable threats is ridiculous and can get you bogged down.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:46 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
America is in a war? Funny. I could have sworn Bush said something along the lines of Mission Accomplished.


Right. The mission to depose Saddam was accomplished. There are other missions now.

wait a sec, do you really care or were you just trying to be sarcastic?


Gosh, I can't answer that question because I don't really know myself.

Still, the Terror Alert has been "elevated" for far too long. It's like playing the air raid siren non-stop. Every day I check twice and the ticker says the same thing. This has been for weeks on end now. It's ridiculous. You can stir up some real apathy like that, which is counter-productive.

Back on topic, however, pre-emptive war is a ridiculous notion.

Take Japan for example. Pearl Harbour was a pre-emptive strike. Look where it got them. Pre-emptive strikes based on perceivable threats is ridiculous and can get you bogged down.
Haven't you read the latest press releases? We're not bogged down. We're winning! The only bit of nostalgia missing is the hackneyed phrases--There's light at the end of the tunnel, for instance. I have the feeling they'll be trotting that tune out shortly.

And the March of Folly continues...
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Apr, 2006 07:52 am
dlowan wrote:
Their name is Legion, for they are many.


Laughing Naughty bunny.
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
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Saddam Terrorist Training Camps
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/11/2024 at 06:32:16