Jump to content


9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, Al-Qaida


Lcyberlina
 Share

Recommended Posts

9/11 panel sees no link between Iraq, al-Qaida

 

WASHINGTON - The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

 

In a report based on research and interviews by the commission staff, the panel said that bin Laden explored possible cooperation with Saddam even though he opposed the Iraqi leader's secular regime and had, at one time, supported ?anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.?

 

The commission staff said that bin Laden, at the urging of allies in Sudan eager to protect their own ties to Iraq, ceased the support in the early 1990s. That opened the way for a senior Iraqi intelligence officer to meet with bin Laden in 1994 in Sudan, a session at which bin Laden is said to have requested space to establish training camps in Iraq as well as Iraqi assistance in procuring weapons.

 

But Iraq apparently never responded to bin Laden?s request, the staff report said.

 

No ?collaborative relationship? seen

It said that reports of subsequent contacts between Iraq and al-Qaida after bin Laden had returned to Afghanistan ?do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship,? and added that two unidentified senior bin Laden associates "have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al-Qaida and Iraq."

 

The report concluded, ?We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.?

 

The panel's findings were released two days after Vice President Dick Cheney asserted that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. President Bush defended the statement in a news conference Tuesday, saying the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is accused of trying to disrupt the transfer of sovereignty as well as last month's decapitation of American Nicholas Berg, provides "the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida."

 

In making the case for war in Iraq, Bush administration officials frequently cited what they said were Saddam's decade-long contacts with al-Qaida operatives. They stopped short of claiming that Iraq was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but critics say Bush officials left that impression with the American public.

 

The release of the staff report came as the 10-member commission opened its final hearing on the attacks. The hearing, being held Wednesday and Thursday, will cover the Sept. 11 plot and the emergency response by the Federal Aviation Administration and U.S. air defenses. Commissioners say they will delve into the actions of the nation?s top leaders during critical moments of the attacks.

 

Among the expected findings: The nation?s air defense was woefully outdated, focused more on intercepting Soviet bombers than hijacked airliners.

 

The hijackers might have planned a strike date for months earlier but delayed it, giving U.S. authorities a last chance to detect the plot. Confusion and miscommunication among agencies reigned during the attacks, hindering a response.

 

?We?re going to talk about the evolution of al-Qaida and how they moved from one type of organization in the late 1980s to a more fast-acting, poisonous organization in the 1990s, more spread out and dispersed,? said Timothy Roemer, a Democratic commissioner and former representative from Indiana.

 

?We?ll be looking at the timeline as to whether or not we had an opportunity to deflect any of the airliners, and how decisions were made by the highest people in government,? he said.

 

In its report, the commission reiterated an oft-repeated warning by the Bush administration, saying al-Qaida remains poised to attack the United States in a devastating chemical, biological or "dirty bomb" attack.

 

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the terror group has become much more dispersed, with less funding following the arrests or deaths of key financiers. But the group has learned to operate on much smaller sums than the estimated $30 million spent annually prior to Sept. 11, 2001, the report said.

LINK

 

Let's see if this sinks into some minds finally: NO LINK BETWEEN AL-QAEDA AND IRAQ!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


umm... read the end of the sentence. All they were investigating was 9/11 and if there was any link between the two and that event.

 

I'm not saying there is a link between Iraq and Al-Queda but this only says there is no proof that Iraq helped Al-Queda with the 9/11 attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

umm... read the end of the sentence. All they were investigating was 9/11 and if there was any link between the two and that event.

 

I'm not saying there is a link between Iraq and Al-Queda but this only says there is no proof that Iraq helped Al-Queda with the 9/11 attacks.

NC Marlin, I understand it is very difficult to come to terms with the fact that we've been lied to by many. However, read the entire article, they absolutely clarify that Iraq did not cooperate with Al-Qaeda, prior or after 9/11. There was no direct link or support from the Iraqui government to Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the government (as in bush and rumsfeld) have said there are no known connections between Iraq and sept 11th, even though in the war resolutions, we site sept 11th as a reason for war...this means we have been lied to.

 

Furthermore, it is unlikely iraq, a secular nation, would have supported radicals. Furthermore, it is even more unlikely if there were any true ties whatsoever, that a whole country would have no connection with al qaeda's sept 11th attack, which was very well planned.

 

So, it is safe to say it is extremely unlikely Iraq had any connection with al qaeda and most definitely true that there is absolutely no connection with sept 11th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that speculation and a likelihood are the favorites for conservatives in terms of burden of proof to start a war, why dont we invade Saudi Arabia? The link between Al Quada, Saudi Arabia, and 9/11 has more weight to it than Iraq.

 

Wait..does this drastically lower accepted burden of proof allow democrats to indict Cheney for corruption? I mean all we need is the Dennis Miller "oh come on folks" to justify it right? And then they would have to prove absolute no connection.

 

Furthermore, it is unlikely iraq, a secular nation, would have supported radicals. Furthermore, it is even more unlikely if there were any true ties whatsoever, that a whole country would have no connection with al qaeda's sept 11th attack,

 

But wait, arent all those Arabs the same?!?

 

Youre right. Hussein was hated by the religious zealots as much as the US. Their methods just werent as effective against him though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of people who dont like America in this world. Thats been the case for decades on end. If we can step away from the uber patriotism for a second, the issue is proper foreign policy. Naive notions of righteousness have never been the guiding force. They are only there to stoke the flames of the American public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it is unlikely iraq, a secular nation, would have supported radicals.

Stalin called them useful fools.

 

If Saddam didn't support radicals, then why was he paying a $20,000 bounty to suicide bomber families in Israel? and allowing them to retire in Iraq? Curious that...

 

As a modern practicioner of realpolitik, Saddam would have used any radical he thought he could control for his own purposes. If they wavier, become dangerous, or inconvenient you just eliminate them. I am sorry Mr. Tonyi, but giving money to Hamas has nothing to do with Iraq having links with Al-Qaeda, which btw may I remind you were the ones responsible for the 9/11 attack. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, but their sole purpose is to defeat the Israeli government, something all Arab nations are deeply engaged in and that includes a lot of our current allies. So by your logic, we should have to bomb the crap out of Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.

 

Saddam did not offer support to Bin Laden, period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i agree with cyberlina

 

If Saddam didn't support radicals, then why was he paying a $20,000 bounty to suicide bomber families in Israel? and allowing them to retire in Iraq? Curious that...

 

He never paid out for one, it was just a publicity thing, and two, it has ntohing to do with al qaeda, iraqi stability, or america.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He never paid out for one, it was just a publicity thing...

So now you've got inside access to Saddam's financial info too? With all the bags of cash sloshing around Iraq, I'd find it hard to say where any of it was going with any certainty. I just believe it is a fact, I cannot remember any sources. go search on google if you don't believe me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it is unlikely iraq, a secular nation, would have supported radicals.

Stalin called them useful fools.

 

If Saddam didn't support radicals, then why was he paying a $20,000 bounty to suicide bomber families in Israel? and allowing them to retire in Iraq? Curious that...

 

As a modern practicioner of realpolitik, Saddam would have used any radical he thought he could control for his own purposes. If they wavier, become dangerous, or inconvenient you just eliminate them. I am sorry Mr. Tonyi, but giving money to Hamas has nothing to do with Iraq having links with Al-Qaeda, which btw may I remind you were the ones responsible for the 9/11 attack. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, but their sole purpose is to defeat the Israeli government, something all Arab nations are deeply engaged in and that includes a lot of our current allies. So by your logic, we should have to bomb the crap out of Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.

 

Saddam did not offer support to Bin Laden, period. Hussein was not an ideological radical he was an intelligent head of state, and an enemy of the U.S. Thats fact. saddam in fact did use his funds to reward hamas terrorists that would kill israeli's simply b/c in his mind the best way to win a fight is to align yourself with the lesser of 2 evils and let them duke it out. Saddam needed to be kicked out of iraq for violations of the 1991 treaty wiht the U.S. and many other things. No one complained when milosevic was ousted, but saddam was as bad in terms of genocide (milosevic may have killed more people but that doesnt justify what saddam did), so saddam's killings werent ethnic cleansing, but the families of those 30,000+ victims (the number comes from the bodies dug up in mass graves) will still miss there loved ones just the same. And before anyone throws out the Bush has killed just as many people argument. I want to know how many innocent American citizens Bush has killed in the past 3 years, truthfully and without spin. Remeber that bush did not kill U.S. soldiers because we have a volunteer army in this country and also exclude murderers executed for their crimes because the word INNOCENT is key here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it is unlikely iraq, a secular nation, would have supported radicals.

Stalin called them useful fools.

 

If Saddam didn't support radicals, then why was he paying a $20,000 bounty to suicide bomber families in Israel? and allowing them to retire in Iraq? Curious that...

 

As a modern practicioner of realpolitik, Saddam would have used any radical he thought he could control for his own purposes. If they wavier, become dangerous, or inconvenient you just eliminate them. I am sorry Mr. Tonyi, but giving money to Hamas has nothing to do with Iraq having links with Al-Qaeda, which btw may I remind you were the ones responsible for the 9/11 attack. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, but their sole purpose is to defeat the Israeli government, something all Arab nations are deeply engaged in and that includes a lot of our current allies. So by your logic, we should have to bomb the crap out of Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.

 

Saddam did not offer support to Bin Laden, period. Hussein was not an ideological radical he was an intelligent head of state, and an enemy of the U.S. Thats fact. saddam in fact did use his funds to reward hamas terrorists that would kill israeli's simply b/c in his mind the best way to win a fight is to align yourself with the lesser of 2 evils and let them duke it out. Saddam needed to be kicked out of iraq for violations of the 1991 treaty wiht the U.S. and many other things. No one complained when milosevic was ousted, but saddam was as bad in terms of genocide (milosevic may have killed more people but that doesnt justify what saddam did), so saddam's killings werent ethnic cleansing, but the families of those 30,000+ victims (the number comes from the bodies dug up in mass graves) will still miss there loved ones just the same. And before anyone throws out the Bush has killed just as many people argument. I want to know how many innocent American citizens Bush has killed in the past 3 years, truthfully and without spin. Remeber that bush did not kill U.S. soldiers because we have a volunteer army in this country and also exclude murderers executed for their crimes because the word INNOCENT is key here. Well ok, :blink:

 

Yeah... Saddam was a US hater... That still doesn't give us a motive for moving into his country and get our soldiers killed. For that matter we should invade Iran. They have been our staunch enemies for decades... May I remind you that we buddy buddy with Saddam to get Iran defeated? May I remind you AGAIN, that the administration of certain Republican president gave WMDs to Saddam? Therefore, don't come with the BS now that he needed to be removed because he violated international law... That is absolute spin and lies. If it was because of violations to the 1991 treaty, why did Bush go in there without the approval of the International community? Why didn't the US do anything about the massive assasination of Shiite Muslims after the Gulf War? Why didn't the US do anything about the mass murder against the Kurds? I'll tell you why... We were just as guilty for allying ourselves with him. So don't come with this "moral" duty spin, because we lost our morals the day we gave him the means to kill people with chemical and biological weapons.

 

Now, where is your outrage with the more than 3000 US citizens killed on 9/11 NOT thanks to Saddam but to Osama Bin Laden? Why aren't you demanding that we concentrate our troops and efforts on the worthy cause of forever removing the Taliban which is still fighting in Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden once and for all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just believe it is a fact, I cannot remember any sources.

Sounds "faith" - sorta like a religious belief eh? it is not faith. I have heard somewhere that the zimmerman telegram exists, though I have no link for it.

 

I did a search on google and to my surprise I have not found a single article, but almost everything is from early 2002 and I believe the payments stopped during middle the middle of the summer that year, after a total of 32 million dollars was paid out previously.

 

But, until I can find anything, don't take my word for it, however I urge you to do the research, I did find people mentioning what I said. The media could have just under reported the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, it is unlikely iraq, a secular nation, would have supported radicals.

Stalin called them useful fools.

 

If Saddam didn't support radicals, then why was he paying a $20,000 bounty to suicide bomber families in Israel? and allowing them to retire in Iraq? Curious that...

 

As a modern practicioner of realpolitik, Saddam would have used any radical he thought he could control for his own purposes. If they wavier, become dangerous, or inconvenient you just eliminate them. I am sorry Mr. Tonyi, but giving money to Hamas has nothing to do with Iraq having links with Al-Qaeda, which btw may I remind you were the ones responsible for the 9/11 attack. Yes, Hamas is a terrorist group, but their sole purpose is to defeat the Israeli government, something all Arab nations are deeply engaged in and that includes a lot of our current allies. So by your logic, we should have to bomb the crap out of Egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc.

 

Saddam did not offer support to Bin Laden, period. Hussein was not an ideological radical he was an intelligent head of state, and an enemy of the U.S. Thats fact. saddam in fact did use his funds to reward hamas terrorists that would kill israeli's simply b/c in his mind the best way to win a fight is to align yourself with the lesser of 2 evils and let them duke it out. Saddam needed to be kicked out of iraq for violations of the 1991 treaty wiht the U.S. and many other things. No one complained when milosevic was ousted, but saddam was as bad in terms of genocide (milosevic may have killed more people but that doesnt justify what saddam did), so saddam's killings werent ethnic cleansing, but the families of those 30,000+ victims (the number comes from the bodies dug up in mass graves) will still miss there loved ones just the same. And before anyone throws out the Bush has killed just as many people argument. I want to know how many innocent American citizens Bush has killed in the past 3 years, truthfully and without spin. Remeber that bush did not kill U.S. soldiers because we have a volunteer army in this country and also exclude murderers executed for their crimes because the word INNOCENT is key here. Well ok, :blink:

 

Yeah... Saddam was a US hater... That still doesn't give us a motive for moving into his country and get our soldiers killed. For that matter we should invade Iran. They have been our staunch enemies for decades... May I remind you that we buddy buddy with Saddam to get Iran defeated? May I remind you AGAIN, that the administration of certain Republican president gave WMDs to Saddam? Therefore, don't come with the BS now that he needed to be removed because he violated international law... That is absolute spin and lies. If it was because of violations to the 1991 treaty, why did Bush go in there without the approval of the International community? Why didn't the US do anything about the massive assasination of Shiite Muslims after the Gulf War? Why didn't the US do anything about the mass murder against the Kurds? I'll tell you why... We were just as guilty for allying ourselves with him. So don't come with this "moral" duty spin, because we lost our morals the day we gave him the means to kill people with chemical and biological weapons.

 

Now, where is your outrage with the more than 3000 US citizens killed on 9/11 NOT thanks to Saddam but to Osama Bin Laden? Why aren't you demanding that we concentrate our troops and efforts on the worthy cause of forever removing the Taliban which is still fighting in Afghanistan and finding Bin Laden once and for all? The fact that we made those mistakes in the past gives us even more reason to rectify them by getting rid of saddam. Furthermore the 'international' community that was proactively against the war was made up of france germany and russia who iraq owed billions of dollars to. And i defintely agree that we should be focused on bin laden, and I am actually against this war in the first place. However, he reason I argue certain points is not as justification for war but just for clarificaiton purposes for example: something needed to be done to oust saddam diplomatically or otherwise, next FACT: the whole saddam has no weapons gig is nonsense, he obviously had them when we gave them to him, he used them in 1991, and in 1999 the facilities were there (again not justifying war but thsi was the case), next in the long run iraqi's are better off without saddam (again this may not have been the best way to do it) also the war is not for oil because if it was we'd be paying 95 cents a gallon for premium, hussein did have terrorist ties (not al-qaida) but terrorist ties w/ hamas and black september. finally the war was for strategic military position in the middle of the arab world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...