Why did we go to war in Iraq? Why did we create this mess? Only jr knows

[Sid9]

Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11

1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.

2. In 2004, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded: "We have no credible
evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United
States."

3. In 2005, a newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document
concluded that a key terrorist informant had been "intentionally misleading"
his American debriefers when he claimed that Hussein had been in cahoots
with al-Qaeda. The document, written 13 months before the U.S. invasion,
also stated that "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of
Islamic revolutionary movements."

4. In 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - which, at the
time, was still run by the Republicans - concluded in a report: "Postwar
information supports prewar intelligence- community assessments that there
was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in, or had foreknowledge
of, the Sept. 11 attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike."

5. In February of this year, the Pentagon's acting inspector general
concluded in a report that President Bush's neoconservative war planners
utilized "both reliable and unreliable" information to fashion a
Hussein/al-Qaeda link "that was much stronger than that assessed by the
[intelligence community], and more in accord with the policy views of senior
officials in the administration. "

6. In April of this year, At the Center of the Storm, a memoir by ex-CIA
director George Tenet, was published, in which we read that "there was never
any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of al-Qaeda."

7. Last, even some notable Bush administration officials have debunked the
myth. Donald Rumsfeld did it in 2004: Referring to Hussein and al-Qaeda, he
told the Council on Foreign Relations, "I have not seen any strong, hard
evidence that links the two." And the other debunker, way back on Sept. 17,
2003, was George W. Bush. In a news conference that day, the president said:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11."

Yet despite all the empirical evidence, a pro-Bush group - financed
primarily by some rich Republican donors, and some ex-Bush ambassadors - has
nonetheless paid out $15 million to air ads that meet the dictionary
definition of propaganda. The ads are airing in 60 districts where
Republican congressmen are wavering in their support for the war;
Pennsylvania, home to seven targeted GOP House members, is on the front
lines of this PR war.

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
>
> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.

The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.

Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped and defeated."

---George W. Bush
Address to Joint Session of Congress
September 20, 2001

The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
Hussein and the Ba'athist party.

No one seriously disputes any of these facts.

--
NeoLibertarian

 

[Sid9]

Sick!
Promulgating jr's lies


Neolibertarian wrote:
> In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
>>
>> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
>> a monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced
>> that it had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
>
> "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been
> found, stopped and defeated."
>
> ---George W. Bush
> Address to Joint Session of Congress
> September 20, 2001
>
> The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
> it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
> Hussein and the Ba'athist party.
>
> No one seriously disputes any of these facts.

 

[Raymond]

On Sep 21, 12:34 pm, "Sid9" <s...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
>
> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
> 2. In 2004, the bipartisan 9/11 Commission concluded: "We have no credible
> evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United
> States."
>
> 3. In 2005, a newly declassified Defense Intelligence Agency document
> concluded that a key terrorist informant had been "intentionally misleading"
> his American debriefers when he claimed that Hussein had been in cahoots
> with al-Qaeda. The document, written 13 months before the U.S. invasion,
> also stated that "Saddam's regime is intensely secular and is wary of
> Islamic revolutionary movements."
>
> 4. In 2006, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - which, at the
> time, was still run by the Republicans - concluded in a report: "Postwar
> information supports prewar intelligence- community assessments that there
> was no credible information that Iraq was complicit in, or had foreknowledge
> of, the Sept. 11 attacks or any other al-Qaeda strike."
>
> 5. In February of this year, the Pentagon's acting inspector general
> concluded in a report that President Bush's neoconservative war planners
> utilized "both reliable and unreliable" information to fashion a
> Hussein/al-Qaeda link "that was much stronger than that assessed by the
> [intelligence community], and more in accord with the policy views of senior
> officials in the administration. "
>
> 6. In April of this year, At the Center of the Storm, a memoir by ex-CIA
> director George Tenet, was published, in which we read that "there was never
> any real serious evidence that Saddam Hussein was an ally of al-Qaeda."
>
> 7. Last, even some notable Bush administration officials have debunked the
> myth. Donald Rumsfeld did it in 2004: Referring to Hussein and al-Qaeda, he
> told the Council on Foreign Relations, "I have not seen any strong, hard
> evidence that links the two." And the other debunker, way back on Sept. 17,
> 2003, was George W. Bush. In a news conference that day, the president said:
> "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the Sept. 11."
>
> Yet despite all the empirical evidence, a pro-Bush group - financed
> primarily by some rich Republican donors, and some ex-Bush ambassadors - has
> nonetheless paid out $15 million to air ads that meet the dictionary
> definition of propaganda. The ads are airing in 60 districts where
> Republican congressmen are wavering in their support for the war;
> Pennsylvania, home to seven targeted GOP House members, is on the front
> lines of this PR war.

Q. Why did we go to war in Iraq? Why did we create this mess? Only jr
knows
A. Iraqi oil for Israel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz (8/25/03) published a report confirming
that the war in Iraq was very much about oil. The U.S. Defense
Department sent a telegram to the Israeli Foreign Ministry on the
possibility of pumping oil from U.S.-occupied Iraq to Israel, A
"senior Pentagon official" has sent a telegram to a "top Foreign
Ministry official" on the cost estimate for repairing the Mosul-Haifa
pipeline that was in use prior to 1948. Americans are looking into the
possibility of laying a new pipeline via Jordan and Israel." The new
pipeline would take oil from the oil-rich Iraqi northern area of
Kirkuk, where some 40 percent of Iraqi oil is produced, transport it
via Mosul to Jordan and then to Israel. After the end of the British
mandate, the 1948 war and the creation of Israel, Iraq stopped the
flow of oil to Haifa and the pipeline, only 8 inches in diameter, fell
into disrepair since then.

A recent research by the Israeli National Infrastructure Ministry put
the construction of a 42-inch diameter pipeline between Kirkuk and
Haifa at some 400,000 dollars per kilometer. Israeli National
Infrastructure Minister Yosef Paritzky vowed to discuss the issue with
the U.S. secretary of energy during his envisaged visit to Washington
He asserted that the whole project depends on Jordan's consent, adding
that the kingdom would receive a transit fee for allowing the oil to
flow through its territory. Paritzky believes restarting the pipeline
could reduce Israel's fuel costs by 25 percent and turn Haifa into
"the Rotterdam of the Middle East." Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon's
government "views the pipeline to Haifa as a 'bonus' the U.S. could
give to Israel in return for its unequivocal support for the American-
led campaign in Iraq,"

Turkey is angry. At present, Iraqi oil is being shipped via Turkey to
a small Mediterranean port near the Syrian border. Ankara, which
considers the transit fee it collects an important source of revenue,
has warned Israel it would regard the talked-about Kirkuk-Mosul-Haifa
pipeline as "a serious blow to Turkish-Israeli relations." Haaretz
quoted sources as saying reports about the alternative pipeline are
part of an American "attempt to apply pressure on Turkey" which had
opposed the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and is still reluctant to commit
troops to the neighboring country to ease the burden on American
forces.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/mou1975.html

It is all about Israel's need for Oil
http://www.giwersworld.org/911/oil/israel-oil.phtml

Kirkuk to Haifa Pipeline: Reason for the War?

US discusses plan to pump fuel to its regional ally and solve energy
headache at a stroke Ed Vuillamy in Washington Sunday April 20, 2003
The Observer

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to
Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential
future government figures in Baghdad.The plan envisages the
reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the
British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq's
northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

By Steven Scheer

LONDON (Reuters) - Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (news -
web sites) said he expected an oil pipeline from Iraq (news - web
sites) to Israel to be reopened in the near future after being closed
when Israel became a state in 1948.

"It won't be long when you will see Iraqi oil flowing to Haifa," the
port city in northern Israel, Netanyahu told a group of British
investors, declining to give a timetable.

"It is just a matter of time until the pipeline is reconstituted and
Iraqi oil will flow to the Mediterranean."

Netanyahu later told Reuters the government was in the early stages of
looking into the possibility of reopening the pipeline, which during
the British Mandate sent oil from Mosul to Haifa via Jordan.

"It's not a pipe-dream," Netanyahu said.

http://zionofascism.wordpress.com/category/netanyahu-watch/

 

[NeoLibertarian]

Sid9 wrote:
> Sick!
> Promulgating jr's lies

What lies?

The facts of the case are rather well documented.


--
"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft

 

[llanalott@yahoo.com]

Neolibertarian wrote:
> In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> >
> > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.

Bullshit.

> Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?

It sure the **** isn't fighting terrorism with any sense of the idea.
Not with butt**** bush at the helm.

> "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> stopped and defeated."
>
> ---George W. Bush
> Address to Joint Session of Congress
> September 20, 2001

Yet then he says:

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

Bin laden was at the core of fighting terrorism.

Now Bin Laden is trying to build terrorist forces that may be simply a
very ****ed up reality for the future of the world in terms of
terrorist attacks.

> The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
> it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
> Hussein and the Ba'athist party.

Bullshit.

> No one seriously disputes any of these facts.

Nobody seriously believes these falsehoods.

> --
> NeoLibertarian
>
>

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <1190439470.675516.38260@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> > In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> > >
> > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> >
> > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> Bullshit.

Usenet Dictionary:

Bullshit
[BOOL-****] noun, verb, interjection, slang: vulgar.

1. Nonsense!

2. I have no knowledge of the subject being discussed, but that
statement seems false because of what I thought I've heard about it.

3. Provide proof or retract.

We'll assume your use of the word indicates definition #3.

"The Telegraph found the file on bin Laden inside a folder lying in the
rubble of one of the rooms of the destroyed intelligence HQ. There are
three pages, stapled together; two are on paper headed with the insignia
and lettering of the Mukhabarat.

"They show correspondence between Mukhabarat agencies over preparations
for the visit of al-Qa'eda's envoy, who travelled to Iraq from Sudan,
where bin Laden had been based until 1996. They disclose what Baghdad
hopes to achieve from the meeting, which took place less than five
months before bin Laden was placed at the top of America's most wanted
list following the bombing of two US embassies in east Africa.

"Perhaps aware of the sensitivities of the subject matter, Iraqi agents
at some point clumsily attempted to mask out all references to bin
Laden, using white correcting fluid. The dried fluid was removed to
reveal the clearly legible name three times in the documents."

---The proof that Saddam worked with bin Laden
by Inigo Gilmore

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xm
l

The US military possesses millions of untranslated Iraqi government
documents in what is called the HARMONY database. These documents were
confiscated during and after Operation: Iraqi Freedom, and many remain
untranslated to this day (the administration claims that its military
and intelligence services translators were needed elsewhere, on far more
vital missions).

Because of pressure from constituents, journalists and US Rep. Curt
Weldon and others, a reluctant administration agreed to have the Defense
Department post these documents on the internet, where they may be
translated to English by private citizens.

As you may be aware, these unveted documents were posted on a
semi-regular basis until one series, once translated, turned out to be a
working blueprint for constructing an atomic bomb--and was filled with
highly sensitive engineering data. AFAIK, the HARMONY documents have not
been posted on the web since this scandal.

There are several other pertinent translations, but one such document is
of particular interest to the subject at hand:

(http://fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/products-docex.htm#iraq).

==begin quote==

Text of the document in English translated from Arabic.

In the Name of God the Merciful

Presidency of the Republic

Intelligence Apparatus

To the respectful Mr. M.A.M

Subject: Information

Our source in Afghanistan No 11002 (for information about him see
attachment 1) provided us with information that that Afghani Consul
Ahmad Dahestani (for information about him see attachment 2) told him
the following:

1. That Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan are in contact
with Iraq and it that previously a group from Taliban and Osama bin
Laden group visited Iraq.

2. That America has proof that the government of Iraq and Osama Bin
Laden group have shown cooperation to hit targets within America.

3. That in case it is proven the involvement of Osama Bin Laden group
and the Taliban in these destructive operations it is possible that
American will conduct strikes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

4. That the Afghani Consul heard about the subject of Iraq relation with
Osama Bin Laden group during his stay in Iran.

5. In light of this we suggest to write to the Commission of the above
information.

Please view... Yours... With regards

Signature: ___________________
Initials : A.M.M, 15/9/2001

Foot note: Immediately send to the Chairman of Commission

Signature: ___________________

===End quote===

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1597459/posts

Much less clear (and much less probable) are connections between Iraq
intelligence services and the 1993 World Trade Center bombing--which may
have been instigated at higher levels within bin Laden's organization
(or may not). Most connections seem to indicate Iraq was an after the
fact accessory.

The bin Laden connection to the bombing is mostly through Ramzi Yousef,
who received training at bin Laden camps in Afghanistan. Also, Omar
Abdul Rahman (The "Blind Sheik") is an associate of Ayman al-Zawahiri,
and along with Zawahiri was arrested and later acquitted of involvement
in the assassination of Anwar Sadat (1981).

Iraq's connections to the bombing are far less clear, though Abdul Yasin
very much received support and protection from Iraqi Mukhabarat once he
left the US and escaped to Iraq (1993-1994).

"In the spring of 1994, a Jordanian stringer working for ABC News
spotted Abdul Rahman Yasin outside his father's house in Baghdad and
learned from neighbors that he worked for the Iraqi government. After
that news was broadcast, Iraqi authorities took Yasin and the other men
in the house to an unknown location. His sixty-five-year-old mother, ill
with cancer, was allowed to visit them, until she died in October 1994,
in a hospital run by Iraqi security.13 As recently as May 1998, FBI
director Louis Freeh affirmed that Yasin was in Iraq."

http://www.meib.org/articles/0106_ir1.htm

In the end, there were definite connections between Iraq and bin Laden's
group, and these have been documented since the commencement of Op: IF.

Early reports to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, connections between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were
NEVER necessary for there to be connections between Saddam Hussein and
The War on Terror. That Saddam, himself, seems to have promoted these
connections is beyond doubt. And may explain why so many Americans
(80%--which included Gops and Dems at the time) were convinced, even
without the documentation, that these connections in fact existed:

http://elihu.envy.nu/NeoPics/SaddamMur.jpg
>
> > Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> > Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
>
> It sure the **** isn't fighting terrorism with any sense of the idea.
> Not with butt**** bush at the helm.

America has been fighting terrorism with singular effectiveness since
2001. A rather tall order, since the Global Jihad is highly
decentralized and clandestine.

If you'll excuse me for saying so, only a Democrat delirious with "Bush
Derangement Syndrome" would claim America "sure the **** isn't fighting
terrorism with any sense of the idea. Not with butt**** ush at the
helm."

"Today's Count (since 1/1/06):

To date: 9,115
Iraq: 5,845
Afghanistan: 3,270"

http://terroristdeathwatch.com/

The facts of the case belie your hysterical claims.

>
> > "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> > will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> > stopped and defeated."
> >
> > ---George W. Bush
> > Address to Joint Session of Congress
> > September 20, 2001
>
> Yet then he says:
>
> "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't
> care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
> - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
>
> "I am truly not that concerned about him."
> - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
> 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

These jaw-dropping comments coincide with reports that bin Laden had
escaped to Iran.

You can't attack Iran directly. You're better off to pretend he's hiding
in the mountains of Baluchistan with Mullah Omar.

You have to approach Iran indirectly.
>
> Bin laden was at the core of fighting terrorism.

The Global Jihad is highly decentralized. Bin Laden is a key,
undoubtedly. The Jihad, of necessity, is held together by the charisma
of its leaders.

However, upon the eve of Operation: Iraqi Freedom, there were three
crowns who directly sponsored The Global Jihad. Now there are only two:
Iran and Syria.

Bin Laden is no longer an effective emir of the Global Jihad, even if
he's living in ease and luxury on the south shores of the Caspian Sea.
>
> Now Bin Laden is trying to build terrorist forces that may be simply a
> very ****ed up reality for the future of the world in terms of
> terrorist attacks.

Fighting terrorism yields more terrorist attacks. Yes. And, we know that
when the US Marines wiped out the Japanese on Guadalcanal, the
recruiting stations in Tokyo were lined up around the block.

You can't fight anyone on your own terms if you don't, in fact, fight
them on your own terms.

The Global Jihad is centered in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ali Khamene'i
tells you this. Mullah Omar tells you this. Ayman al-Zawahiri tells you
this. Osama bin Laden tells you this. And George Bush tells you this.

What don't you understand?

> > The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
> > it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
> > Hussein and the Ba'athist party.
>
> Bullshit.

Or: PPOR?

There's so much evidence and proof, one hardly knows where to begin.

Even in 1991, when our Congress was dominated by the Dems, it was
telling us that Saddam Hussein was a "Heavy Hitter in the Terrorist Big
Leagues."

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1991_cr/h910112-terror.htm

These connections to Global Jihad groups had only expanded during the
years of the UN sanctions:

"Though they may get scant attention, some of the facts of Saddam's
involvement with Islamic terrorism are not disputed. Hamas, the
fundamentalist Palestinian group, whose gift to the world is the suicide
bomb, has maintained a Baghdad office - funded by Saddam - for many
years. His intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, has a special
department whose sole function is liaison with Hamas. In return, Hamas
has praised Saddam extravagantly on its website and on paper."

--- http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/articles/2395416

And most obvious was this:

==begin quote==

Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians
killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check
to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to
receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: "The Arab Baath Party
Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings
of Saddam Hussein."

==end quote==

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/14/world/main543981.shtml

Saddam hardly attempted to cover up his connections to the jihad, did he?

Over the years since the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War, Abu Nidal (the
most prolific International Islamic terrorist of the 1970's and 1980's)
and the ANO had become a kind of personal hit squad for Saddam,
especially when Saddam wanted someone whacked outside of Iraq. It was
something of a shock in August of 2002 when Iraqi Mukhabarat agents
stormed Nidal's up-scale Baghdad residence in the middle of the night
and gunned him and four of his bodyguards down.

"But there was a darker facet to the Abu Nidal story. In the weeks prior
to the assassination, Iraqi intelligence received warnings from the
intelligence services of several Gulf States that Abu Nidal was trying
to reach an agreement with Britain's Secret Intelligence Service (SIS),
which the Arab world respects and dreads far more than the CIA. Unhappy
with the medical treatment he was getting in Baghdad, Abu Nidal had
offered to divulge secrets in exchange for superior medical treatment in
England. When London was cool to the original offer, Abu Nidal professed
that he could produce the latest information about Iraqi cooperation
with international terrorism generally, and al-Qaeda in particular.

"Iraqi intelligence was reluctant to accept these reports because it
knew the ailing Abu Nidal had few aides left, and most of these were
actually working for Iraqi intelligence. After extended consideration,
Saddam and the Mukhabarat high command concluded that the warnings had
actually been a crude disinformation effort by the CIA or the SIS --
sting aimed to manipulate Baghdad into exposing its growing cooperation
with bin Laden, giving the administration an excuse to strike. The
Iraqis, it turns out, were correct: the SIS was indeed trying to provoke
the Iraqis into reckless actions, using its allies in the Gulf States as
conduits for the flow of "chicken feed" to Baghdad."

---Yossef Bodansky, The Secret History of the Iraq War
HarperCollins (2004)

Abu Abbas and Abu Ibrahim, two of the most powerful and influential
jihadis in the world, were also living in Baghdad and conducting
operations from there. Abbas was captured by coalition troops
while attempting to slip out of Iraq in April of 2003.

Iraq had its own Jihad Group called "The Arab Liberation Front." This
group developed direct connections to Jund al-islam, which had recently
been transformed by al-Zarqawi in Northern Iraq. Mossad tracked ALF
terrorists (connected to al-Zarqawi) who left Iraq in 2002, after having
been trained at Salman Pak. Israel alerted Russian and UK Intelligence
services which later led to Scotland Yard's raid on a Manchester-London
"al-Qaeda" cell in December 2002 and January 2003. This group of
jihadis was also traced to the Moscow Theater attack in October of 2002.

"With regard to Salman Pak, that's just one of the a number of examples
we found where there's training activity happening inside of Iraq. It
reinforces the likelihood of links between this regime and external
terrorist organizations. Clear links with common interests. Some of
these fighters came from Sudan, some from Egypt, some from other places.
We have killed a number of them and we have captured a number of them.
That's where the information came from. We continue to be on the lookout
for the fighters. It won't stop us operationally. We will encounter them
when we encounter them, but it does say an awful lot about the approach
the regime is taking on battlefield right now."

CENTCOM Briefing
Aired April 6, 2003 - 07:02 ET
BRIG. GEN. VINCENT BROOKS

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0304/06/se.01.html

==begin quote==

Hours after Marines occupied the base Sunday morning, a tour of the
suspected terrorist training compound found a series of curious sights.
Plastic chairs were bolted to the ground facing each other, creating a
kind of classroom in a clearing in the woods. A nearby storehouse was
filled with gas masks, Baath Party plaques and bright orange rappelling
gear. Farther along, speedboats lay beached in the shade of a tree.

The passenger plane's sun-bleached fuselage lay alone in a large, barren
field. A fire engine sat at one intersection. Elsewhere, the twisted
metal wreck of a double-decker bus stood near three decrepit green and
red train cars.

==end quote==

Associated Press April 6, 2003

This is also a gem for further reading:

http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/murdocksaddamarticle.pdf
>
> > No one seriously disputes any of these facts.
>
> Nobody seriously believes these falsehoods.

These are not falsehoods. They have, in this thread and elsewhere, been
proven correct.

You seem to be lashing out at facts which contradict your preconceived
narrative.


--
NeoLibertarian

 

[Rich Travsky]

Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> >
> > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.

They have? Show ->

> Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
>
> "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> stopped and defeated."
>
> ---George W. Bush
> Address to Joint Session of Congress
> September 20, 2001

Then why are we in Iraq?

> The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
> it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
> Hussein and the Ba'athist party.
>
> No one seriously disputes any of these facts.
>
> --
> NeoLibertarian
>
>

 

[Rich Travsky]

NeoLibertarian wrote:
>
> Sid9 wrote:
> > Sick!
> > Promulgating jr's lies
>
> What lies?
>
> The facts of the case are rather well documented.

His lying? Agreed.

RT

 

[Rich Travsky]

Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> In article <1190439470.675516.38260@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> > > >
> > > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> > >
> > > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> >
> > Bullshit.
>
> Usenet Dictionary:
>
> Bullshit
> [BOOL-****] noun, verb, interjection, slang: vulgar.
>
> 1. Nonsense!
>
> 2. I have no knowledge of the subject being discussed, but that
> statement seems false because of what I thought I've heard about it.
>
> 3. Provide proof or retract.
>
> We'll assume your use of the word indicates definition #3.


http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
...
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.
...

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <46F604AF.B77CD7AE@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > In article <1190439470.675516.38260@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > > In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > > > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
> > > > > a
> > > > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced
> > > > > that it
> > > > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> > > >
> > > > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> > >
> > > Bullshit.
> >
> > Usenet Dictionary:
> >
> > Bullshit
> > [BOOL-****] noun, verb, interjection, slang: vulgar.
> >
> > 1. Nonsense!
> >
> > 2. I have no knowledge of the subject being discussed, but that
> > statement seems false because of what I thought I've heard about it.
> >
> > 3. Provide proof or retract.
> >
> > We'll assume your use of the word indicates definition #3.
>
>
> http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> ...
> 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.
> ...
Hardly a refutation of any of the facts you snipped. Why did you post it?

--
NeoLibertarian

"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <46F60454.DF1B7B0B@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> > >
> > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> >
> > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> They have? Show ->

You already snipped it elsewhere.
>
> > Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> > Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
> >
> > "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> > will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> > stopped and defeated."
> >
> > ---George W. Bush
> > Address to Joint Session of Congress
> > September 20, 2001
>
> Then why are we in Iraq?

To enrich Carlyle and KB&R, of course.

--
NeoLibertarian

 

[Bill Dukenfield]

Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> >
> > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
>
> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>
> Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
>
> "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> stopped and defeated."
>
> ---George W. Bush
> Address to Joint Session of Congress
> September 20, 2001
>
> The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
> it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
> Hussein and the Ba'athist party.
>
> No one seriously disputes any of these facts.
>

Your "facts" are nothing more than lies.

The war on Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.

JAM

 

[Bill Dukenfield]

NeoLibertarian wrote:
>
> Sid9 wrote:
> > Sick!
> > Promulgating jr's lies
>
> What lies?
>
> The facts of the case are rather well documented.
>

Yes, documented as lies.

What part of "failure of leadership" don't you understand?

JAM

 

[Rich Travsky]

Neolibertarian wrote:
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
> > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > In article <1190439470.675516.38260@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > llanalott@yahoo.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > > > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq,
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced
> > > > > > that it
> > > > > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> > > > >
> > > > > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit.
> > >
> > > Usenet Dictionary:
> > >
> > > Bullshit
> > > [BOOL-****] noun, verb, interjection, slang: vulgar.
> > >
> > > 1. Nonsense!
> > >
> > > 2. I have no knowledge of the subject being discussed, but that
> > > statement seems false because of what I thought I've heard about it.
> > >
> > > 3. Provide proof or retract.
> > >
> > > We'll assume your use of the word indicates definition #3.
> >
> > http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> > ...
> > 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.
> > ...
> Hardly a refutation of any of the facts you snipped. Why did you post it?

Because the 911 report refutes it. If you think there's evidence otherwise,
then you must hurry to Gotham and inform Commissioner Gordon, hurry
to Washington and tell Chimpoleon.

RT

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <46F9DF81.3AFB1EC6@hotmMOVEail.com>,
Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:


> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on
> > > > > > > 9/11
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of
> > > > > > > Iraq,
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced
> > > > > > > that it
> > > > > > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullshit.
> > > >
> > > > Usenet Dictionary:
> > > >
> > > > Bullshit
> > > > [BOOL-****] noun, verb, interjection, slang: vulgar.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Nonsense!
> > > >
> > > > 2. I have no knowledge of the subject being discussed, but that
> > > > statement seems false because of what I thought I've heard about it.
> > > >
> > > > 3. Provide proof or retract.
> > > >
> > > > We'll assume your use of the word indicates definition #3.
> > >
> > > http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> > > ...
> > > 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.
> > > ...
> > Hardly a refutation of any of the facts you snipped. Why did you post it?
>
> Because the 911 report refutes it. If you think there's evidence otherwise,
> then you must hurry to Gotham and inform Commissioner Gordon, hurry
> to Washington and tell Chimpoleon.
>
You still haven't come close to addressing the original point, but I
know that you can't be expected to understand. You have no idea what's
being discussed, nor of the progression of events.

The 9/11 Commission wasn't tasked with answering the question of whether
Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden, outside what concerns the 9/11
attacks.

I may be wrong, but this MAY be why it's called the 9/11 Commission.

Available evidence was inconclusive in August of 2004. One of the
reasons was that the Iraqis had had a year to purge documentation before
the invasion.

There was an ongoing relationship. And the 9/11 Commission doesn't
preclude the possibility of an ongoing relationship. And there has been
evidence made available to the public since August of 2004 that such an
ongoing relationship existed.

--
NeoLibertarian

"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft

 

[Neolibertarian]

In article <46F921E4.D2BADAE6@nospam.net>,
Bill Dukenfield <BillDukenfield@nospam.net> wrote:

> Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> > >
> > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> >
> > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> >
> > Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> > Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
> >
> > "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> > will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> > stopped and defeated."
> >
> > ---George W. Bush
> > Address to Joint Session of Congress
> > September 20, 2001
> >
> > The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
> > it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
> > Hussein and the Ba'athist party.
> >
> > No one seriously disputes any of these facts.
> >
>
> Your "facts" are nothing more than lies.
>
> The war on Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
>
Iraq is the central front in The War on Terror.

Ali Khamene'i has told you that. Osama bin Laden has told you that.
Ayman al-Zawahiri has told you that. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has told you
that. Richard Cheney has told you that. George W. Bush has told you that.

The 9/11 attacks were directly related to UNSC Res 687.

What about this don't you understand?

--
NeoLibertarian

"The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
---William Howard Taft

 

[Sid9]

Neolibertarian wrote:
> In article <46F921E4.D2BADAE6@nospam.net>,
> Bill Dukenfield <BillDukenfield@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Neolibertarian wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <cpSIi.76439$Lu.12604@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
>>>>
>>>> 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of
>>>> Iraq, a monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council
>>>> announced that it had found no evidence linking Hussein to
>>>> al-Qaeda.
>>>
>>> The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
>>>
>>> Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
>>> Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
>>>
>>> "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.
>>> It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has
>>> been found, stopped and defeated."
>>>
>>> ---George W. Bush
>>> Address to Joint Session of Congress
>>> September 20, 2001
>>>
>>> The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion,
>>> and it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by
>>> Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist party.
>>>
>>> No one seriously disputes any of these facts.
>>>
>>
>> Your "facts" are nothing more than lies.
>>
>> The war on Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
>>
> Iraq is the central front in The War on Terror.
>
> Ali Khamene'i has told you that. Osama bin Laden has told you that.
> Ayman al-Zawahiri has told you that. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has told you
> that. Richard Cheney has told you that. George W. Bush has told you
> that.
>
> The 9/11 attacks were directly related to UNSC Res 687.
>
> What about this don't you understand?


The war in Iraq is an ego trip by jr. Period.

Any other explanation, Saddam, Oil, is a rationalization

 

[Rich Travsky]

Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> In article <46F9DF81.3AFB1EC6@hotmMOVEail.com>,
> Rich Travsky <traRvEsky@hotmMOVEail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on
> > > > > > > > 9/11
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of
> > > > > > > > Iraq,
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced
> > > > > > > > that it
> > > > > > > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bullshit.
> > > > >
> > > > > Usenet Dictionary:
> > > > >
> > > > > Bullshit
> > > > > [BOOL-****] noun, verb, interjection, slang: vulgar.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Nonsense!
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. I have no knowledge of the subject being discussed, but that
> > > > > statement seems false because of what I thought I've heard about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Provide proof or retract.
> > > > >
> > > > > We'll assume your use of the word indicates definition #3.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm
> > > > ...
> > > > 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.
> > > > ...
> > > Hardly a refutation of any of the facts you snipped. Why did you post it?
> >
> > Because the 911 report refutes it. If you think there's evidence otherwise,
> > then you must hurry to Gotham and inform Commissioner Gordon, hurry
> > to Washington and tell Chimpoleon.
> >
> You still haven't come close to addressing the original point, but I
> know that you can't be expected to understand. You have no idea what's
> being discussed, nor of the progression of events.
>
> The 9/11 Commission wasn't tasked with answering the question of whether
> Saddam was in collusion with bin Laden, outside what concerns the 9/11
> attacks.
>
> I may be wrong, but this MAY be why it's called the 9/11 Commission.

The 911 commission WAS tasked with looking into Al Qaeda and it's connections...

DUH

> Available evidence was inconclusive in August of 2004. One of the
> reasons was that the Iraqis had had a year to purge documentation before
> the invasion.

Oh of course. wink wink

> There was an ongoing relationship. And the 9/11 Commission doesn't

Proof? Oh yeah, "purged". How convenient. Zzzzzzz

> preclude the possibility of an ongoing relationship. And there has been
> evidence made available to the public since August of 2004 that such an
> ongoing relationship existed.

 

[Rich Travsky]

Neolibertarian wrote:
> Bill Dukenfield <BillDukenfield@nospam.net> wrote:
> > Neolibertarian wrote:
> > > "Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Almost 40 percent of Americans believe Saddam attacked us on 9/11
> > > >
> > > > 1. As early as June 2003, one month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, a
> > > > monitoring group appointed by the U.N. Security Council announced that it
> > > > had found no evidence linking Hussein to al-Qaeda.
> > >
> > > The UN has since been proven wrong on this matter.
> > >
> > > Be that as it may, the United States isn't at war /only/ with bin
> > > Laden's group--what on earth ever gave you the impression it was?
> > >
> > > "Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It
> > > will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
> > > stopped and defeated."
> > >
> > > ---George W. Bush
> > > Address to Joint Session of Congress
> > > September 20, 2001
> > >
> > > The Global Jihad was definitely inside Iraq prior to the invasion, and
> > > it definitely was being protected, supported and patronized by Saddam
> > > Hussein and the Ba'athist party.
> > >
> > > No one seriously disputes any of these facts.
> >
> > Your "facts" are nothing more than lies.
> >
> > The war on Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror.
> >
> Iraq is the central front in The War on Terror.
>
> Ali Khamene'i has told you that. Osama bin Laden has told you that.
> Ayman al-Zawahiri has told you that. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has told you
> that. Richard Cheney has told you that. George W. Bush has told you that.
>
> The 9/11 attacks were directly related to UNSC Res 687.
>
> What about this don't you understand?

The part that this is actually sectarian violence. And the US caused it.

RT

RT