Here is a copy of the 9/11 commisions report.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

Bin Laden met with top Iraqi agents in 1994 or early 1995 (pg. 61).

In 1997 Bin Laden sent out "feelers" to Saddam (pg. 65-66) with supposedly no responce.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5255893/


The Clinton Administration's national security advisors concluded that Bin Laden had gotten Saddam to cooperate by producing VX gas, but it is sucessfully not considered in the conclusion because one person said "it's rather uncertian" (pg. 117).

UBL sent out people to meet with Iraqi agents in 1997. One year later we find that Saddam is secretly developing VX nerve agent at El Shifa with the entire Clinton administration's national security advisors and Senior State dept officials all coming to the the same conclusion that UBL in fact had connections to the company, but on person says "it's rather uncertian".

This "pharmacutical" company claimed that it was not devloping VX nerve agent. However EMPTA is another name for methylphosphonothioic acid. More information about the chemical here. EMPTA is an acid and does not have any pharmacutical applications but it is used primarily to develop a nerve agent called VX gas (those that went through basic training in the US military should be familier with this gas). I would also like to note that the EMPTA came from Iraq.

Make's you really think about what Mr. Lehman had to say in the article above.


Saddam also called for the formation of suicide squads to attack US interest's and also began to pander to radical ideologies within the Muslim world for his own ambitions.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=cou...a=iraq&ID=SA302


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84291,00.html


http://www.techcentralstation.com/092503F.html


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/...ain505316.shtml


Does this show that Saddam did have a chemical weapons program beyond his borders?

Do you believe that the possibility of Saddam cooperating with UBL is real?

Do you believe that Saddam needed to be dealt with militarily? If not do you believe that Saddam cooperated with terrorists?

Does this show that Saddam did have a chemical weapons program beyond his borders?

I don't believe it does. The evidence which is put forward seems to suggest that Iraq may have helped others make chemical weapons, but to go from that possibility to make the claim that Iraq had a weapons programme beyond its borders is a biased conclusion based more on wishful thinking rather than evidence.

That is not to say that Iraq didn't have a chemical weapons programme, only that I don't accept the conclusions you've put forward based on the evidence offered.


Do you believe that the possibility of Saddam cooperating with UBL is real?

Yes I do believe the possibility is real. But again, I see no real evidence of it. I'm not convinced that Saddam Hussein was aware of every single detail undertaken by his intelligence services. Iraq is, and always has been a nation of minority interests and its just as possible that Shia muslims in Iraq were dealing with al qaeda outside of Hussein's authorisation.

Again, this is no to say that Saddam Hussein was not co-operating with Usama Bin Laden, only that I see no evidence to support that claim.


Do you believe that Saddam needed to be dealt with militarily? If not do you believe that Saddam cooperated with terrorists?

I did originally. In my ignorance I assumed the US military was capable of ousting Saddam Hussein and installing an Iraqi democracy. In those days I did not understand that it was possible for the Iranians to out smart the Americans as I believe they have now done.

I have never believed that Saddam Hussein was any more guilty of having dealt with terrorists than most other Arab/ Islamic states and I've never entertained the notion that Saddam Hussein had anything at all to do with the attacks on 11 Sept 2001. I've certainly never seen any evidence to suggest he did.

All told, I find the western relationship to Saddam Hussein deeply hypocritical when one considers how we have largely forgiven Ghaddafi.

In other words the evidence "suggests" Saddam was only "helping" to provide Al-Qaida with VX gas. Fair enough.

No. It suggests that Iraq, or elements within Iraq was possibly helping al qaeda, but the evidence to support this possibility is very weak.

I don't think you can use this evidence to prove a link between Saddam Hussein and Usama Bin Laden since I don't see anything that suggests he had total control over his state during the last decade of his authority.

My personal belief is that Iraq, Iran and several other middle eastern nations are far more interconnected than their governments are. Iraq for example is a clan based society with cross border affiliations that extended far beyond Saddam Hussein's control.

As the post outlines, the Clinton administration and the state department believed they had enough evidence to tie the two together that they launched a tomahawk missile at a pharmacutical company they believed to be producing VX gas. Since then the VX gas production has been verified. Secondly, which is very solid evidence of a connection is that US troops have discovered documents in which Saddam housed and payed Abdul Rahman Yasin who was an accomplice in the first WTC bombing that was carried out by Al-Qaida. Further evidence is documented in a documentary named voices of Iraq with first hand witnesses. Frequent high level meetings between Al-Qaida and Iraq have also been documented. Given what happened and what was discussed in those meetings we do not know. The 9/11 commision report also outlines connections between Saddam and Ansar al-Islam (pg. 61). And this evidence is "weak"?

EDIT to fix link

Has it been verified? By whom and what was the conclusive evidence?


While I don't doubt that Saddam housed unsavory terrorist types, there is no evidence of a conspiracy to commit the 9/11 attacks by Saddam. Certainly, there are many countries, particularly in the Middle East, that have housed and are housing Al Qaeda members. This does not mean that the leadership is to blame for Al Qaeda's actions. You need direct and not circumstantial evidence. The more likely explanation is that Saddam was doing this to annoy the US rather than anything else.


And we can be assured that the "voices of Iraq" are honest and factual, correct? That is, they are neither inventing stories nor passing along hearsay.


What was discussed? Where were the meetings? How frequent is frequent? What does "high level" mean? Finally, what is the evidence available? Can the intelligence be trusted?


The evidence is weak in trying to demonstrate connections between Saddam and 9/11, certainly. Only circumstantial evidence is provided. It makes an entertaining conspiracy theory story but that's all you got...

In 2001 after September 11th the nation learned a new word: harbor. The president said those who harbor terrorist are terrorist. If countries knowingly harbor terrorist and do nothing to punish them, then the US shall seek them out. This has become policy under the Bush Administration. We blamed the Talban for UBL, we blame Saddam for Al Qaeda. Let us put it in everyday terms. If you keep a family member hidden from the police you are viewed as an compliance to the crime. Same here. In turn saying that we are responsible for the actions people within our borders take against others outside of our borders.

The word of the people of Iraq tell their side of the story, both good and bad. They attack both Saddam and the US. I have yet to see evidence that suggest that the Iraqi's in Voices of Iraq were lying and not being fully honest or factual. Is Voices of Iraq a lie or truly the voice of the Iraqi people?

Apparently you missed the first few paragraphs of the original post.



Your right, Yasin just happened to fly to the US from Iraq, bomb the WTC, then fly back to Iraq with troops subsequently finding documents that Saddam housed and payed him was just to "annoy" the Americans. Bombings do tend to annoy us.



They were not under oath. They were stating their accounts, many of which were anti-american and some that supported the coalition. It was a documentary of the peoples lives nothing more.



Again, read the original post.



Read the original post a few times, and re-read the post that you responded to. None of the information I gave pointed to any involvment of Saddam and 9/11. There was another WTC bombing, notice I said the first bombing.

I am glad this thread is finally getting some attention.



I was wondering what yehoshua meant by that myself.

In the wake of post-invasion Iraq, we also learned a new term: fabricated intelligence. Circumstantial evidence may make for a good conspiracy theory and for selling newspapers, but it is insufficient. "Harboring" is an ambiguous term as so many countries "harbor" terrorists (including the US). The definition of "doing nothing to punish" is also a politically motivated term. If you're on the political in-list, then efforts to curb undesirables will be viewed favorably.

Clear, direct evidence is what is required. Clear, direct evidence is what was not provided.


"We blame Saddam for Al Qaeda"? Apart from some circumstantial evidence suggesting meetings in Iraq, there is nothing direct and substantiated that Saddam was responsible for or beholden to Al Qaeda. Where's my tinfoil hat when I need it?


Neither. The voices of Iraq show an anecdotal perspective of particular people in Iraq. They have biases and incomplete information just like everyone else. You can neither derive "truth" from their stories nor ascertain whether or not they are lying.

Has the evidence I provided not "clear and direct" evidence involving Al-Qaida and Saddam?

Since you seem to hold the evidence that I need to provide (I have more but the current evidence presented is overwhelming despite the "very weak" claims in which you nor anyone has been able to rebut) to such a high standard that is publicy available to me then let me request some of my own.

Can you provide "clear and direct" evidence -- prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, that it was in fact UBL that was directly responsible for perpetrating the attacks on 9/11/01?

Perhaps some sort of picture with UBL looking at plans to attack the towers? Or maybe some sort of blueprint's to the plan with UBL's signature and fingerprints on it? Any "clear and direct" evidence at all? Some picture's would help, and also were they came from and who provided them. Ohh and anything coming from the Administration is not reliable.

Using public information available prior to the invasion of Afghanistan convince me that it was UBL who perpetrated 9/11.

There appears to be reports of interactions with Al Qaeda in Iraq. What does this mean in terms of "involvement"? Certainly, Al Qaeda was (and likely is) operating in the US. Does this mean that the US has "involvement" with Al Qaeda? In some sense, yes, it does, but the word is too ambiguous to give any real meaning. In fact, the word itself is laden with implicit meaning which can be [mis]used in any number of contexts. As you've noted in another thread, Vampiel, ambiguous words, statements and associations are the hallmark of deceptive rhetoric.


Let's go through your "overwhelming" evidence then.

1. It is possible that there were connections made to VX nerve gas development between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The evidence here is rather unclear; certainly, the 9/11 report doesn't give it too much credence. But, maybe, it's all a political game, that the "real" evidence is being suppressed because of politics. Maybe... I would like something more tangible than an interview transcript. Of course, I wouldn't be surprised that this occurred. Nor would I be surprised if we find other nations "cooperating" with Al Qaeda -- nations like Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. And keep in mind that a Japanese cult deployed Sarin nerve gas in subways during commuter hours. It doesn't take a government entity to create, transport and deploy such things.

2. I'm not sure how suicide squads have anything to do with Al Qaeda. In so far, that there were suicide pilots for the 9/11 attacks I see a common tactic. Suicide bombings are a pretty old and well-used tactic. Perhaps, you could enlighten me as to what your intended argument is on this point.

3. "Terrorist training camp" is another term laden with meaning. Yes, there was likely some sort of military training camp designed to teach urban warfare and insurgency techniques. Going from training camp to "terrorist training camp" is pure sensationalistic journalism.

4. Abdul Rahman Yasin was "harbored" in Iraq. Similarly, Pinochet was "harbored" in the UK. Does this mean the UK is "involved" with Pinochet's crimes? What is this point trying to prove?

5. Saddam's payment of money to families of suicide bombers has been oft-cited. And, yes, it is quite terrible. Nevertheless, the suicide bombers were not part of Al Qaeda, they were part of the Arab Liberation Front who have been patronized by Iraqi Ba'athists for years.


To answer this would be to go way off topic, perhaps another thread...

Your comparison is completely off base. The meeting between high ranking Iraqi officials and UBL himself is quite a different circumstance. Comparing it to some cells wandering around the US is ridiculous. The Iraqi government payed and housed a known Al-Qaida operative. This operative flew from Iraq, bombed the WTC, then flew back to Iraq. Yes it is circumstantial evidence that they just happened to be paying and harboring an Al-Qaida operative who happened to be a known Al-Qaida member that bombed the WTC.



The 9/11 report outlines the evidence.

The Clinton Administration's national security advisors and the state department concluded that Bin Laden had gotten Saddam to cooperate by producing VX gas.

The evidence against this is a single person that states "it's rather uncertian".

Now, after these decisions were made the VX gas production was confirmed.



The point was not necessarily about the suicide squads alone.



Notice the date. This take's place during the process in which the US was going to the UN. While the US is going through the UN process Iraq essentially declares war on the US. Let's put this into conext. Say the China issue's a simular statement in the government run press toward Taiwan tommorow.



Not quite, if you would notice at the end of the statement "the Marines said Wednesday".



Another ridiculous comparison as I allready explained above.



What a terrible occurrence. Saddam funding terrorists.



No it's not off-topic. It's to make a point.

Apart from the ad hominem attack, do you have a counter-argument here?


You mean should there have been some sort of extradition? Of course, there should have been. Or are you suggesting that Iraq was behind the 1993 WTC bombing? What are you getting at?


Where is it confirmed? And if so what is the degree of cooperation? Is there any differentiation between an Iraqi citizen or corporation and the Iraqi government?


The US was talking about invading Iraq. The US had no fly zones and zones of control. So, your point is that Saddam was responding to the escalating tensions. I'm still not sure how this relates to the debate topic.


How do they know it was a "terrorist training camp"? Apart from just designating it that way, there appears to be no direct evidence and no reference which can be used to differentiate it from a non-terrorist training camp. But, let's assume that it was a terrorist training camp: how does that relate to Al Qaeda?


Apart from the ad hominem attack, what precisely is the counter-claim?


Exactly. In so far that Iraq had a "pet" terrorist group doing suicide bombings in Israel, I won't argue that Iraq had links to terrorists. But, you appear to be drawing a larger conclusion from this. As for what this conclusion is, I await your hypothesis.

Vampiel

And tests done at that site immediately after the strike found no evidence of any illegal or dangerous chemical compounds.

Now, years later we're told that a substance called EMPTA was discovered at the site and that this substance is only used in non commercial products such as VX gas.

...If this is true, then why wasn't it discovered at the time? Surely if the Clinton administration and the US state dept had evidence that chemical weapons such as VX were being manufactured at the site in question, then they would have known at the time to test for this highly individual substance?

To now state, years later that EMPTA was discovered at the site, seems very dubious to me, and frankly I don't believe it until I've seen a report independent of the US government.

Also, the reason you challenged me to come to this thread was due to the claim I made in another thread that Saddam Hussein had no connection to the attacks on 11 Sept 2001 and I see nothing here that even challenges that claim. In fact, your own linked article makes the very same point only a few paragraphs prior to the passage you selected to quote!

...it seems to me that you have chosen to believe the US governments perception of the relationship between al qaeda and the Iraqi regime without question. It seems that you've decided that the findings of the 9-11 commission only suit your particular perception, and yet, the commission report clearly indicates that there was no connection found.

Now, it may very well be that the Iraqi regime had connections to al qaeda, but what of it? Are you going to tell me that Iraq was the only middle eastern nation to have had high level contacts with al qaeda?

Which particular aspect of Iraq do you suppose separates it from Iran? or Egypt? or Saudi Arabia?

In my estimation, the only difference between Iraq and these other nations is that Iraq was a soft and easy target. And just as I said in the Saddam's one year anniversary thread, the war in Iraq was one of convenience, not necessity.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Its not 'solid evidence' unless the man has been tried and found guilty in a court of law. Until then its conjecture.

Also, what court case has made a connection between the first WTC attack and the second? I am not aware of any such connection having been made. Again, it is conjecture.

Lastly. How hard do you think it would be for the CIA to plant 'evidence' for the US Marines to discover? Perhaps you harbour a trust towards your government and its agencies, despite the many instances of CIA and US governmental dirty tricks. For my part however, without a legal trial or independent report to back up the US posistion, the I'm sorry, but 'papers discovered by the Marines' proves nothing.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I can't comment since I've never heard of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The 9-11 commission report also says:





So, yes. The evidence is very weak.

A more accurate comparison is Donald Rumsfeld (top Iraqi agents) metting with Saddam (UBL) to fight a common enemy.



US troops uncovered documents that gave evidence in which the Iraqi government housed and payed a monthly salary to a fugitive on the FBI's top 10 wanted list who was an accomplice in the WTC bombing. Seeing as to how Saddam was strictly in control of his intelligence and government agencies it would be highly unlikely that Saddam did not authorize the payments and harboring of a man on the FBI's 10 most wanted list.

There is alot of evidence that Iraq played a substantially active role in the bombing.

http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm

One of the interesting parts of the article is titled "Of Passports and Fingerprints"



The VX gas production was confirmed in a search of the area as I explained in the original post. I didn't read the classified memo so I can't give you the information that lead to the State Dept. and the Clinton Administration concluding that the Iraqi government and UBL had ties to the company.



The point being is that Iraq declared war on the US with suicide bombers while the US was attempting to broker a peaceful solution to the crisis.



The Marines are more than capable of determining if it was a standard military base opposed to a terrorist training camp. It may or may not relate to Al-Qaida. It's the fact that it was a terrorist training camp near Bagdad.



I take it you cannot produce any "clear and direct" evidence that was available prior to the war in Afghanistan that UBL was behind 9/11?



The original testing may not have included advanced instruments to detect chemical traces but simple a search. The site didn't actually have any VX gas on the premise. However the traces of EMPTA that came from Iraq is conclusive evidence that the site was in the process of producing VX gas. Remember this site was hit by a tomahawk missile. EMPTA does not have any other use except for producing VX gas. It's the primary ingredient.



No that is not what you stated. You said "Saddam Hussein was not involved in the international terrorists who's actions started the 'War' on terror" -- aka Al-Qaida.



I do not allow a few polititians during election year decide what conclusion I come to. The conclusion is partisan and was given before the documents were discovered by the Marines. Even if they had concluded that they did have an operational relationship I would have looked at the evidence and made the determination for myself, especially seeing as to how this was brought foward a few months before everyone went to the polls. The "conclusion" was destined to be a partisan issue.

For example :

QUOTE
The Clinton Administration's national security advisors and the state department concluded that Bin Laden had gotten Saddam to cooperate by producing VX gas.

The evidence against this is a single person that states "it's rather uncertian".

Now, after these decisions were made the VX gas production was confirmed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bolded part of the report is obviously the one that was singled out in their "conclusion".

Iraq was chosen over the other countries for many reasons. One being Iraq's WMD program, Iraq's cooperation with terrorists, another is that Iraq is a strategically important area in the middle east. Do you believe we had a better case to invade Iran? Syria?



If you believe the government is going to plant something dont you think it would be WMDs?

The connection between the first attack and the second is that they were both carried out by Al-Qaida. Or where they? UBL hasn't been "tried and found guilty in a court of law".

QUOTE
"P61 of the 9-11 commision report"
Bin Laden would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Laden apparently honoured this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990's, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladens help they formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam against a common Kurdish enemy. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated, and may even have helped Ansar al-Islam, against the common Kurdish enemy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The camp was approx. 15 miles away from what was considered under "Baghdads" control. It must be nice to be able to help someone in your country without them actually being in your country. It allows you to operate without governments accusing you of operating a terrorist camp from your country. I noticed you cut off the part in bold.

QUOTE
"US indictment against Bin Laden."(source)
Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollahfor the purpose of working together against the perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE
"pg. 158 of The Connection : How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America" (source)
According to detainees from both Iraqi intelligence and Ansar al-Islam, [Saddam did help Ansar al-Islam.] The support came in the form of financial payments and arms. And the third-ranking official in Ansar al-Islam was an Iraqi intelligence agent who reported to top Mukhabarat officials and, according to one detainee, met personally with Saddam Hussein four or five times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE
Saturday, Dec. 4, 2004 (source)
In what may be the most shocking news to emerge from the already stunning Oil for Food scandal, investigators say that Saddam Hussein bankrolled key al Qaida players in the late 1990s - a period of time when the terror group was planning the 9/11 attacks and the Iraqi dictator was ripping off billions from the U.N. program.

"Saddam had given $300,000 in cash to Ayman Al Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's number two man, in the spring of 1998," the Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley. <------ This is the same year as the US indictment above states Iraq agreed to cooperate in weapons development as well as the same year the Clinton Administration fired the tomahawk missile at the pharmaceutical plant
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE
(source)
According to a May 2003 debriefing of a senior Iraqi intelligence officer, Iraqi intelligence established a highly secretive relationship with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, and later with al Qaeda. The first meeting in 1992 between the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) and al Qaeda was brokered by al-Turabi. Former IIS deputy director Faruq Hijazi and senior al Qaeda leader [Ayman al] Zawahiri were at the meeting--the first of several between 1992 and 1995 in Sudan. Additional meetings between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda were held in Pakistan. Members of al Qaeda would sometimes visit Baghdad where they would meet the Iraqi intelligence chief in a safe house. The report claimed that Saddam insisted the relationship with al Qaeda be kept secret. After 9-11, the source said Saddam made a personnel change in the IIS for fear the relationship would come under scrutiny from foreign probes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE
"moif"
So, yes. The evidence is very weak.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I apologize I cannot provide you with a picture. Unfortunately that's not how terrorist's operate.

Okay, so what's the point you're trying to make? I'm confused. Are you saying that because there were some contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq that there must be cooperation? Or are you calling Rummy an evil despot simply because he met with Saddam? Meetings do not necessarily imply cooperation. You will need something more than this to make your case. However, even if cooperation were demonstrated conclusively with no ambiguity, then the problem still remains of linking to 9/11: something which the 9/11 commission has determined not to be the case


This was an interesting essay to read and had some interesting conclusions. It spells out a plausible scenario, but it is not the only plausible scenario. It constructs a case based on inference and circumstance for who was behind the 1993 WTC bombing. Considering this essay was written in 1995/1996, it presents a case coherent with the thinking of the time. Now, subsequent to the Iraq invasion, I assume that more information would have been uncovered either confirming or denying such links. Since I have not run across such information, I will remain skeptical of the conclusion in the essay.


Without such information, I will remain dubious of the conclusions presented by politicians. Moreover, the intelligence community must overcome its major gaff with regard to WMD production in Iraq by going the "extra mile" when presenting evidence.


Neither Iraq nor most of the world believed that the US administration was behaving like an honest broker with regard to a peaceful solution. Is this supposed to a justification for invading Iraq? I'm a confused as to the purpose of this debate.


Well, I don't accept your "fact". I am skeptical of the conclusions these Marines made. Without context, a single quote from a Fox News article is insufficient for me to accept the claims. Now, if there were more information available, then perhaps I will change my position...


If you want to debate this, then please start a new topic. It could even be a comparative debate, such as "Differences in justifications in invading Afghanistan vs. Iraq".

Vampiel

I doubt you would need advanced instruments to pick up traces of EMPTA.

Your telling me that EMPTA was discovered at this site, and yet it was not done so when the site was first examined, despite the fact that this EMPTA substance would have proved the Clinton administrations claims of VX manufacture.
By itself this means nothing, except your offering this EMPTA as proof, when in fact it doesn't prove anything. The EMPTA at the sight may have been kept in storage. It may have have been planted by the CIA (hence not been discovered in the first tests) or it may have been a part of a VX manufacturing process... who knows? You don't. You only choose to believe the US governments side of the story because it fits your argument. As far as I'm concerned the US government in this regard is suspect. Its stands to gain everything from the war in Iraq and the USA has a history of bending facts and falsifying events to justify its actions.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


or

Yeah... BIG difference.

Again, I'm sorry Vampiel, but simply talking to some one does mean your 'involved' with them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


VX gas production was not confirmed Vampiel. Traces of EMPTA were discovered, that is all.

You need more than just a pot of EMPTA to make VX gas you know. You need quite a lot of specialised hardware and not even a Tomahawk strike would remove every single physical trace of such a manufacturing process. What seems to be happening here is you are jumping to a conclusion of manufacture based on the alleged presence of a single chemical compound in a bombed out chemical factory.

As for the 9-11 commision report being wrong, or politically biased... well what can I say? I'm supposed to believe you over them?

Sorry, but that just isn't going to happen. I'm well aware that if the 9-11 commission report had validated GW Bush you'd be all over it like a dog with a bone, and every single conservative on this site would quote it ad naeseum

I don't accept that it was partisan, and nor do I accept that it was wrong. The commission examined all the evidence it was given and made an impartial conclusion.

IF the evidence these marines have unearthed, proves that Saddam Hussein was involved, then I am sure the 9-11 commission report would either be re written or a new report would come to light. As it is I am not aware any such report, and so I have no intention of challenging the findings of the 9-11 commission report, I wonder at your audacity in claiming to have a better understanding of the facts that the commission.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


What WMD programme?

What co-operation with terrorists?


Syria? No.

Iran? almost certainly! Iran is, and has been for the last many decades the hub of Islamic extremism. It is on the verge of making nuclear weapons and already has an extensive chemical and biological weapons programmes.

Iran is also actively engaged in a clandestine war against the USA and has more or less tricked the USA (by means of Achmed Chalabi's influence on the neo-cons) into invading Iraq where, by virtue of US sponsored elections, Iranian backed shia muslims stand to win the elections by means of a majority share in the population. In other words the USA just fought a war to remove Saddam Hussein so that the Iranians could exert the influence upon Iraq that they have long sought after.

And I'm curious. A lot of those who support the war refer to Iraq as being 'strategically important'. Why? What makes Iraq so strategically important? What influence does Iraq exert on Syria? or Saudi Arabia? Or Iran?
Is it not really the case that Iraq's 'strategic importance' in actuality refers to its having the second largest oil deposists in the world?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


No.

Planting WMD's would be impossible to conceal. They would have to be authentic, real and able to withstand intense scrutiny as to where they came from.

It is far, far easier and much safer to plant some ambiguous, falsified papers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Exactly. And who is Usama Bin Laden? Who does he work for? Iran? Allah? the CIA? The reason why we have court cases is to determine the truth as best as possible in order to be able to allocate guilt and responsibility.

Some face on a video saying, 'Yeah I did it', means nothing, proves nothing, and could easily be deliberate misdirection. Perhaps you don't believe this is so? Well frankly neither do I, but the difference is, I'm not justifying a hundred thousand deaths with my ignorance.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


I don't know how to select and copy from a PDF. My quote's from the 9-11 commission report was therefore copied out word by word. I didn't include the rest of the passage because I don't have the time to pour over many pages of text and then copy them out just because you require it.

15 miles is a long way when your considering a frontier in a time of war.

Also, it appears to have escaped your attention that Ansar al Islam was ANTI Saddam Hussein, and for the most part opposed his authority. THAT is why there camp was outside of his control.

Where is the evidence? This is just an indictment. It proves nothing except what the US government believed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


As written by Stephen F Hayes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Stephen F Hayes again eh... ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~




Well whaddya know!? Stephen F Hayes again!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As convincing as Stephen F Hayes may be, I'm afraid in my mind, no matter how eloquently he phrases his opinion, it does not carry more weight (for me) than the 9-11 commission report.

As I said before. The evidence is very weak.


(I don't need a picture. I can see quite clearly whats going here)

Sorry about the length

editted for spelling

I never presented any evidence to link Saddam to 9/11 though evidence does exist. And what would the purpose of these secret meetings be? You make it seem like they went to the meeting stared at each other for a while then left. They had to discuss something and im sure it wasn't about importing fine Iraqi textile's and carpets. Meetings alone do not prove cooperation, but they do prove acceptance of the other party as a viable parter to cooperate with.



It seems that you missed the crucial peice of evidence that I presented that cooberates the article -- the new documents discovered by US troops in Iraq.



Even without looking at the classified document's the circumstantial evidence is compelling. The administration launched a tomahawk missile at a pharmaceutical company on the premise that they were developing VX nerve gas in cooperation with UBL and Saddam. Since then they found traces of EMPTA that came from Iraq at the site. Since they were right about the target and the fact that the EMPTA came from Iraq, that would suggest that the intelligence was accurate.



It was in the hands of the UN for over 11 years and we simply jump started the process of inspections again. This was over six months before the invasion and three months before inspectors were allowed back into the country, no one had any idea if the US would invade Iraq at that point in time. The point is that Iraq was the aggressor. Iraq attacked Kuwait, they were driven out by the UN and surrendered, they failed to fulfill the terms of surrender while continually shooting at warplanes, then declared war on the US. But no one really noticed they declared war before the inspectors were let back in. It was just a different kind of war -- a terrorist war.



Here is a report of the incident.



Subscription only :







I don't know if it was discovered from the "first" search or not, I was only going by your account. Could you show me this "first" search? What type of equipment did they use?

Moif it's pointless to continue this discource with you because you simply throw all the evidence in the garbage.



Agreed.

Vampiel



What your offering, isn't evidence. Its conjecture.

I tell you this. If what you believed were true, then it would be common knowledge by now and we wouldn't need this discussion.

Then, you should communicate your findings to the 9/11 commission. If something were missed, I'm sure they'd like to know about it.


The point is that I don't know what the "secret messages" might be nor do you for that matter. We can conjecture; we can infer, but that's it. Next, you'll be claiming that the meetings between Saddam and Rummy must have been about the gassing of Iranians and Kurds.


You mean the documents showing that he was "paid and housed"? Apart from this, what other documents are you referring to?


Let's assume I don't hold these EMPTA findings in doubt. Don't you think it is possible that precurser agents could be produced privately? Do you think that the Japanese government (or some other government) must have been involved with the production of Sarin gas by the Aum Shakur cult?


That's a level of credulity I do not share with you.


Hmmm...I disagree. I was pretty sure that the US was going to invade Iraq. And if you're going to respin Iraq's aggressor status to fit your bias, you are welcome to do so. I don't share your form of revisionist history. Nevertheless, I still don't see how this point is salient to the topics for debate.


Training foreign fighters in tactics which could be employed by terrorists does not mean it was a terrorist training camp. Guerilla tactics are an important battlefield techniques employed by armies all over the world (including the US). The US, it has been argued, had its own "terrorist training camps" right here like the "School of the Americas".

NY Sun Article quoted by Vampiel: (source)

Yes, I recall this now. Apparently, Iraq was training foreigners in guerilla, espionage and sabotage techniques. I also like how the article describes anyone who disagrees with the conclusions as "Saddam apologists". Great way to have reasoned dialog and get at what really occurred there. Here's what Seymour Hersh had to say:


CNSNews article: (source)

Well, I read through the article link thinking it was "CBS News" but no it was CNS News who is owned by Media Research Center. Forgive me if I view the "evidence" presented with a high degree of skepticism. If and when a more reputable media source picks this up and vetts it, then I'll debate it with you.

No but Rumsfeld did provide assistance.



He was given a monthly salary and housed by the Iraqi government. Flew to the US from Iraq with a passport that altered his real identity, bombed the WTC and flew back to Iraq and was put on the FBI's top ten wanted list while he was on Iraq's payroll. Yet the Iraqi government had nothing to do with him?



High level meetings between Al-Qaida and Iraqi agents occured in 1998. The state dept. and Clinton admin. concluded that Al-Qaida was producing VX gas with the help of Saddam at a perticular company out of billions on the planet in 1998. They just happen to be right about the VX gas and it's location. One would tend to conclude the evidence provided was accurate. I guess it must be "my bias" to assume such a ludicrous idea.



Explain how my "history" was revisionist. Stating I disagree does not make a very compelling case.



I noticed you conviently ignored the rest of the evidence.



You provide a link to an article written by Seymour Hersh then critize my source? The source from the NY Sun outlined the same documents in the CSN News report.



Iraq trained Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, Egyptians, Moroccans, Tunisians, Sudanese, and Eritreans and formed suicide squads along with a plane in what the Marines described as a terrorist training camp. He also openly threatened to attack the US with suicide bombers, and you really beleive the plane was for "counter-terrorism" exercises because a basement will suit just as well? Why would they need the plane for the counter-terrorist exercises, after all they could just use Saddam's basment, im sure he had plenty of large basements they could use. Set up some cardboard seats and color some windows on the wall with crayons. Set a big fan to just in case one of them breaches the hull with a weapon. Then they can climb up a ladder and jump down with a parachute onto some big pillows.

Okay, so what are you trying to argue here again?


This 60 Minutes interview by Leslie Stahl with Yasin and Aziz is interesting. If you are to believe Aziz, Iraq tried handing over Yasin to the US twice (1994 and 2001). If you are to believe Yasin (a US citizen), it was Ramzi Yousef who convinced Yasin to become a terrorist. Anyway, the inference you're trying to make is just that: an inference. There appears to be no evidence demonstrating the Iraqi government was behind Yasin's terrorism.