It just keeps getting better and better...
Monday, December 15th, 2003 - 7:34pm
Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam
Free registration required, so here's the whole text:
Quote:
Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.
In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".
The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.
Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Dr Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq's ruling seven-man Presidential Committee, said the document was genuine.
"We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam's involvement with al-Qaeda," he said. "But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with al-Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks."
Although Atta is believed to have been resident in Florida in the summer of 2001, he is known to have used more than a dozen aliases, and intelligence experts believe he could easily have slipped out of the US to visit Iraq.
Abu Nidal, who was responsible for the failed assassination of the Israeli ambassador to London in 1982, was based in Baghdad for more than two decades.
It...just...feels...so...gooood...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Huh. Funny how that works out. So, how long before a US news outlet picks this up?
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
I wouldn''t put it into the State of the Union speech yet.
What do you mean Dirt? Are you implying that the London Telegraph is making things up?
"It's so much easier to suggest solutions when you don't know too much about the problem." - Malcolm Forbes
My bet is that is one of the stories that appears all of a sudden and will be forgotten again a week later or/and turn out to be nothing but speculation. Afterall, Atta was also ""believed"" to have met Iraqi officials some time earlier and that turned out to be widely misinterpreted data.
I''m saying that the memos haven''t been authenticated.
Atta''s meetings with Iraqis from Saddam''s government are uncorroborated, not discredited. There is a difference...
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
And isn''t it funny how Abu Nidal turned up dead in Baghdad last year?
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
And his death means there''s an alliance?
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
I''m disappointed in you people. I would have expected a series of diatribes about how this information must be faked, and how meaningless it is even if real. Surely the crowd who has given Saddam the benefit of the doubt on every issue from WMDs to terrorist links to human rights violations to his involvement in the insurgency can find a way to ""logic"" this away...
Come on naysayers, say nay!
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Because, quite frankly, you often seem to care only about being right than what is the truth. So, there''s really no point in engaging in discussions with you.
But that''s just my opinion.
Edit: Qualification.
Dirt, in your search for the truth, I think it is important that you realize that when you disagree with me, it is simply because you are wrong in your opinions.
If you find the above statement incredibly arrogant or just plain wrong, try to keep in mind that it is exactly what you just told me.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Here in the US our whole legal system is based on the premise ""innocent before proven guilty"". Shouldn''t we hold the same ideal when deciding to invade a country? Show me PROOF and I''m right there with you buddy! Some things we have gotten that proof for, after the fact - like the human rights, mass executions, etc... still no proof of the much touted WMDs though.
Well, if you can''t look at this with the same critical eye you seem to use with anything we post, why should we bother?
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
Actually the standard for criminal cases is ""beyond a reasonable doubt"" or ""by a preponderance of the evidence""- because cases aren''t built on ""PROOF"", they are built on evidence. We have lots of evidence that Saddam was engaging in forbidden WMD activities.
Before the war there was eye-witness testimony (which is more than enough to convict in a criminal case), and surveillance. Since the invasion, we have found physical evidence as well - ranging from hidden components of his nuclear program to biological weapons strains and research - also, plenty to convict.
So what are you really looking for?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Rat, are you suggesting that a critical eye not be used in responding to posts - actually, given some of your posts lately, I can see why you are asking for this...
Zing!
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Hey, if you can''t even live to your own standards that you hold others to, why should I bother with you anymore?
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
Huh? I''d zing you again, but I can''t make out the garbled sentence above.
Edit- well, at least it makes more sense now. Though my question stands:
What are you talking about?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
*looks around*
Oh, sorry. I thought you were responding to my post. You know, the one that just says ""isn''t it funny...""?
I started my own blog so when I feel the need to make an ass out of myself, I won't have as far to go.
The truth about the document:
http://msnbc.msn.com/Default.aspx?id=3741646&p1=0
Ironic, since MSNBC had the Brit pimping that memo on earlier today. It just keeps getting phonier and phonier...
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
Don''t worry Ral, if the Iraq document doesn''t pan out I''m sure we''ll figure out some reason we went to war. There''s gotta be something....A-HA! Here''s one! Saddam defaulted on payments for all the biological weapons we sold him!!.
Funny thing, throughout all Bush''s talk of indisputable evidence of WMD in Iraq, and all the questions about the nature of the evidence, he never just stated the obvious: ""We know he has them because we gave them to him""
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
Got it. So US companies selling livestock vaccine strains and pesticides is now considered ""giving Saddam weapons of mass destruction"". Of course by these standards, every farmer in the world has WMDs. When those farmers start gassing their neighbors, it will assuredly be the US''s fault. Somehow.
I assume your point is to convince me that the United States is responsible for Saddam''s murders. Well, you''ve done it. Death to America! Death to America!
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Hey man, how were we supposed to know he was going to use all that stuff we gave his government! I mean, all we did was tell him to go kill Iranians, we didn''t know he''d actually do it! We thought we could trust a Stalinist!
Edit: I mean, for crying out loud, how the heck were we supposed to know that he''d use the Bacillus Anthracis, Clostridium Botulinum, Histoplasma Capsulatam, Brucella Melitensis, Clostridium Perfringens, and Clostridium tetani that we gave his health ministry to manufacture bioweapons? It''s not like he ever used dual-use items as weapons before, man! /sarcasm
"Men like sex, thus boobies! Oogaba!" - dejanzie
"If ads put your sanity to the test
come on down to Rat Boy's nest!
light up a stogie, and soon you'll see
how rock can be commercial-free!
'I'd hit it!'" - HP Lovesauce
Gave him all what stuff? Exactly what materials provided by the US were used, and on whom?
Edit - And again, you guys are trying to make the US complicit. When did Saddam use materials provided by the US, and on whom?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Not at all, just to point out that Bush''s moral righteousness is baseless and completely devoid of the responsibility that we should take for our past policies. If we''re really committed to stopping dictators from committing atrocities, we might want to start by not selling weapons to them.
Pleased to meetcha, Mr. Hussein. Call me Don.
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
He used anthrax provided by the U.S. on Abdul Achmali on July 14th, 1992 at 14:02:21 in the back alley behind Bob''s Sport''s Bar in Mosul. Said he was hustling him at pool.
Ask a meaningless question...
Xbox Live: hubbinsd
Right. So guy gets permit from state and buys gun. Guy uses gun on family and neighbors. Guy becomes felon, and we say, ""No more guns"". We ask guy where the guns are that he bought, and he refuses to tell us.
So who doyoublame in the above scenario? The cops trying to make sure the felonious murderer doesn''t have any more guns.
Makes sense to me.
How is Bush responsible for the actions of a different administration 20 years ago? How would (supposed) moral transgressions in the pastby other peoplemake ""Bush''s moral righteousness baseless""?
What you are really telling me is that your point in saying that the US supplied Saddam is empty of any meaning except an attempt to make a dig at an administration that hasn''t done what you are condemning. This is intellectually equivalent to racism, or any other mindless prejudice.
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
The only problem with this little analogy is that the US, along with many others, merrily overlooked Saddam''s gassing of the kurds, and even made sure there would be no repercussions, because he was at war with Khomeini''s Iran at the time.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all."
And again, so what? Let''s pretend that our support for Saddam, while he was warring with the earliest forces of Islamic fundamentalism, was absolutely evil. It wasn''t, but let''s pretend that it was. How does that in any way make what the current administration has done wrong?
Reagan understood that the key to peace was never arms control. Security had nothing to do with the number of weapons, it had everything to do with the intention and power of those who possessed them. - Charles Krauthammer
Like getting rid of a dictator we helped put in power? This argument makes no sense. The US helped put a dictator in power, but don''t dare suggest getting rid of him becuase that would somehow be inconsistent. I don''t call it inconsistent. I call it correcting a mistake.